one year on - is life any sweeter? sweet 16 one year on.pdf · one year on - is life any sweeter?...

One Year On - Is Life Any Sweeter? 1

AcknowledgementsI should like to thank all who providedinformation to inform this anniversary reportand those who commented on it. I am awareof the many demands on the time of localauthority staff. We share a desire to make lifebetter for young people leaving care and I hopethis report will help keep that commitment highon the agenda.

(CCYP/2009/1) Laid before the ScottishParliament by the Commissioner for Children andYoung People in Scotland in pursuance of section12 of the Commissioner for Children and YoungPeople (Scotland) Act 2003 on 25/03/09.

2 One Year On - Is Life Any Sweeter?

CONTENTS

1. What this is about 3

2. Sweet 16? recommendations and the Scottish Government response 4

3. Local authority survey 5

4. Promoting corporate parenting 6

5. Engagement with housing services 6

6. Residential school placements 7

7. Promoting 18 rather than 16 as the age for leaving care 8

8. Appropriate accommodation 9

9. Being made “homeless” 9

10. Coming back into care for short periods of support 10

11. Bed & Breakfast 10

12. Hostels for the homeless 12

13. Care Commission Bulletin 14

14. Conclusions 14

APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY OF SWEET 16? REPORT 15

APPENDIX 2: RECOMMENDATIONS OF SWEET 16? REPORT 18


1.WHAT THIS ISABOUTOn 25 March 2008, I laid before the ScottishParliament a report called Sweet 16? The Ageof Leaving Care in Scotland. It was debated on25 June 2008. MSPs from all parties spoke infavour of the report; it was an encouraging signof genuine interest and concern. The ScottishGovernment has responded positively to mostof the report’s recommendations, which areattached as an appendix to this paper, togetherwith a short summary of the full report.

Agencies too have welcomed the report and Ihave heard how it has been used: to changelocal policies; to train workers, using the casestudies in the report; to challenge funding cuts;and to advocate for individual young people.However, I wanted to get a clearer picture ofwhether things had changed. In our busyworld, when there are so many pressing issues,compassion and concern do not alwaystranslate into effective action. That is why I ampublishing this follow-up report one year on,informed by a survey of local authorities.1

This report concludes that there has beensome progress in addressing therecommendations of Sweet 16?, but there isstill much to be done. Almost half of the localauthorities say there is no expectation thatyoung people should leave care at 16, andothers report initiatives to change the culture.Nevertheless, Who Cares? Scotland have toldme that, of 18 workers from different localauthority areas, 11 said they had noticed nochange in practice. Their discussions withsocial workers showed that they were aware ofthe Sweet 16? report but lack of resources wasa barrier to implementing its recommendations.

This is worrying because there are new threatsarising out of the economic downturn thatmight stifle initiatives and even make thingsworse. We cannot allow that to happen.

The concerns identified by Sweet 16? are aboutthe basic human rights of young care leavers tosurvival and development, poignantlyevidenced by the many case studies in thatreport that portray the neglect andabandonment many young people suffer at thehands of their corporate parents. There are, ofcourse, examples of good practice too and thereport presents them as an inspiration forothers to follow.

The fact that we are talking about the basichuman rights of young people means wecannot choose not to address them. That iswhy I describe this anniversary report as a Callto Action.

In 1924, the League of Nations passedthe first Declaration of the Rights of the Child,the ancestor of the UN Convention on theRights of the Child that is a central focus of theCommissioner’s role. The short preamble to theDeclaration recognised, first and foremost that:

“Mankind owes to the child the best ithas to give.”

The third of its five short articles proclaims:

“The child must be the first to receiverelief in times of distress.”

In this time of financial distress, we need tomake sure that children and young people arethe first to receive relief, and that we are trulygiving them the best we have to give. I call onlocal authorities to take these principles as theirstarting point. I call on the Scottish Governmentto continue to monitor the situation and provideappropriate challenge. I call on the ScottishParliament to continue to debate this subjectand keep it high on the public agenda, topromote and safeguard the rights of youngpeople in and leaving care.

1 The results of the surveyare available atwww.sccyp.org.uk


Sweet 16? highlighted a strong culture thatidentified 16 as the age of leaving care, despitelaw and policy saying young people should beable to stay until 18 if that is in their bestinterests. The wide distribution and coverage ofthe report will hopefully have helped to changethat culture. But its recommendations alsoincluded practical suggestions.

The table below sets out a brief description ofthe recommendations and the ScottishGovernment’s response.

2. SWEET 16? RECOMMENDATIONSAND THESCOTTISH GOVERNMENTRESPONSE

REC. SUBJECT GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

1 Statistics Work underway to fully address

2 Information on out of area placements Work underway to partially address

3 Culture change Work underway to further reinforce

4 Information about rights Work underway

5 Professional language and practice Work underway to further reinforce

6 Consulting young people on rules Work underway to further reinforce

7 Semi-independent living units Initial work undertaken into research

8 Responding to challenging behaviour Work underway to further reinforce

9 Foster care after 18 Work underway

10 Residential schools Work underway

11 Housing – duty to co-operate Will take action

12 Training for housing officers Work underway

13 Being made homeless Work underway

14 Use of B&Bs Action is underway

15 Use of homeless hostels No plans to take action

16 Coming back for short periods Will take action

17 Child protection barriers to coming back Will take action

18 Threshold for aftercare No plans to take action on first point.+ panel member training Will take action on second issue.

19 Data collection on Pathways Work underway

20-23 CnES (Western Isles): examine numbers Will take action through discussion with theleaving before 16; monitor B&B etc; Council. [The Scottish Government reportcheck written policies; finalise service that they have offered support to thelevel agreement Council.]


2 A response from Fife wasnot received in time forpublication of this report.

The Scottish Government has since indicatedthat it will, in the coming year, review TheSupport and Assistance of Young PeopleLeaving Care (Scotland) Regulations 2003, inlight of the practice reported in Sweet 16?.

In relation to Recommendation 16, I suggestedin later correspondence with the ScottishGovernment that guidance should promote theuse of section 25 of the Children (Scotland) Act1995 as a route for return to care where thatwas appropriate. Section 25 imposes a duty onlocal authorities to accommodate young peopleup to age 18 in certain circumstances. It alsoallows them to accommodate young people upto age 21 if that would safeguard or promotetheir welfare. The Minister for Children andEarly Years has indicated his intention to raisethis matter with local authorities. I have alsopromoted this use of the legislation in anUpdate on Sweet 16? circulated to stakeholdersin January this year.

3. LOCALAUTHORITYSURVEYIn January this year, I circulated a feedbacksurvey to local authorities to help identifyprogress on the issues raised in Sweet 16? andalso what more needed to be done. Responseswere received from 31 of the 32 localauthorities.2 They had been asked about:

• Action to promote the corporateresponsibility of elected members andhousing services;

• Social work and education collaborationon the funding of residential schoolplacements;

• Steps taken with staff to promote 18instead of 16 as the age for leaving care;

• Action to provide better/more appropriateaccommodation for care leavers;

• Action to stop care leavers having to bedeclared “homeless” to get priorityhousing allocation;

• Action to help young people come backinto care for short periods of support; and

• Information on numbers of care leaversdischarged into B&B and hostels for thehomeless in the current financial year.


4. PROMOTINGCORPORATEPARENTINGCorporate parenting is an importantconcept because care leavers should not beregarded as the sole responsibility of any onedepartment. Their needs – and rights – shouldtranscend the divisions and budget headingswe create to organise the workings of localgovernment. In times of economic downturn,we must be alert to the danger that financially-driven cuts in services will expose young careleavers to levels of deprivation and desperationthat no natural parent would countenance.

There has been a lot of activity aroundcorporate parenting, with references in thesurvey to both Sweet 16? and the ScottishGovernment publication - These AreOur Bairns: A guide for communityplanning partnerships on being a goodcorporate parent.

18 of the local authorities referredspecifically or by strong implication to acorporate parenting policy.

17 referred to corporate parenting events forelected members.

11 had set up groups to take the issueforward in their area.

8 referred to a report to a committee or toelected members.

9 referred to events or groups that involvedchildren and young people.

7 were developing some sort of “Children’sChampion” initiative, with senior officials orelected members being given responsibilityfor tracking the progress of individual lookedafter children.

2 others had more general “Champion”models.

Elected members of CnES had visited theCouncil’s residential unit and the leavingcare project operated by Action for Children.

5. ENGAGEMENTWITHHOUSING SERVICESSweet 16? identified the relationship betweenthroughcare and aftercare workers withhousing services as critical to good outcomes.Dialogue can be difficult where housing officialsare unaware of the local authority’s corporateresponsibility for care leavers. Particulardifficulties can occur where the housing stockhas been transferred to a housing associationas the local authority will not have controlover the means needed to satisfy a careleaver’s accommodation requirements. TheGovernment has undertaken to take forwardRecommendation 11 of Sweet 16?, that itshould consider adding Registered SocialLandlords (RSLs, including housingassociations) to the list of those required toco-operate with local authorities to help themcarry out statutory responsibilities towardschildren and young people. Section 21 of theChildren (Scotland) Act 1995 authorisesScottish Ministers to add to this list.

There has been some progress, but more needsto be done to ensure that local authorities areboth willing and able to fulfil their corporateparent responsibilities in relation to housing.


Responses to the survey question onrelationships with housing services weremixed. There was much reference toprotocols, strategies and meetings. Therewere a few very positive references, manymore neutral ones, and some that indicatedthat there was still some way to go on this.

In relation to stock transfer, Inverclydedescribed the situation as “problematic”.CnES said the situation was “not straightforward”. They reported that HebrideanHousing Partnership (HHP) “does notaltogether accept that its role is that ofa corporate parent as it is obliged tobalance the competing needs of all housingapplicants. HHP does nevertheless acceptthat it is a part of a corporate family for theseyoung people”. Glasgow refers to asuccessful protocol with GHA but also hopesfor “stronger links” with them once theresults of a recent survey are analysed.

6. RESIDENTIALSCHOOL PLACEMENTSYoung people do sometimes need to be placedin residential schools at a distance from theirhome area; usually because of the specialistnature of the provision, and sometimesbecause local authorities’ own resourcesare exhausted and they have to take a bedwherever they can find one. Despite this,for some young people, a placement somedistance from their old home is a place wherethey find stability and a new start. Furthermore,residential and social work staff will alwayspromote home visits, and attempt to work withthe family as a whole. Nevertheless, as we areall aware, some families are very ‘broken’ anda few young people do not wish to return totheir old ‘home’ area. Sometimes these youngpeople are very glad to have found newconnections and opportunities in the localityof their residential school.

While this is not likely to have been the originalplan, its reality must be taken seriously. Theseyoung people have had a lot of disruption intheir lives, so if they have made ties and wantto remain in the community associated with theschool, their view should carry a great deal ofweight. Young people will already have hadseveral moves of placement prior to be beingplaced in a residential school, and they maywell have lost connection to their family andold home area sometime before they settledinto a residential school.

Placements in residential schools are oftenjointly funded by social work and education,but education can be reluctant to continueafter school leaving age if there is no realcommitment to education. Withdrawal ofeducation funding can mean a young personlosing their home and the associatedrelationships and returning to an area that hasbecome unfamiliar to them with few, if any,personal links.

It is important that decisions about ending aplacement at a residential school acknowledgethe fact that it is not just about education butabout where a young person feels they belong.

16 of the local authorities referred to jointdecision-making between social work andeducation and 14 referred to joint fundingof residential school places.

4 of them had integrated their social workand education services into one department.

3 were reviewing their out of areaplacements.

Some indicated a willingness to continueplacements post 16: where that was in theyoung person’s interest (Clackmannanshire;Angus; Dumfries & Galloway; Midlothian;South Ayrshire). The process for jointdecision-making was explained in theresponses from Edinburgh, Inverclyde,North Ayrshire and West Dunbartonshire.


East Dunbartonshire referred to the posts ofPrincipal Teacher (Looked After andAccommodated Children) within Education,and Care Plan Reviewing Officer withinSocial Work as contributions towards goodcommunication between the two services,and reported that their involvement in thereview process ensures that decisions arebased on the young person’s educationaland social needs and not solely on their age.

Stirling said they had funded transitionalsupport from the residential school.

Falkirk reported that a recent review hadnoted the joint responsibilities beyondstatutory school leaving date and that thework was ongoing.

7. PROMOTING 18RATHER THAN 16AS THEAGE FORLEAVING CARESweet 16? grouped the young people’s reasonsfor leaving at 16 into 3 main themes:

• They did not know they could stay or feltpressure to move on;

• The current rules were too restricting; or

• They wanted “out of the system”.

The pressure referred to might be explicit orimplicit, fed by a cultural expectation that 16 isan appropriate age. Professional language andpractice can feed this culture.

The survey asked what steps local authoritieswere taking with social care staff to promote 18rather than 16 as the age for leaving care. Thisshowed that there is a lot of activity, but I urgelocal authorities to continue with steps tochange the culture and to ensure its action isregularly monitored.

15 responses indicated there was noexpectation that young people should leaveat 16, but some (East Dunbartonshire,Falkirk, Highland, Inverclyde and WestDunbartonshire) nevertheless identifiedsteps they were taking throughencouragement, training or procedures tocounter any such expectation.

Renfrewshire and Argyll & Bute said therewas no pressure but they were neverthelessdiscussing the issue within their authority.

7 local authorities said they were tackling theissue through procedures, 6 throughtraining, 6 through encouragement and 6through resources. Five said they were usingguidance to change the culture. Resourcesincluded: more supported accommodationand supported lodgings; intensive socialwork assistance; increasing the CareCommission registration of children’s units to18 (Midlothian) or post 18 (EastDunbartonshire).

Edinburgh claimed significant progressin changing the culture of leaving at 16,largely through development of anAttachment Promoting model withinresidential units where the significanceof relationships between young peopleand residential staff is recognised.


8. APPROPRIATEACCOMMODATIONSweet 16? noted the decline in availabilityof semi-independent living units for careleavers, meaning young people face a starkchoice between group living and anindependence for which they are notemotionally ready and for which have too oftennot been prepared. This is particularly criticalfor care leavers who are parents.

The survey asked about steps to providebetter/more appropriate accommodation forcare leavers. There were some encouragingsigns of activity and I urge local authorities tocontinue to develop these as a priority, even inface of the economic downturn.

11 responses indicated that semi-independent living units were either in place,planned or under consideration. Stirling saidthis kind of accommodation was available foryoung parents and had been successful inpromoting parenting and keeping familiestogether.

10 responses referred to the development ofsupported tenancies; 4 to general provisionof flats; 5 to support for young people livingindependently; 13 to supported lodgings;and 12 to processes designed to ensureaccommodation is appropriate.

North Ayrshire noted that the lack ofadditional funding meant that optionswere limited, meaning that the protocolwith Housing would have to foster creativityand innovation.

CnES reported that the chalets criticised inSweet 16? were no longer used for careleavers, but there were significant difficultiesin obtaining alternative accommodation inStornoway. A youth housing strategy wasbeing developed.

9. BEINGMADEHOMELESSSweet 16? highlighted how care leavers can beencouraged to present as “homeless” in orderto be prioritised for housing allocation. Itrecommended that local authorities should givethem priority merely as an aspect of theircorporate parenting responsibility.

There are some encouraging signs of progress,and I urge local authorities who have not yetaddressed this to take heed of how this hasbeen progressed in other areas.

3 responses indicated that care leaversdo not have to present as homeless toget priority.

3 said procedures had changed so that theyno longer have to present as homeless.

3 said, with changes underway, they willsoon no longer have to present as homeless.

12 said the situation was under review.

3 said it was being raised with housingservices.

1 said this practice was “positivelydiscouraged”.


10. COMING BACK INTOCARE FOR SHORTPERIODS OF SUPPORTOne of the main issues for young peopleleaving care at 16 or 17 is not being ableto return if things do not turn out as theyhad hoped.

Responses to the survey show that this doessometimes happen and that local authoritiesare aware of the issue. However, there aresevere resource constraints as vacated bedsare filled quickly. Some said it had not beenan issue where young people were allowedto stay longer in care and the transition toindependence was carefully planned. It willbecome less critical if we are successful indelaying the age of leaving care. But it willalways be a need for some care leavers, as it isfor the general population. Commentators oftensay we should not accept less for young peopleleaving care than we would for our ownchildren. This issue is a litmus test of whetherwe really mean that.

20 local authorities say this sometimeshappens. 9 said resources were a barrier.6 indicated experience of both.

5 said separate crisis accommodation waseither available or planned.

2 said the issue was identified in individualcare plans.

East Dunbartonshire identified a difficulty inreceiving young people over 18 back intounits where registration requirements did notallow anyone over that age.

North Lanarkshire reported that a move tolocality based social work services hasmeant that all children’s service options areopen to all young people, so there is nochange in service once they are 16.

11. BED & BREAKFASTSweet 16? highlighted the inappropriate use ofbed and breakfast accommodation for youngpeople leaving care, and recommended that itbe banned through revision of the HomelessPersons (Unsuitable Accommodation)(Scotland) Order 2004.

The Scottish Government acknowledgedthe problem but did not accept the solution,preferring to reinforce through guidanceexisting messages that B&Bs are not“generally” appropriate for care leavers.Ministers and officials are reported to havepublicly challenged local authorities onthis issue.

The survey asked how many care leavers in thecurrent financial year had been discharged intobed and breakfast establishments, includingthose that provide “informal” support.


Those replying that they had used B&B were:

LOCAL AUTHORITY NUMBER COMMENT

Aberdeen City 4 All female (2 from residential unitsand 2 from foster placements).

Aberdeenshire 2

Argyll and Bute 4 On “Supported Bed and Breakfast”in 2008

Dumfries and Galloway 4 Out of 22 care leavers

East Lothian 1

East Renfrewshire 2 One was discharged from care intotemporary homelessaccommodation and wassubsequently offered B&B afterbeing placed in a hostel for thehomeless. A second care leaver wasoffered B&B in response to a crisissituation but was later moved.

Edinburgh 2 Short term pending identificationand accessing of suitableaccommodation

Falkirk 2

Glasgow ? No figures for current year – wouldneed a survey of case files. Of the297 care leavers to end of 2008,some of the 8 “homeless”accommodation (see next question)may have been to B&B.

Highland 2 former Not discharged into B&B but maycare move at a later date due to changesleavers in circumstances. In the 2 cases,

the accommodation was safe andhad kitchen facilities.

Midlothian 4

Moray 1 1 young person for one week whileawaiting a tenancy to becomeavailable.

Renfrewshire 1 For one night due to a crisissituation in a children’s unit.

Scottish Borders 2

South Lanarkshire 1

West Lothian 1

TOTAL 33


Stirling and North Lanarkshire reportedno such use. Stirling commented that,“This has been a marked improvement fromprevious years and the result of strongertransitional planning”.

I call on the Scottish Government to set atimetable for prohibiting the use of Bed andBreakfast accommodation, which is never anappropriate environment for care leavers whoneed considerable practical and emotionalsupport to make a successful transition toindependent living.

12. HOSTELS FOR THEHOMELESSMany young people who contributed to Sweet16? talked about living in fear when placed inhostels for the homeless. However, the ScottishGovernment has said it has no plans to takeaction on this, arguing that there are manydifferent types of hostels, some of themproviding small scale, supportive environments.At a conference in November 2008 organisedby the Scottish Throughcare and AftercareForum, some young people described hostelsas congested with drug addicts and alcoholics,presenting a culture shock to vulnerable careleavers. They spoke of “temptation” and thefear of picking up these habits themselves.But some workers confirmed the governmentperspective that small hostels specifically foryoung people were acceptable, anddistinguishing these from hostels for adultsor “rough sleepers”.

In follow-up correspondence with the ScottishGovernment, I suggested that currentclassifications give no clue as to the standardof accommodation and level of support. Isuggested reclassifying and regulating thesmall hostels for young people, linking themmore with a category of regulated supportedaccommodation or semi-independent livingunits with qualified workers. This wouldfacilitate a clear prohibition on dischargingyoung people into adult establishments. TheGovernment has indicated that it will considerthis in the context of current work onthroughcare and aftercare and that any reviewof the relevant regulations would look at thisissue and I call on the Scottish Government totake this forward.

The survey asked how many care leavers in thecurrent financial year had been discharged intohostels for the homeless.


Those replying that they had used such hostels (or analogous accommodation in the case ofAngus) were:

LOCAL AUTHORITY NUMBER COMMENT

Angus 0 However, 6 YP have beendischarged into homelessaccommodation: 3 YP into aHomeless Unit where they’ve hadtheir own room as well as access tocommunal facilities; 3 YP into nonsecure tenancies on a temporarybasis.

Dumfries and Galloway 8 8 out of 22 (This includes thoselocal resources which are supportedsuch as Hope Place/ Reston)(Benyellary/ Annabank).

East Lothian 1

East Renfrewshire 2 Prior to opening the Young People’sSupported Living Unit in January2009.

Edinburgh 3 Short term, pending theidentification and accessing ofsuitable accommodation.

Falkirk 4 Into a supported accommodationfacility specifically for young peoplein this area.

Glasgow 1? Says None – but comment re B&Brefers to 8 discharged to homelessaccommodation and 1 to hostelaccommodation.

Midlothian 3

Moray 1 As being the safest and mostprotective local option available.

North Ayrshire 1 This was the choice of the youngperson and was agreed as the bestoption, given the individualcircumstances.

Perth and Kinross 1 This figure does not include 3 youngpeople who entered a throughcareresidential (Housing Support)accommodation in a planned andconstructive way. However, in orderto access this provision they had tobe designated “homeless”.

Renfrewshire 4

West Lothian 3

TOTAL 32


13. CARE COMMISSIONBULLETINIn January 2009, the Care Commissionpublished a Bulletin on Throughcare andAftercare Provided for Children and YoungPeople in Residential Care. It cited andconfirmed the findings of Sweet 16? about lackof staff training (17% of residential careservices) and being pushed out of care at 16.It reported that 50 percent of services hadbeen made subject to requirements orrecommendations arising out of their failureto provide adequate help.

In light of this, I suggest that the ScottishGovernment consider introducing a mechanismsimilar to that established for education bysection 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act1980. This allows Scottish Ministers to orderthe authority to fulfil its statutory duty, or todo so itself and recover the money fromthe authority.

14. CONCLUSIONSThere has been some progress in addressingthe recommendations of Sweet 16?, but thereare also new threats related to the economicdownturn. I am currently hearing anecdotesabout services for care leavers being cut backor reconfigured, possibly to save money. It istoo early to have hard evidence, but by the timewe have it, it will be too late for those youngpeople who have suffered from lack of services.The damage will have been done. We need tosend out clear messages now to prevent thisdamage. And more than that – we need to act.


APPENDIX 1:SUMMARYOF SWEET16? REPORTThe IssueThe report shows that many young people inScotland are leaving care aged 16 or 17, whenthey are not ready to face the challenges thispresents. Problems include getting into rentarrears, becoming involved with drugs/alcohol,difficulties with neighbours, threat of evictionwhich sometimes leads to homelessness, anddifficulties sustaining education.

The ResearchThe report involved desk research as well as:

• A review of information from all 32 localauthorities about their policies andmaterial about leaving care;

• Interviews and focus groups in 13 localauthority areas. (These involved a total of85 people: 54 young people and 31workers. Half of the young people werestill in care and half had left care); and

• More extensive work in two areas(Comhairle nan Eilean Siar andHighland), involving meetings withrepresentatives of those authorities.

Law, policy and practiceScottish law and policy strongly advise thatyoung people should be encouraged andsupported to stay in care until 18 years of agewhere their welfare requires it. But governmentstatistics show that eight times as many youngpeople leave care at 16 as leave at 18.

Reasons for leaving care before 18The report explores some of the reasons whyyoung people leave care before 18,for example:

• Young people want independence: Youngpeople sometimes say they want theirindependence at 16. For some this istrue. They may resent the rules inresidential unit and the presence ofyounger children. But it is important toexplore what lies behind the expresseddesire and not take it at face value.Sometimes the ‘desire’ is a result ofpressure exerted on the young person bystaff who believe 16 is the appropriateage and suggest through their words oractions that it is time for a young personto move on. Many of the young people wespoke to had expressed a similar desire,but later regretted leaving care so early.They were very keen to work with us toensure that other young people learnedfrom their experiences.

• Age of admission to care: Young peoplewho enter the care system aged 15 maysee themselves as just passing time untilthey are 16. There is little time to preparefor leaving care in a meaningful way.

• Contact with birth parents: Some youngpeople have sadly unrealistic hopesabout fitting back in with their families.They convince themselves that things willbe better than they were before.Sometimes parents too collude in whatturns out to be wishful thinking.


• Challenging behaviour and high levelsupport needs: We were told that youngpeople whose behaviour causeddifficulties were often helped to leave thesystem early. Yet these are the ones whoneed the support most. Where a youngperson’s behaviour was difficult, staffmight heave a sigh of relief at anyexpressed desire for independence andencourage them towards that. 16-18 canbe a difficult time for all young people,but for those in care, the consequencesof challenging behaviour can be dramaticand highly detrimental.

• Culture and practice: Time andagain,young people and workers told usabout a strong culture that assumed 16was the age at which young peopleshould leave care. This was reinforced bylanguage about ‘moving on’ introducedbefore the young person was 16 andby practices such as filling out housingapplications forms soon after their16th birthdays.

• Type of placement: Young people in fostercare were less likely to leave before 18than young people in residential units.There were particular problemsassociated with residential schools whereeducation funding may be withdrawnonce the young person reaches schoolleaving age. These young people haveoften been placed outwith their localauthority area and may not have retainedstrong links with their home town. Thiscan make it particularly difficult for themto settle down in a supportiveenvironment in their home town.

The threshold for aftercareYoung people are entitled to aftercare only ifthey were looked after by the local authority onor after reaching the minimum school leavingage. This is not widely understood. Some youngpeople are discharged from supervisionrequirements shortly before reaching thisthreshold, thus making them ineligible, eventhough they may have spent a substantial orsignificant part of their life in care.

A staged approach or abrupt transition?For most young people who live with theirfamilies, there can be ‘trial’ periods ofindependence. If it all goes wrong, they canreturn home, for a while at least. Young careleavers generally do not have this option. Thereare both resource and regulatory barriers tothem returning to their former place of care.The report discusses this, but also identifiessome examples of good practice that othersmight wish to follow. The report suggeststhere should be more investment in semi-independent living units that act as a stagingpost towards independence and may providesomewhere to come back to when thingsgo wrong.

Inappropriate placementsThe report shows that too many young peopleare still being placed in Bed and Breakfastestablishments and homeless hostels, despiteofficial guidance to the contrary. Examples aregiven of some of the dangers young peoplehave faced in these placements, includingone where a young person was in a B&Bwith a convicted murderer as a fellow guest.The report recommends that recourse to theseoptions should be forbidden.


Lack of information and trainingIt became clear that too many workers andyoung people lacked accurate informationabout what young people were entitled to andshould expect. As part of this project, SCCYPworked with Who Cares? Scotland to produce aleaflet on young people’s rights on leaving care.Both the content and design were shaped byyoung care leavers and the leaflet has beenvery well received. However, more needs to bedone. Training on aftercare rights should beextended beyond throughcare and aftercareteams to include, for example, housing staff.

The Corporate ParentIn April 2007, the Scottish Executive EducationDepartment issued guidance for localauthorities on the exercise of their corporateparenting role in relation to children and youngpeople looked after by them. It encouragedthem to develop a council strategy on corporateparenting, backed up by political scrutiny. Itsuggested ways in which awareness could beraised amongst elected members, includingsome suggested induction material for newmembers. The report welcomes thisdevelopment.

ConclusionTurning 16 should be a sweet and excitingprospect, not a source of anxiety. It should notbe the end of ‘care’.

RecommendationsThe report makes 23 recommendations aimingto:

• Encourage strong action to change theculture that assumes 16 as the age forleaving care;

• Ensure workers are trained and informedabout young people’s rights and are ableto pass this information to young people;

• Increase awareness of the reasons whyyoung people leave care early so thesecan be tackled;

• Encourage the provision of more semi-independent living units;

• Prohibit the use of Bed and Breakfastestablishments and homeless hostels asaccommodation for care leavers;

• Help local authorities to fulfil theirobligation to care leavers by requiringRegistered Social Landlords to co-operatewith them;

• Encourage elected members of localauthorities to enquire into leaving carearrangements as part of their corporateparenting role;

• Remove barriers to young peoplereturning to their former place of care forovernight stays;

• Encourage the Scottish Government toconsider amending the legal threshold foraftercare; and

• Ensure that additional statistics aregathered to help monitor what ishappening.


APPENDIX 2:RECOMMENDATIONSOF SWEET 16? REPORTRecommendation 1Local authority statistics should be furtherbroken down to show the numbers of 15 and16-year-olds leaving care before and afterminimum school leaving age. These should beforwarded to the Scottish Government to beincluded in the annual analysis.

Recommendation 2Local authorities should record the details ofchildren and young people placed in otherareas, along with information about theircontact with social workers or children’srights officers from their home areas whilethey were placed away from that area,and information about what happened whenthey left care. Statistical information extractedfrom this should be forwarded to the ScottishGovernment to be included in the annualanalysis.

Recommendation 3Firm steps must be taken to change the culturethat expects young people to leave care at 16.Local authority policy and practice shouldemphasise that proper care until 18, andappropriate support thereafter, is a right andnot an option. Elected members should beadvised to ask for information about the ages ofyoung people leaving care in their area as partof their corporate parenting role.

Recommendation 4Workers and young people should be givenclear statements of young people’s rights onleaving care and how to pursue them.

Recommendation 5Care should be taken to ensure thatprofessional language and practice do notcreate an expectation that a young person willleave care at 16.

Recommendation 6Local authorities should consult young peoplein residential care about the rules that apply intheir units in order to ensure that they areappropriate.

Recommendation 7Local authorities should consider developingmore semi-independent living units, as well assupported accommodation where care leaverswho are parents can be taught and supportedto care for their children.

Recommendation 8Local authorities should analyse the patterns ofbehaviour of those who leave before 18 ascompared with those who stay and take stepsto respect the rights of young people with highlevel support needs and challenging behaviour.

Recommendation 9The Scottish Government should beencouraged to pursue its expressed intention tohelp young people to remain with their fostercarers after their 18th birthday. Considerationshould be given to extending this to those notin education or employment.

Recommendation 10When local authorities place young people inresidential schools, they should think ahead towhat will happen when the young personreaches school leaving age. They should takesteps to allow the young person to continue tolive at the school at least up to age 18 orprepare the way for a smooth return to asupportive placement in the home area.


Recommendation 11The Scottish Government should consideradding Registered Social Landlords to thelist of agencies subject to the duty undersection 21 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995to assist local authorities in carrying out theirstatutory duties.

Recommendation 12As part of its corporate parent role, localauthorities should ensure that housing officers,as well as social workers, residential workersand throughcare and aftercare teams, aretrained to understand the local authority’sresponsibilities towards young people leavingcare. There may be advantages in trainingthem together.

Recommendation 13Young people leaving public care should nothave to be made “homeless” in order to beregarded as a priority for housing allocation.Local authorities should ensure that theirhousing policies give priority to these youngpeople merely as an aspect of their corporateparenting responsibility.

Recommendation 14Young people should not be placed in Bed andBreakfast accommodation. The HomelessPersons (Unsuitable Accommodation)(Scotland) Order effectively bans the use ofsuch accommodation for families with children.The Scottish Governmen should considerbanning its use for young people leaving care.

Recommendation 15Young people should not be placed in hostelsfor the homeless.

Recommendation 16As corporate parents, local authoritiesshould make provision for care leavers to beable to return for short periods of support,preferably to the accommodation they hadbefore leaving care.

Recommendation 17The Scottish Government should consider theneed for clarification or amendment of childprotection regulations and policies to ensurethat unnecessary barriers are not put in theway of care leavers staying overnight inresidential or former foster placements.

Recommendation 18The Scottish Government should reviewthe eligibility threshold for aftercare. Currently,a young person would not qualify for aftercarewhere he or she ceased to be looked afterbefore reaching school leaving age, even wherethey had spent a significant amount of timein the care of the local authority. In themeantime, local authorities and children’spanel trainers should ensure that workersand panel members are aware of the eligibilitycriteria and the relevant dates so that theydo not inadvertently close off options foraftercare support.

Recommendation 19The Scottish Executive commitment to morerobust and comprehensive data collection andreporting in relation to educational outcomesfor looked after children and young peopleshould be extended to cover theimplementation and impact of the Pathwaysplanning legislation, policies and practice.


Recommendation 20Comhairle nan Eilean Siar should examine thereasons for the high number of young peopleleaving care before the age of 18, and inparticular, the high number leaving residentialcare at 15.

Recommendation 21Elected members in Comhairle nan Eilean Siarshould, as part of their commitment tocorporate parenting: monitor the number ofcare leavers living in bed and breakfastestablishments; visit the area where the chaletsused for care leavers are located and assesstheir desirability, taking account of informationfrom the police; and take steps to ensure thatthere is appropriate accommodation for careleavers in their area.

Recommendation 22Comhairle nan Eilean Siar should checkwhether their written polices on throughcareand aftercare are known to workers, youngpeople and appropriate external agencies andare considered adequate.

Recommendation 23Comhairle nan Eilean Siar should beencouraged to pursue its plan to formalise itsrelationship with those contracted to provide itsPathways service through the conclusion of aservice level agreement.

Further copies of this report, along with thefull report, summary and young people’sversion are available online atwww.sccyp.org.uk or by contacting:

Scotland’s Commissioner for Childrenand Young People

85 Holyrood Road

Edinburgh EH8 8AU

Scotland, UK

Tel: 0131 558 3733

Young People’s Freephone:

0800 019 1179

Fax: 0131 556 3378

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.sccyp.org.uk

If you would like to receive this report in

another language or format please

contact SCCYP.

one year on - is life any sweeter? sweet 16 one year on.pdf · one year on - is life any sweeter?...

Documents