Reminder about the CRAE questionnaire – 1 October 2013

Child Rights Connect wants to gather children’s views on a new UN procedure, which will allow children to take their case to the Committee on the Rights of the Child when their rights have been breached. Child Rights Connect would like to hear from children that you work with (or you, if you are a child) about how the new procedure can be made accessible to children via a questionnaire. Children’s views will then be presented to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.

 

The deadline for completing the questionnaire is 1 October 2013. Child Rights Connect estimates that it will take around 10 to 15 minutes to complete.

 

You can find the link to the questionnaire and further details on our website: http://crae.org.uk/news/questionnaire-for-children-on-un-complaints-system-(third-optional-protocol)/

 

Paola Uccellari

Director

Children’s Rights Alliance for England
94 White Lion Street London N1 9PF
Tel: 020 7278 8222 ext. 30
Fax: 020 7278 9552
Visit us at: www.crae.org.uk

Uncategorized

September 26, 2013

Leave a comment

Symposium Proceedings #7 – Entrepreneurship: Ambassadors for the Princes Trust Enterprise Programme.

 

Entrepreneurship: Elaine McCartney, Colin Jeffries and Emma Riley ambassadors for the Princes Trust Enterprise Programme.

The audience was asked to close their eyes and imagine a NEET young person. All will imagine different things, people we know, more than one, but actually a NEET young person could be anyone from any background. The category NEET represents a huge spectrum of young people, and all their needs are vastly different. They might need financial support, addiction support, mental health support for example. The Princes Trust recognises this difference and has a range of courses and opportunities for young people. See the website if you want to know about them all.

Today in more detail they discussed the enterprise programme, supporting young people to become entrepreneurs and uncover talent. Not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to realise all their talents.

Elaine manages two programmes with the Princes Trust, working with 14-30 year olds. The first provides young people with limited funds for travel to increase their opportunities, for things such as school, college and interviews, and perhaps to provide them with the right clothes. This programme averages about 350 grants a year of around £150 each. Something like this can be the barrier stopping young people moving forward. 80% of young people who receive this small intervention end up with positive outcomes.

The enterprise programme is larger. The full title of the programme is ‘Explore Enterprise’. This works with people who are unemployed, working on 0 hours contract, living in hostels, with low educational achievements, people in the care system, and ex-offenders. The remit is to give them experience to explore enterprise as a viable option for them, but it is not for everyone. In 2010 we changed the way we work to incorporate advice and guidance at an earlier stage of their journey.

This works with 18-30 year olds and offers 4 day courses exploring attitudes as to whether they are the right kind of person for the programme. They don’t tick boxes, but move young people forward in the way they want to go. They work with them over 2 years, and only expect 20% to actually go into business. Others will perhaps be moved into other programmes they offer for which they might be more suited.

The best advocates of their work is the young people themselves, and last year they employed some to go out and talk to young people in a role they call ‘ambassadors’. The benefits of the enterprise programme can be social, economic, confidence building, and can also help in reducing crime and giving people role models.

6 years ago Elaine was sat in Killingworth job centre talking to a young unemployed man who was convinced of a business idea. His family’s business had gone under and they had suffered a lot of hardship. The Princes Trust gave him £1000 and got him a grant from the Arts Council of a further £1000 and he started up his business from his home in Killingworth selling packaging and paper bags. This young man now turns over half a million pounds. He comes back to the programmes and talks about his progress, but it is not all about money, but also how people feel about themselves, becoming more confident and more employable.

Emma Riley is a young person who came on the programme. Emma won a North East award last November and was able to go to London to a large event and meet Prince Charles and Helen Mirren among others. Emma’s here to tell you her story;

Emma’s actually 32 now and joined the programme when she was 30 and 8 months so just got in. Her story began when she was a child. One of her earliest memories was when she was 4 and it was her second day of school and she was playing in the sandpit with 3 other children. She remembers looking at them thinking ‘who are these things’? This became a basis of school, very secluded and cut off. In secondary school it became a lot more apparent that she was actually quite different. A child psychologist she had seen at 8 had just said she was very shy and she’ll grow out of it.

She didn’t really know how to communicate with people and just could not figure them out. She was badly bullied both mentally and physically. By the time she had got into sixth form she was clinically depressed and had a suicide attempt thankfully she did not go through with. It was becoming quite clear that there was something very wrong with how she was. But she did go to Sunderland University, but only lasted three months before she had a nervous breakdown. She just could not fit into a classroom with all these new people and all these different facial expressions.

She went to see a doctor who put her on lots of different medications and tried different therapies and nothing worked. So she went on sick benefit from the age of 18 and was living on £400 a month up until she was 30.

At 25 she realised she needed to push herself a little more and that she had to help herself. She went out with her dog and started studying people, their expressions, how they talked and interacted with each other, and she copied them, their language and facial expressions. She was lucky enough to get back into University and get her degree and she felt more comfortable and got her first job as a junior graphic designer. Just weeks before this, she had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder because of her depression.

Two weeks into the job her employer saw a letter on her desk from her psychiatrist’s office about an appointment. She was called into his office and he “literally went to town on me”. He said she had to change her contract because of the bipolar disorder and she went from being a designer to cleaning out his fish tank with a toothbrush in a day. She handed in her notice 4 weeks later and was withdrawn and depressed again.

Her doctor said that there was nothing they could do and that they had tried everything. A few more years went by on benefits, and she really did not know what she was going to do. Drawing and designing was the only thing that really kept her going and was the only way she could communicate what was in her head. When she was 30 her sister’s long term partner was diagnosed with terminal cancer, and he was just 32. This shock gave her the push to act on the little bit of internet research she had done about avenues she could take to get her a job or into business. This brought her to the Princes Trust.

Went on the 4 day enterprise programme and she was very scared and quiet. Her sister’s partner passed away and it made her really want to push to do something as she was 31 and she felt she was too old to be doing nothing. She wrote her business plan over a weekend and gave it to Elaine and she just made the cut for the next batch of reviews where you deliver the plan to a panel, a bit like a nice dragon’s den.

They gave her a start of £1500 for a graphic design business and a mentor to help her with her business over 2 years. From day one she got work and came off benefits. She went from earning £400 a month to earning over £3000 a month. She was able to take her sister to Florida, help pay some money to her parent’s mortgage, and it gave her a lot of confidence. She was mixing with new people all the time and it’s been very exciting and everything seems to go from strength to strength.

In the back of her mind she really wanted to launch a fashion label, so in January this year she started her second business which uses people’s stories to design clothes and has taken off in a huge way. She is now selling her clothes at the new Prince’s Trust store in London and she was at the opening a few days ago where she met Rod Stewart and Prince Charles again! She was in pretty much every paper yesterday, and to top all this off, this week she has gained her first investment of £365,000 to take her business to the next level, and is in talks with John Lewis and Fenwicks about putting her clothes in their stores.

Finally, two years ago she did actually get the answer she was looking for, and was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome.

All this success is down to the Prince’s Trust which was there when no-one else was.

One of the issues about today that seems to have come through is one of resource. The voluntary sector has in a lot of ways more freedom to respond to the needs of young people, and with support from the private sector the utilise it to help the right people in the right way at the right time. However last year they had around 20-30% under-utilisation across their programmes so even though they worked with around 56,000 people last year they could have worked with 70,000 with no cost to the organisation. So it highlights how the opportunities need to be highlighted more to young people and this will be helped by all sectors working more collaboratively.

Questions:

Is NEET a good label or is it completely unsatisfactory?

It was agreed many struggle with the label as people are complex and it is very dynamic and it categorises young people and gives them negative connotations. Unfortunately it is absolutely embedded within the public sector as some funding can come with conditions that young people in the area are likely to become NEET. It did used to be ‘category zero’, so maybe NEET is a slight improvement, but it can still make people feel low and lower their confidence to have such a label.

Round Up: Prof. Sue Farran;

Remember we started the day with Sir Al Green showing us a picture of some remarkable young people, and it was not by accident we put the Princes Trust last, because we knew there would be a fair amount of pessimism during the day, but I knew they would lift us all up. We can take away that there are challenges but there are good models and snippets of gold. There are people and projects that are really during things and perhaps by networking our own expertise and interests we can make a bit of a difference. By bringing together all different aspects of dealing with young people on the edge of adulthood hopefully has allowed you to exchange views and ideas and look forward to exchanging emails and getting together again. This is the first day of the project Rhona and Sue put together to deal with young people on the edge of adulthood and we would like to move forward in a collaborative venture. We hope we can keep everyone in the loop to see how we might best help each other.

Symposium Proceedings

September 23, 2013

Leave a comment

Symposium Proceedings #6 – Dr Alison Westman, Huntercombe Hospital, Edinburgh

Dr Westman has been involved in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), the youth justice system, forensic mental health services for young people and young offenders’ institutions and is currently the Medical Director of a young person’s in patient mental health unit in Edinburgh.  She spoke about the challenges in addressing the needs and rights of young people in terms of mental health services.

i) Protection from harm

It is known that adolescence is a critical time in terms of mental health development and the needs of young people differ from those of children and adults. However those needs are unmet and therefore young people are not being protected from harm.  It is important to focus on young people in particular because they are at increased risk due to experimental/risky behaviour and peer pressure, among other factors.  If mental health issues are picked up early, there are long term benefits to the individual and society. Society generally views young people as a group undeserving of special attention and the services they actually need are perhaps poorly understood.  They are seen as a ‘healthy’ group but there are concerns around sexual health, obesity, alcohol and mental health.   Adolescence is a challenging period of development in terms of mental health with a transition away from childhood and the onset of adult conditions. 50% of adult conditions begin in adolescence. By failing to acknowledge and address the concerns around young people, we are not protecting them from harm

ii) Policy

Current policy recognises that inequalities and poverty have a significant impact on mental health and seems to try to address this. However, the transition from paediatric to adult mental health services can be bumpy, with many conditions such as ADHD simply not catered for in adult services. Mental health services tend to focus purely on outcomes and less so on the process of providing care, with a lack of participation by the young people in their own healthcare. Where young people are engaged in the decision making process and informed, the results are positive. Young people need to know they can participate in decisions about their care, and that they can complain about their treatment and quality of service if necessary. A policy of engagement should be pursued.

There also needs to be a greater emphasis on engaging young people in service development.  There was some policy shift towards engaging young people in service/policy development but the government is seemingly not committed to making the changes which would improve this engagement.

To promote engagement, barriers to and facilitators of participation must be understood and acted upon.

Barriers to participation include:

• concerns about the status of the adult/child relationship and the fact that children lack ‘power’
• bureaucracy and complex organisations
• attitudes to young people’s capabilities in terms of the desire to overprotect them
• a lack of training to promote participation
• attitudes of adults to young people, and of young people to adults and themselves

 Facilitators of participation include:

• clarity and shared understanding
• training
• flexible and appropriate methods of engagement
• an organisational culture that is committed to engaging young people

 iii) Service development

Young people must be able to access appropriate and well located, available and professional services that respond to all levels of need from mild to moderate and severe. Access to appropriate treatment for moderate and severe conditions is limited in terms of location and availability.  Secondary care for young people is not easily accessible via a GP and it is not specialised for young people. It only becomes specialised at tertiary levels for very severe issues.  Services for young people are available and constantly developing however there long waiting lists, high demands, time limited packages and high thresholds for access. Training around young people for workers in these services is not always adequate, it is difficult to make complaints and services are facing cuts due to budget restrictions.

There needs to be greater integration of and partnership between services that provide a response to young people’s mental health problems, including health workers, social workers, schools and police among others. The outcome for a young person varies depending on how they are admitted to the mental health system, for example via parental authority or under the Mental Health Act, with each route affording different rights and responsibilities to the young person and service provider.  This should not be the case, the outcome should be the same regardless of the mechanism of entering the service.

Young people must be viewed as distinct from children and adults. On the plus side, despite the difficulties, the awareness of young people’s mental health is increasing and positive efforts are being made to facilitate the involvement and participation of young people in their treatment and service/policy development. However the tendency to group young people with children and families, the lack of joined up working and economic conditions are challenging.  There are many good initiatives driven by forward thinking people, but when they move on the initiatives come to a halt. There is a lack of will in both government and society to ensure such good work is not extinguished.

Summary

Young people in the mental health system face challenges because they are transitioning between two services, paediatric and adult, neither of which are designed to meet the specific and diverse needs of adolescents. It is accepted that the mental health of young people presents challenges that are unique to this age group and that properly addressing such needs can have a hugely beneficial outcome for both the young person and society. It seems however that there is little motivation to provide specialist services for young people, instead leaving them to outgrow paediatric services and enter adult services before they are sufficiently mature to cope within them. By failing to develop specialist primary and secondary young person’s mental health services, an opportunity for early intervention and treatment is missed, with specialist, dedicated services only being available for the most severe of conditions. This closely mirrors the situation in the youth justice system.  It also appears that there is a lack of will in terms of involving young people in discussions about mental health treatment and service development. Young people are told what they need, what is good for them, what treatment and services they need. It would seem that asking young people how they feel about their treatment and the services available to them is rarely on the agenda. They are essentially treated like children.

Symposium Proceedings

September 23, 2013

Leave a comment

Symposium Proceedings #5 – Gemma Davies, Northumbria University

Gemma Davies is a practising Barrister and Lecturer in Law who has experience in prosecuting and defending young people, as well as dealing with them as victims. She delivered a list, in no particular order, of her main concerns in relation to young people in the justice system.

1. The inability of the young person to read/read sufficiently well enough to understand what they are reading, for example their own statement, meaning they are entirely dependent on what they are told about the case. An inability to read can have a severely detrimental effect on how they present their evidence, and they will often be asked to read things when in court which they are unable to do.

2.  A lack of parental support or interest in the young person’s case.  Often the parent or appropriate adult will fail or refuse to attend court with the young person, leading to adjournments and delays.  Young people who have no parental assistance may not know what to wear or the importance of being on time, or they may not have any money to get to court, all of which lead to further trouble and stress for the young person.

3. A lack of engagement or hope. Attitudes of young people are learned from their parents and often they believe that the whole system is unfair.  This presents a barrier to engaging the young person in their own defence, even when it is a valid defence. They feel they will not be believed and there is no point in trying.

4. The inability of the young person to give effective evidence and to be persuasive due to the way they answer questions, and their inability to avoid frustration. They come across as implausible and inconsistent. For minor offences the young person is likely to be in a youth court in front of a magistrate who has received training in assessing young people and their evidence.  However, for more serious offences they will be in front of an untrained and inexpert jury in a Crown Court who will take the young person’s demeanour and evidence at face value when determining their guilt or innocence.

5. Peer pressure is a huge issue; it is ‘cool’ to be bad and ASBOs are almost a badge of honour as opposed to shameful. Young people find it incredibly difficult to break away from their peers. Intensive support is needed to enable them to do so.

6. Over exposure to the court system from a young age desensitises young people to the point that it is not intimidating to them.  They may have experienced police involvement with their families, attended court with their parents or been repeatedly prosecuted for minor offences for which they receive minor sentences and from which they learn nothing.  The latter is a particular issue in care homes where there are often policies of prosecuting every offence, no matter how minor. It is not uncommon for a 15 year old to have 10 previous convictions. How can they move forward from this?

7. A lack of understanding of social realities, particularly in the magistrates’ court where there is a lack of understanding of the vernacular and of the fact that swearing is not necessarily abusive or offensive, just the way the young person speaks. Swearing at the police is a huge issue; there does need to be a line however many young people find themselves charged with swearing at the police but there is little the courts can do to punish this, and as above, once in the system they become desensitised.  Placing normative values on young people’s judgement skills is also an issue. They do not have the skills of an adult, and an abused or deprived young person’s skills will not be the same as those of an average 16 year old.

8. A failure to diagnose mental health issues and learning difficulties. There are lots of ADHD diagnoses, but many mental health problems are not dealt with and need to be addressed, however for them to be addressed in the justice system the young person needs to be charged with a serious offence.  In the Crown court you may request any type of report or assessment but it is almost impossible to request such pre-sentencing reports in the magistrates and therefore the young person remains undiagnosed and untreated.  The aim should be to provide treatment at an early stage to prevent reoffending and an escalation to more serious offences but this opportunity is missed in the magistrates’ courts.

9. Unrealistic expectations placed on young people at the sentencing stage almost set them up to fail.  Criminal ASBOs often have stringent requirements attached that make it almost inevitable it will be breached. The breach is more serious than the original offence and they will receive a more onerous sentence.  There are inroads being made into this, for example it has  be recognised that 6 months is longer to a 15 year old than a 30 year old, but there is a long way to go.  Newcastle has a very low rate of custodial sentencing for young people and this may be a result of a high level of training and a genuine attempt to engage in non-custodial sentencing, but can also be attributed to other factors such as the availability of custodial places.

Sentencing has improved recently, for example making fines for under 16s the responsibility of the parent or guardian, and the use of referral orders if the young person pleads guilty.  With referral orders, a Youth Panel will agree a ‘contract’ with the offender, the emphasis being on trying to get them to make up for their behaviour, and have anecdotally proved effective.  Youth rehabilitation orders can have up to 18 requirements attached and the judge can use the requirements to tailor the order to the offender, be it in relation to drugs, alcohol, residence etc. However, these orders are only available for more serious offences meaning no rehabilitation is offered at the stage of minor offending. Earlier access to these helpful requirements may prevent a progression to serious offending.

10. Courts present an unsupportive physical environment to young people – a youth court is still held in an adult magistrates’ court with a dock, a raised bench and few windows. It is intimidating and requests to alter the environment, for example asking the magistrates to come down from the raised platform, are routinely refused.

Summary

Young people in the justice system suffer because it generally does not provide for the fact that although they are not children, they are certainly not yet adults and can vary greatly in their ability to understand and cope with their situation.  There is an issue in terms of the support and guidance afforded to young people in the justice system, and a gulf between what the system expects of them in terms of behaviour and attitude, and what the young people are able to demonstrate. They are essentially expected to behave as adults yet they are not adults. Young people who have grown up in an environment of aggression, mistrust of authority and with a lack of education are further penalised for being unable to conduct themselves ‘properly’ within the justice system. This often leads to greater contact with the system, which in turn makes it less of a deterrent. In other jurisdictions policies of keeping minor, first time offenders out of the system are in place.  Further, measures aimed at rehabilitating offenders and preventing reoffending are only available to those already deep in the justice system and committing serious offences.  There is a startling failure to grasp the opportunity to step in at an early stage and steer minor offenders away from more serious offences or to diagnose and treat mental health problems that can lead to offending behaviour.  Once again, the specific and diverse needs of young people are not addressed within the justice system, likely due to the need to be seen to ‘punish’ offenders coupled with a lack of money to fund earlier intervention.  A wholesale overhaul of the system would prove too complex and therefore the only solution, in Gemma’s opinion, is to train those within the system about how to better deal with young people. As with the police, there is a balance to be struck between protecting the interests of those young people who come into contact with the justice system and ensuring that justice is in fact done.

Symposium Proceedings

September 23, 2013

Leave a comment

Symposium Proceedings #4 – DCI Shelley Hudson, Northumbria Police

The session was opened by acting Detective Chief Inspector Shelley Hudson from Northumbria Police, who has a plethora of experience where engaging with young people is concerned and is currently part of the Child Abuse Investigation Unit (CAIU).

DCI Hudson introduced the session by reminding the audience of the role of the police, as stated in the Association of Chief Police Officer’s “Statement of Common Purpose and Values” set out in 1990:

“The purpose of the police service is to uphold the law fairly and firmly; to prevent crime; to pursue and bring to justice those who break the law; to keep the Queen’s peace; to protect, help and reassure the community; and to be seen to do this with integrity, common sense and sound judgement.”

In achieving this purpose as far as young people are concerned, DCI Hudson identified 3 main areas that present challenges to the police: protection, prevention and prosecution.

i) Protection

Protection for children and young people is afforded by s.105 of the Children Act 1989 which states that a child is a person under 18. There is no distinction between ‘children’ and ‘young people’ beyond that, although they clearly have very different needs.  Some elements of the law do reflect a gradient, for example in certain sexual offences there is a distinction made where the child is under 13, under 16 and under 18 years old.

One aspect of providing protection involves information sharing both between the agencies involved with the young person and with the young person themself. DCI Hudson agreed that historically the police had not been good at sharing information but certainly in the Northumbria force steps had been taken to remedy this and information is shared more freely under the auspices of the Children Act.  Linked to this is decision making; at what point should the young person’s opinion be sought and acted upon? This throws up many areas of concern, including whether the young person understands the implications of the decision, whether they agree that they are at risk of harm and whether they agree they are being exploited or feel they are acting of their own volition.  There is a huge issue around young people taking and sharing sexual photographs of themselves, which is not understood as ‘risky’ behaviour by young people. DCI Hudson confirmed that in her experience no young person had been prosecuted for such activity, however in other jurisdictions they have fallen foul of grooming and pornography laws and found themselves with a criminal record.

In terms of raising awareness of risk and affecting young people’s decision making process, DCI Hudson felt the key was to start early and ensure the young people learn they are valued and that they should expect to be respected; that mutual respect is normal whereas jealousy is not a sign of love. There is also an issue in that many parents have not grown up in a supportive environment and do not know how to provide this to their children.

ii) Prevention

Providing information can protect young people from harm, be it information about how to keep themselves safe or information about changes to the law, for example when the minimum age for victims of domestic violence was reduced to 16. Information must be accessible and technology and social media must be utilised – posters campaigns alone no longer do the trick!

Education of the whole community in terms of how adults prevent and report harm, what a young person should find acceptable and what amounts to consent is vital however DCI Hudson has found that sadly some schools are simply not interested in engaging with the police on this issue.  Consent is a murky area especially when dealing with sex between two young people – it was agreed that generally two 15 year olds should not be criminalised for mutually consenting to have sex, but not all 13 to 15 year olds operate at the same level of capacity. Should a 15 year old be expected to be able to analyse whether their partner’s freely given consent is in fact informed consent made with capacity? Should they be criminalised if they do not? The key is to deal with young people as individuals on a case-by-case basis and take all circumstances into account.  It was acknowledged that the police have sometimes driven inappropriate prosecutions but more so now they recognise that a blanket approach may not work, however they must work within the law and the parameters of the offences.

Engagement is a key area of prevention, but is an area that causes difficulty.  To protect young people, the police need to know what concerns them and what threatens them but they acknowledge that the police in general are not approachable. Rarely do young people wish to speak to an officer about their experience of running away, meaning it is difficult to assess the risk of exploitation. There are moves to try to show young people that the law empowers them, however most do not see the police as empowering, quite the opposite.  There is a culture clash between the police and young people – the police are trying to change young people’s view of the service however this is not helped by some elements of police culture such as inexperienced officers resorting to flexing their authority when challenged by a young person. Police culture is however evolving and they are working to improve engagement and approachability.

 iii) Prosecution

When a young person is a victim of crime there are rules about how they should be treated when giving evidence and they may do so by video link or from behind a screen, for example.  If they are the offender, who may also be vulnerable and a victim as well, no such special treatment is afforded.

There is also a discrepancy for young people who are 17 in terms of medical examination – a person aged 16 or under will be examined at the RVI’s Paediatric unit, but if they are 17 or over they will be seen by the adult service, which is of course designed for and used by adults.

There are special provisions made for young offenders at the police station, but only up to 16. An offender who is under 17 must have a parent or appropriate adult contacted and present at interview and they are held in a detention room, not a cell. The parent must always be notified but depending on the circumstances they may not be present for the interview, however another appropriate adult would be.  A 17 year old, who is a child under the Children Act 1989, is treated as an adult in custody and can refuse to have a parent or appropriate adult contacted. Northumbria Police however routinely contact a parent/appropriate adult when a 17 year old is brought in, and the young person cannot refuse this. In the near future a change in the law means a parent/appropriate adult will be contacted for all 17 years olds across the country and as the intention seems to be to put them on an equal footing with under 17s, it is envisaged that they will not be able to refuse to have one or the other informed and present at interview.

 Summary

In some instances in the justice system young people are recognised as distinct from children and adults, but on the whole they are not. It is accepted that adolescents have different needs and abilities to children and adults, and different to each other, but this is not reflected in how they are treated by the law, which can lead to unhelpful and inappropriate treatment by the police.   The police in Northumbria are taking steps to remedy this and implement young person-appropriate policies however they must still uphold the law and there is a balance to be struck between protecting the interests of the young person and protecting others from harm. The police currently view their greatest challenge to be engaging young people in decision making and in a dialogue about how to help better protect them from becoming victims of crime and prevent them from becoming perpetrators of crime. Police culture, the attitudes of young people to the police, and attitudes of adults towards young people all have a role to play in this.

Symposium Proceedings

September 23, 2013

Leave a comment

Symposium Proceedings #3 – Prof. Aoife Nolan – Finance and Child Rights

Prof. Aoife Nolan – University of Nottingham

The slides utilised during Aoife’s presentation can be accessed here.

Aoife’s talk centred on the rights afforded to young persons through the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), in particular the economic and social rights that are needed for survival. The CRC is useful as it is legally binding and the reporting requirement holds States to account for their actions, it also grants more rights to children and young persons than national legislation and is becoming increasingly utilised in judgements. Aoife asked how the UK gives effect to the international CRC treaty which they had signed up to? Though the UK receives the initial gratification and credit for ratifying international human rights treaties doe they actually implement them?

Discussion of rights in the UK tends to be negatively construed often drawing immediate links with rights supporting ‘terrorists’ and ‘migrants’. Yet the rights to social housing and security are often underplayed and overlooked, despite their intrinsic importance.

Under the provision of the CRC each State must make a periodic report regarding implementation of the Convention, they will then receive feedback from the CRC Committee and thought this may engage a momentary media furore, this is quickly forgotten.

A rights based approach puts rights at the centre of decision making and budgetary concerns, noting that rights are indeed meaningless unless there is the budget to implement them. In terms of adolescents and older children they are often neglected in health service or policy designs often either categorised as children or included with adults but rarely conceptualised as their own group. The UK is not alone in failing to meet the needs of adolescents as this is an international problem as reflected by the CRC Commission who are reticent to engage with adolescent rights and policies. Thus rights still focus heavily on a protectionist approach, therefore attention is given to issues such as child soldiers, sexual abuse or health issues, however issues regarding social security welfare and work are often disregarded and the Commission is generally silent on such problems. Dangerous conditions of working may thus be addressed but concerns such as minimum wage discrimination and discriminative union membership are rarely focused upon.

Article 26 of the CRC states that children have a right to ‘benefit from social security’ yet this suggests that a mediator is always present and does not acknowledge the independent living of some 16 and 17 year olds. In the welfare reform economic and social rights are being hit hard. Though Article 4 of the CRC takes into account the economic standing of the country and thus allows a progression of rights as opposed to absolute implementation of economic and social conditions, rights should always be progressive. Retrogressive measures are only accepted in states of emergency such as earthquakes, tsunamis or other natural disasters which would seriously affect State resources.

When assessing the progressive realisation of rights, budgetary measures and the resources of the country must be taken into account. Thus we must also consider what money is being spent on: bank bail outs and the reasons behind limited resources such as the reduction of taxation by the Government which reduces funds, thus the macro economic choices of Government should be interrogated when making economic considerations.

Spending on areas to provide essential living needs has to be both sufficient and efficient for their realisation and this also allows for prioritisation of the most vulnerable. The starting point of a rights based approach would therefore be the fulfilment of core human needs for the most vulnerable; however the welfare reform does not reflect this. Aoife drew attention to paragraph 3 of the CESCR General Comment No. 3: The Nature of States Parties’ Obligations which state with regard to retrogressive measures that ‘any deliberately retrogressive measures in that regard would require the most careful consideration and would need to be fully justified by reference to the totality of the rights provided for in the Covenant and in the context of the full use of the maximum available resources.’ Thus maximum resources should fulfil the ‘minimum core obligation’ (the minimum essential content related to survival) imposed by the ESCR. The question is whether we are fulfilling these obligations with regard to adolescents? Given the growth in youth homelessness, the popularity of food banks Aoife suggests we are encroaching into the minimum core standards.

With regard to the discrimination of young people, article 2(1) of the CRC is designed to protect against discrimination but this does not specifically address age discrimination:

‘States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s or his or her parent’s or legal guardian’s race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.’

Aoife suggested that the Government enjoy directing money towards younger more deserving children who are guaranteed better outcomes as opposed to the lost generation of youth who are seen to be a lost cause. The better outcomes are thus prioritised perpetuating the mythology of the lost generation, entrenched by negative social attitudes and the media perception of young people as troublesome.

Ways to move this forward are to utilise rights arguments in supplementing arguments for welfare etc. The more people who use rights arguments the more traction they gain. At a local level, advocates can ask for rights training from organisations such as the British Institute of Human Rights who provide rights road shows on how to use rights within policy work at local levels.

Symposium Proceedings

adolescents, Child rights, childrens rights, convention on the rights of the child, economics, escr, finance, progressive realisation, retrogression, UNCRC

September 15, 2013

Leave a comment

Symposium Proceedings #2 – The Cyrenians Housing Project

Rhiannon Bearnes and Kim Andrews – Cyrenians

Rhiannon began by describing the work that the Cyrenians charity performs. The Cyrenians are a regional North East charity, primarily aimed at providing assistance to people over the age of 18 with issues such as finding accommodation, addiction and recovery and employment and training- amongst other things.

In 2013 they worked with an average of 1361 clients per month and provide or locate approximately 86,996 beds per annum. They are now turning over around 9million per year and thus are growing rapidly.

Kim Andrews then spoke about one of the Cyrenian projects which is currently active– Eslington House.

Eslington House provides accommodation for single 16-25 year olds; it is staffed 24 hours a day and has 6 under 18 placements available. Individuals may come to the house for a variety of reasons e.g. those who are leaving care or foster homes, homelessness or inability to claim benefits.

To gain a place at the house individuals must first hand in a homeless application to Gateshead City Council who refer it onto the Cyrenians team via a portal system. Once the Cyrenians receive the application they will consider it and explain to the applicant the Eslington house rules, and their rights and responsibilities. Once this is accepted they gain a place.

The rules, rights and responsibilities of tenants is something decided in conjunction with existing house mates and thus is flexible. This gives young people the chance to advocate, contribute and control their surroundings. Should persons break the rules they will be evicted and this is implemented strictly. Tenants must attend a minimum of three sports sessions a week which could be anything from zumba to tennis, basket ball, swimming, football etc. This encourages social networking and healthy activity to stimulate residents, they also have educational programmes through the Dryden Centre and Princes Trust regarding nutrition, healthy eating, cooking skills, food hygiene and catering courses.

Charities are encouraged to provide drop in support to the house. At present the Job Centre Plus provides a drop in to advise clients about job opportunities, training and benefits advice. ‘Someone Cares’ also provide a counselling service once a week which is said to be extremely helpful in dealing with a lot of the issues tenants often avoid addressing. The Princes Trust also provide an opportunity for days out such as the Tall Ships race etc. At present the Cyrenians are fundraising £4500 for a cycling scheme which will teach residents about bike maintenance, how to ride a bike and road safety skills. This is in conjunction with Gateshead police who will be advising on road safety.

Eslington House has had 127 referrals, 27 admissions, 16 positive move ons and 10 lost tenancies due to rule breaking. Kim described four young people who were currently tenants at the house who had previously been homeless. One young lady was undertaking a sports coaching certificate, whilst another had just returned from Poland where she had been playing football for the Homeless FA. Both girls were described as quiet and withdrawn but through the Cyrenians had taken control and blossomed. Another boy was undertaking a cookery course. One young man was referred to the Cyrenians as his 54th placement, he has now been there for over 6 months without incident which is an achievement given his previous record, thus Eslington house has a number of success stories and makes a real difference to the lives of young people who would otherwise be living on the streets.

The Cyrenians feel that the project is particularly necessary given the current political climate. The cuts to welfare and the added bedroom tax makes finding accommodation particularly difficult for single people given the limited availability of one bedroom apartments and their increased expense. Young people are thus being made homeless due to the lack of one bedroom apartments in the North East.

Eslington House welcomes visitors to drop in and find out more about the service, the young people are always happy to sit and explain their situation to visitors and the work undertaken by the Cyrenians. If you wish to drop in contact either K.Andrews@tcuk.org or R.Bearne@tcuk.org to inform them.

As the Cyrenians started as a hands on charity but has rapidly grown, advocacy is a new area of work for them. However in providing services for a number of years, they have collated evidence which would be useful to contributing towards policy guidance regarding the practical impact of welfare reform. They are a member of Homeless Link which provide national representation at political level but admit that being located in the North East places them at a disadvantage in terms of lobbying and political influence as opposed to Southern charities that have greater connectivity and access to Parliament. However this limitation only furthers the motivation of the Cyrenians to push further and make their work known.

Symposium Proceedings

adolescents, Child rights, childrens rights, homeless, homelessness, housing

September 15, 2013

Leave a comment

Symposium Proceedings #1 – Andrew Watson – The Family Justice Review and Starred Care Plans.

Over a decade ago now the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to consider the balance of power between local authorities and the Courts when a child was brought into the care system and how that child should be treated once a final order was made.  In one of the first cases to come before the Court in this area following the introduction of the HRA 98 the Court looked at whether or not the provisions of the Children Act 1989 were compatible with the Article 8 right to respect for private and family life.

The case involved two joined appeals, both by families whose children had been removed from their care.   In both cases the local authority made a range of promises in its final care plan about the level of support which was to be provided to the family.  In each case that support failed to materialise.  The parents case was that the Children Act should be interpreted in such a way as to provide for an ongoing power for the Court to supervise the local authorities implementation of its care plan once a final Care Order was made and that the lack of any such provision would mean the Act was incompatible with the Article 8 right.

The Court found that such a provision could be read into the Act while accepting that the historical position that once a care order was made it was for the local authority to implement it.  The Judges clearly had in mind real concerns that local authorities were failing to meet the needs of children in care as highlighted in the department of Health publication Someone Else’s Children.  The Court concluded that it was possible to read in a system of “starred milestones” in which elements of a care plan could be highlighted.  If a local authority failed to meet those elements for any reason the matter could be returned to the court, either by the local authority, parent, child or guardian.    Such a system had been proposed at the at the Presidents Conference for Family Division Liaison Judges following concerns that the Children Act allowed for no such directions.  Indeed that was a deliberate change in the legislation as such directions had been possible under the previous wardship jurisdiction.

The case was appealed to the House of Lords which stressed the clear division between the role of the Court and that of the local authority.  In its view parliament had been clear.  Once a care order is made the responsibility for managing and implementing it fell to the local authority.  The Court could not exercise an ongoing supervisory jurisdiction.  It was not equipped with the resources or skills necessary to exercise ongoing supervision of the day to day activities of every child in care.    The Court of Appeals attempt to use s3 to read the starred care plan system into the Act went well beyond statutory interpretation and into amendment and as such was impermissible.  The starred care plan idea died before it even began.  However, that was not the end of matters.  Lord Nicholls was as concerned as the Judges in the Court of Appeal over the failure by local authorities to implement the promises they made.  He identified that there was a pressing need for Government to attend to the practical and legal problems identified by the Court of Appeal and to consider whether some degree of Court supervision of local authority’s discharge of their parental responsibilities might bring about an improvement in the quality of care provided by local authorities.

It is the changes introduced by Government to address these concerns that I want to look at today and also to consider how those changes might also be affected by further amendments proposed by the Family Justice Review and incorporated in the draft Children and Families Bill.

The government’s response was to amend the existing regulations on case review to include an obligation that if a local authority is looking after a child then they must appoint an independent reviewing officer for that child.  The IRO’s role was to monitor the performance of the local authority, manage and chair the review of their case and ensure the child’s wishes and feelings were given due consideration by the local authority.  The IRO was also required to bring failures to implement the care plan to senior management in the local authority and was given the power to refer a child’s case to CAFCASS where they considered it appropriate to do so.   In addition the IRO had to be independent, at least to the extent that they were not directly involved in the management of the case or under the management of someone who was managing the case or who controlled the resources allocated to it.  The changes came into force in September 2004.

At the same time the role of CAFCASS was extended.  On receipt of a referral from an IRO CAFCASS must appoint an officer of the service to investigate the situation and submit a written report within two weeks to the IRO, local authority Chief Executive and anyone else they consider appropriate.  CAFCASS was also given the power to issue proceedings on behalf of a child who was referred to them by an IRO under s7 HRA, Judicial Review or other proceedings.

It is worth bearing in mind that at the Presidents Conference for Family Division Liaison Judges where the starred care plan proposal was discussed the view was that it was unlikely to require more than about 200 referrals per year across the country.  How then have IRO’s used the powers which the new regulations granted them?

By 2012, eight years into the operation of the new system, CAFCASS had received a total of eight referrals from IRO’s.  In only two of those referrals did the CAFCASS officer meet the 2 week requirement to undertake their investigation and report.  In none of those cases did CAFCASS seek to use its powers to issue proceedings on behalf of the children concerned including in one case where it took over 7 months to conclude and where the delay was due to failure by the local authority to provide the necessary documentation.

This system is supposed to provide an independent overview and route to challenge decisions made by local authorities which are not in accordance with the agreed plans.  On the face of it it is failing to do so.  One concern is that independent reviewing officers are not sufficiently independent to carry out their role.  The legislation does not require IRO’s to be completely separate of the local authority, merely separate from those managing the case or holding the purse strings.  However, how does this operate in practice?  IRO’s largely remain part of the Children and Families department.  While they may not be directly managed by those managing individual children’s cases those line management responsibilities must merge at some point on the line management tree.  While that may be at a point above those with direct budgetary responsibility it is likely to be those who have wider organisational and budgetary control such as at Director or Deputy Director level.  This places an IRO in the difficult position of having to report to those who wield actual control over their Department  while being critical of other branches of its performance.

This tension was highlighted in a letter from the National Association of Independent Reviewing Officers to the then Minister for Children, Tim Loughton MP.  In that letter concerns were raised about IRO’s being threatened with disciplinary action for raising concerns, of requiring them to have senior manager approval before challenging a decision or making a referral, of attempts to supress or edit IRO reports due to be presented to OFSTED and of having a contract terminated due to legitimate if inconvenient challenges.  Such situations serve to demonstrate the real difficulties faced by IRO’s in operating as a truly independent voice for the child.

Further evidence is provided by the interim report of the National Children’s Bureau research into the role of IRO’s.  That report highlighted real concerns about workloads with many IRO’s handing in excess of 90 cases where the recommended number is 50-70.  In addition there were concerns around consultation and information sharing, monitoring of care plans, contact with looked after children, lack of access to independent legal advice for the IRO and the child, managerial support and a failure to drive improvements in service.

This creates a situation of serious concern for children within the care system as the IRO is often the only voice they have.  At the conclusion of care proceedings a child’s right to independent legal representation comes to an end with the termination of their legal aid certificate.  Similarly the appointment of an independent Children’s Guardian terminates.  The making of a final care order vests parental responsibility with the local authority and they can limit the extent to which the natural parents can exercise their responsibility.  Parents whose children are removed into care permanently are often restricted to fairly limited direct contact and can drop out of children’s lives or their involvement becomes peripheral.

This is one of the reasons why getting the care plan right at the conclusion of care proceedings is so important.  The Care Plan should tell all of the parties to a case what the local authority proposes to do in relation to the child, what services will be provided, who will arrange them, when they will be in place and what will happen if matters do not go as planned.  Obviously the care plan is not carved in stone, it must be a living document which changes to reflect the needs of the child but it should be a clear statement of that particular child’s needs at that point in time which can be reflected on later and used as a starting point to ensure that child’s needs are met.  Effective care planning is a crucial element of any application for a care order.

While the Re S, Re W case settled the point around division of responsibilities between the court and local authorities it emphasised the essential nature of care planning and the role which the Court played in ensuring that the decision made was the one which was in the best interests of the child.  It was important that the Court had before it a plan which was sufficiently firm for all concerned to have a reasonably clear picture of the likely way ahead for the child for the foreseeable future.  The degree of firmness and the level of detail will vary from case to case and the Court must have in mind the importance of avoiding delay.

Given these comments it is disheartening to see the recommendation of the Family Justice Review to remove the Court from many of these considerations.    The Review proposes to limit the role of the Court to considering who the child should live with and contact arrangements.  The Court should not review the detail of the care plan such as the nature of the child’s placement, whether sibling placements would be appropriate, therapeutic support for the child, health or educational needs or care planning.  The FJR claims that removing these considerations will result in a reduction in delay and also costs.  It is difficult to see how this will be the case.  These are all issues which the local authority will need to consider anyway and which may well require expert assessment.  The work should already have been done by the time a final order is made.  It is also often information which the court must consider before it comes to it’s final decision.  For example, how can the Court decide where a child should live without first considering if they might be placed alone or with their siblings.

These amendments are now incorporated into the Children and Families Bill which provides that the Court is only required to consider who the child should live with together with contact issues when considering whether or not to make a care order.

What then is the position of an older child entering the care system or one who has been within it for some time?  New children will enter the system with a care plan set by the local authority.  The child will have had some input into that through their solicitor and Guardian but there will be no independent Court review.  Once proceedings end they will have no access to direct independent advice.  They will be dependent on an Independent Reviewing Officer who is anything but and the good graces of the local authority to meet the promises they make in their care plan.  If those obligations are not met they may well have no adult available to support them.  Their parents may not be involved to speak up for them, their role in reviews is limited and local authorities are only required to demonstrate that they have taken their wishes and feelings into account.  Even for an older child who has capacity there is no requirement that their wishes should be determinative of what happens to them.

Furthermore children in the 15-17 year old bracket are about to enter the leaving care system.  Children on the edge of adulthood, especially those in care, need to be prepared for the move into adulthood and independence.  Normally this task falls to parents or carers but those children in care are dependent on their local authority.  Local authorities owe wide ranging duties to children leaving the care system as a result of the changes introduced by the Leaving Care Act 2002.  That process needs to be properly planned in conjunction with the child.  Local authorities are required to assess their needs, produce a pathway plan and appoint a personal advisor.  They must befriend the child with a view to promoting their welfare even when they cease to be looked after.  In some cases these obligations can continue up to the age of 25 where the child remains in full time education.

The obligations on local authorities often involve considerable expense.  In an age of austerity there will inevitably be a tension between meeting those obligations and the cost with a temptation on local authorities to reduce costs wherever possible.  This situation was highlighted in the recent case of Kebede v Newcastle City Council where the local authority sought to argue that tuition fees were not an expense connected to education or training (which they would be liable to provide support in relation to).  Fortunately both the High Court and Court of Appeal disagreed but the case serves as a reminder of the real difficulties which local authorities face.

Given those difficulties and given the vulnerable position of children in care it is more important than ever that those children have access to effective and independent advice and overview of their care plans so that they are able to have a voice in the decisions being made about them.  The current system fails to provide that and the proposed changes make things worse.  If they are implemented then it may well be time for the Courts to revisit the issue of starred care plans.

– Andrew Watson is a senior lecturer at Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne.

Symposium Proceedings

accountability, adolescents, balance of power, child protection, Child rights, children, court, escr, human rights, local authorities, local authority, welfare

September 13, 2013

Leave a comment

On the edge of adulthood

This site will draw together diverse actors, researchers and practitioners focussing on young people aged 15-17 inclusive. These people should fall within the ambit of the UN Convention on the rights of the child and benefit from the protective opportunities available. However, all too often they fall between being treated as children and as adults. All comments welcome.

Announcement, Information

September 12, 2013

Leave a comment

On the Edge of Adulthood – Symposium September 2013

Northern Design Centre, Newcastle upon Tyne

9.00 – Registration

9.20-9.45 – Introduction: Professor Rhona Smith, Northumbria University, ‘On the Edge of Adulthood’

9.45-10.30 – Keynote Address: Professor, Sir Al Aynsley Green

10.30-11– Morning Refreshments

11-12.45 – Session One: Protection from Harm

• Juvenile Justice: Gemma Smith; Chief Superintendent Shelley Hudson; Gemma Davies, Northumbria University
• Children’s Rights and Health Protection: Dr Alison Westman, Medical Director, Huntercombe Hospital Edinburgh

12.45-1.45 – Lunch

1.45-3.00 – Session Two: Provision of Essentials of Life

• Homelessness: Kim Andrews and Rhiannon Bearnes. The Cyrenians
• Finance. Professor Aoife Nolan, University of Nottingham
• Welfare and care: Andrew Watson, Northumbria University

3.00-3.30 – Afternoon Refreshments

3.30-4.00 – Session Three: Participation

• Entrepreneurship: Elaine McCartney and the Princes Trust Young Ambassador, ‘The Princes Trust enterprise Programme’

4.00-4.45 – Round Table Discussion: Looking forward in partnership

4.45 – Close of Symposium: Professor Sue Farran, Northumbria University

Programme

September 12, 2013

Leave a comment