News

The number of younger children in secure units is set to rise, but many have not even committed a crime. Dominique Hammond reports on the findings of new research

S ecure accommodation is increasingly "silting up" with younger children serving short sentences leaving their older counterparts "to the mercy of the prison system", according to a book published this week.

'Vulnerable Inside: Children in Secure and Penal Settings' is based on 12 months’ research, including extensive interviews with the staff of secure units, allied professionals and the children themselves.

The number of young people held in secure accommodation grew from 238 in 1992 to 377 last year. With government plans to add 12- to 14-year-old criminals to the 15- and 16- year-olds already sent to these institutions, the number is set to rise.

But not all children who find themselves deprived of their liberty are there because they are on remand or have committed a crime. Over the 10-year period a fairly constant number (between 63 and 91), have found themselves sent to these units for their own, rather than the public’s, safety.

These children are sent as a last resort via the family proceedings court. They are highly vulnerable, often involved in prostitution and drug abuse and are likely to self-harm or be suicidal. Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 provides that they may be confined if they are persistent runaways who are likely to suffer serious harm when they abscond or cannot be kept safely in any other accommodation. Children from the age of 13 can be confined for up to three months on a first application made by the local authority and up to six months in further applications.

The book’s author, Barry Goldson, senior lecturer at the department of sociology, social policy and social work studies at Liverpool University, asked staff whether they felt it was legitimate to lock up children for welfare purposes. Of 20 staff responding, 11 believed it was "entirely legitimate" while nine thought it "partially legitimate". Staff emphasised the crisis conditions under which children are admitted and the need to protect them, with many believing that secure accommodation was the only way to ensure their safety.

But those in the "partially legitimate" group raised a number of concerns. These included the fact that other options were not always explored, that children were sometimes held for too long, that it was sometimes more about social services "covering their backs" than it being the best option for the child, and that, beyond the immediate usefulness of keeping the child safe, the benefits were questionable.

These concerns also worry Goldson. "It can be a question of life and death and for a small number of children restricting their liberty for a while is necessary," he said.

"However, that should be done for the shortest necessary time and rigorous legal safeguards need to be in place. I would question the rigour of some of those safeguards."

Goldson’s problems with the safeguards begin with the hearings for secure accommodation orders. All children are appointed an independent guardian, who is there to ensure that the child’s voice is heard. But Goldson’s research reveals that guardians are given so little notice of proceedings (in some cases less than an hour), that they do not have enough time to acquaint themselves with the details.

"Some of the guardians were saying that the first time they see the child is on the day of the application," he says. "They are having to take cases on face value, which makes it hard for them to fulfil their function as the counterweight representing the interests of the child."

Goldson acknowledges that in a crisis this may be unavoidable but says a way round it would be for the courts to make short first orders, rather than the three-month orders that are made now. "This would allow guardians to look at the complexities of the case, to interview the child in detail and then go back to the court," he says.

Goldson found that lack of consultation with children over what was happening to them was common. In just over half the cases they were unaware of the arrangements that had been made for them. Goldson notes that this sits uncomfortably with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which provides for the child’s right to have their views taken into account. Twelve of the 15 children interviewed disagreed with their secure accommodation order and several felt they had been deceived by their social worker. This made them doubt that their confinement was for their benefit and they generally saw the centres as places of punishment rather than safety.

The Children Act requires regular reviews of the cases of all children held in secure accommodation. But even if the review panel decides it is no longer necessary to hold the child, there is no obligation on the placing authority to follow its recommendations.

One panel member told Goldson: "I have known situations where local authorities have overturned the unanimous decision of the review panel."

Goldson’s response is that there is little point in having an independent review system without authority. He wants local authorities to be obliged to follow their advice.

He also wants fewer children to end up in the units in the first place. "These children have been in the care system for years," he says. "There is always the argument that resources are limited but the resources seem to be found when it comes to crisis point.

"It is a question of identifying and responding to their needs earlier within the open system of care."

Goldson acknowledges the pressures on social services departments and says it would be too easy to blame social workers for using the lock-up option rather than finding more imaginative ways of helping these children.

"It’s not that they aren’t looking but rather that there has been an enormous investment of money in locking up younger and younger children at precisely the same time that social services departments have had their budgets cut," he says.

"The real problem is the extension of the custodial powers of courts to embrace 12- to 14-year-olds. Those children can’t go to prison so places have to be provided for them in secure accommodation. What were once secure children’s homes are being transformed into more orthodox youth correctional resources. The welfare and justice systems have collided and the justice jurisdiction is in ascendancy."

Vulnerable Inside: Children in Secure and Penal Settings, Children’s Society, 2002.

Children tell of dismay at ‘injustice’

The book highlights the alarm of the children on arrival at the institutions. One girl tells Goldson: "When I got to this place and got out of the car I first saw the fence and then I really realised they’d brought me to a secure unit. I just walked in quietly and they searched me. I was very, very upset and depressed. I was shocked and frightened." Some of the children, once settled, see their placement as beneficial but others strongly feel that being locked up is an injustice. "They are keeping me in here for three months and I don’t think it is right to be locked up. I have not broken the law - I have just run away and I am now locked up," says another girl.

Lives of agony and depression

Goldson interviewed 15 children from six secure units - almost a quarter of the children locked up in England and Wales through the welfare system. Twelve were girls and three were boys and ages ranged from 12 to 16. Eleven had been living in children’s homes, three had lived with foster parents and one at a residential school. Eleven were receiving no education when admitted (they were either excluded or not attending) while the others were in "special education". Almost all spoke of depression, self-harm and suicidal thoughts. Five had received formal psychiatric treatment. Ten reported serious alcohol problems and seven had drug problems.