News

Through their neglect of supervision orders, local authorities may pose the biggest   threat to Scotland's much admired youth justice system. Louise Tickle reports.

When the Scottish executive proposed to introduce electronic tagging and antisocial behaviour orders for young people who had offended or were acting disruptively, many professionals expressed deep concern. In light of the ensuing controversy, and as the pilot areas for electronic tagging were rolled out, the executive's announcement that it was going to review the entire youth justice system gave rise to feelings of unease.

Scotland's approach to youth justice is widely admired as enlightened and effective. For 33 years, its community-based children's hearing system has been responsible for dealing with child offending, misbehaviour and protection issues in most cases without recourse to the courts.

Custody is rarely used. Instead, it is at the absolute discretion of an independent assessor, called the children's reporter, as to whether a child is brought before a hearing.

A hearing consists of a panel of lay people who may make a compulsory supervision order on a child. The order is also binding on statutory services, which must then offer support to the child and his or her family.

Now that phase one of the executive's review consultation is completed, youth justice professionals are expressing relief that their recommendations will help shape the future children's hearing system.

With overwhelming support in the sector for the child-centred approach leading up to a formal hearing, the central concern now rests on whether supervisory measures ordered to help children are being adequately fulfilled by statutory services.

Tam Baillie, assistant policy director at Barnardo's Scotland, says: "The hearing system is about whether state intervention is needed. It is pointless having young people in supervision if they're not going to get that care after the hearing makes its order, and that comes down to resources.

"We are sympathetic to the difficulties that local authorities have in servicing supervision orders, but they need to look at how best to integrate the resources they do have. For example, it tends to be seen as a social work responsibility, but there's also a responsibility on education services."

Who Cares? Scotland director Deirdre Watson says: "Young people have said to us that, by the time anyone came to help, the crisis had passed. What's clear is that the resources haven't been there to enable the system to meet all its promise, and that is a huge pity. Help has to be offered in a time frame that is meaningful to a child if it is to make a difference."

Alan Miller, principal reporter at the Scottish Children's Reporters Administration, says developing a mission statement for the children's hearing system may help to direct the role of service providers.

"We need to be clearer about outcomes and standards," he says. "Since the system's inception in 1971, the nearest we have had to a statutory description of outcome is 'the best interest of the child'. In England and Wales, through the youth justice system, the statutory definition of purpose is 'to prevent offending by young people'. This has had a galvanising effect, with everyone talking about how helpful it has been to have that clarity."

Miller believes that the statutory sector should be ensuring the right services are provided to high-risk children, no matter the type of risk. The hearing system deals with children who have been offended against, as well as those who have offended.

In light of this, any failure to service supervision orders has implications for local authority accountability in terms of child protection and in building public confidence in the system as an effective, non-custodial approach.

Criticism of the children's hearing system as a soft option can only gain support when there are repeated reports that supervision orders are not being carried out by overstretched social services departments, says Barnardo's Scotland.

And John Anderson, chair of Edinburgh Children's Panel, is equally clear that action needs to follow a supervision order swiftly if volunteer panel members are to retain public confidence.


"There is a public interest here," he says. "People need to know that if there is antisocial behaviour the child is brought to book. The panels take the flack when things don't work well. We cannot force local authorities to service a supervision order, and sometimes it can seem like local authorities are treating it as only an option."

Anderson is also worried about the retention of panel members, and wants the second phase of the Scottish executive's youth justice review to look at how best to support them, including consideration of payment for their time and services in line with most statutory tribunals in the UK.

Improving children's own confidence in a system that is supposed to listen to their opinions is also an area that needs strengthening, says Miller. "We rightly pride ourselves on direct communication in children's hearings, Experience shows, though, how hard it is for children and young people to play a full part in that dialogue. We need to look at how to prepare them better for it and how to be more active in it so they are better able to speak for themselves."

If the children's hearing system is to justify itself in the future, not only on the basis of its compassionate approach but also on its results, then those results will need to be measured, says Baillie.

"There hasn't yet been a systematic evaluation of the impact of the system on children's lives," he says. "It has to be able to justify itself in terms of its impact on children's lives."

 

 

Scottish model :  

•  Up to age 16 (or 18 if already under supervision), children with problems are referred to an independent children's reporter for assessment.  
• It is at the reporter's discretion whether a hearing is convened. Only the most serious cases will go to the criminal court system.   
• Parents and children have the right to attend and speak at the hearing.   
• The panel that decides what measures are needed is made up of trained community volunteers. The hearing is held in private.   
• If guidance, care or control are needed, the panel will make a supervision order. Statutory services must support the child and their family as specified.   
• The panels, not the courts, impose Asbos on children. Electronic tagging is available in pilot areas solely through the children's hearing system.  
• A review of the supervision order takes place within 12 months.   
• The number of under-18s in custody (both on remand and sentenced) in 2003 was 476.

English and welsh model   

•  Aims to prevent offending by young people up to age 17.  
• Initial offences and antisocial behaviour can be dealt with outside the courts. 
• After further offences or a single, more serious offence, the court system is used. Cases are tried in public.  
• Conditional bail, including tagging, can be imposed, or a young person remanded into custody. Only exceptionally should this be to a young offender institution; typically, remand should be to a local authority secure children's home or a secure training centre.   
• Young people committing the most serious offences are detained in secure units. For less serious offences, a non-custodial sentence can be imposed.  
• The number of under-18s in custody (both on remand and sentenced) at the end of July 2004 was 2,766.