| Membership | What's Happening | Committees | Publications | Assembly Commission | General Info | Job Opportunities | Help |
|
SESSION 2002/2003 Committee for Health, Social Inquiry into Child Protection Services in Ordered by the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public
Safety to be printed 9th October 2002
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 15 August 2002 Mencap welcomes the opportunity
to submit evidence to the Inquiry. We hope that the inquiry will have due regard
to the specific child protection issues in respect of children with a learning
disability, many of who do not have the communication skills to be able to
disclose abuse that they have experienced. Disabled children are now known
to be more likely than non-disabled children to experience abuse. There are a number
of reasons why disabled children are particularly vulnerable to abuse of all
kinds and these include:-
n
the lack of value placed on disabled children by society;
n
the low self esteem of many disabled children and young people;
n
the lack of choice and control disabled children have over their lives;
n
the social, geographical and physical isolation of disabled children;
n
the increased likelihood of being cared for away from home;
n
the lack of access to safety programmes and sex education;
n
the reliance on multiple carers;
n
the provision of intimate care by non-family members;
n
a limited ability to communicate about abuse;
n
a limited mobility or physical ability to defend against abuse;
n
an increased likelihood of family stress due to inadequate support services;
n
insensitive or inappropriate professional practices e.g. use of photography;
n
increased exposure to medication and the scope for misuse;
n
lack of access to child protection services and therapeutic provision. Mencap is aware through
its Family Adviser Service and Local Groups of a significant number of cases
when inadequate safeguards have been in place within services that have exposed
disabled children to unacceptable levels of risk. Mencap has followed the Duty
to Care Guidance and has indeed developed training that focuses on the particular
vulnerability of disabled children. We have worked closely with other agencies
in the development of guidelines. Our own Child Protection Policy and Guidelines
are designed to work alongside statutory Guidance and Procedures. We would
advocate that Statutory Procedures always include specific guidelines for staff
dealing with actual or alleged abuse of disabled. There are several groups
of disabled children who need special attention in any Statutory Procedures:-
n
Children living away from home. Since disabled children are eight times
more likely to be living away from home this type of provision needs
specific guidelines.
n
Children with severe communication impairments which will include virtually
all children with a severe or profound learning disability. Special attention
needs to be given to school-based personal safety programmes which are typically
based on "run and tell" messages and not at all applicable to this group of
children.
n
Children who need invasive care, for example rectal valium, suction or tube
feeding. All of these procedures render disabled children liable to abusive
practice, quite often based on inadequate staff training rather than deliberate
acts of commission.
n
Children using mainstream services where staff may not have access to disability
child protection training.
n
Children who have been abused who do have access to post-abuse therapeutic
services which increases the likelihood of them being re-labelled as abusers. There are a number
of issues that we would want the Inquiry to address:- 1. The need to routinely collect child protection
register statistics in such a way that trends for disabled children can be
identified. 2. The development of cross-agency child protection training that
addresses staff skill in respect of communicating about abuse with disabled
children and their parents. 3. The development of health protocols and
training to support staff working with children with complex health needs who
may need invasive care. 4. The development of personal safety and
sex education programmes for disabled school children. 5. The lack of access to the criminal justice
system and the reluctance to take forward cases involving disabled children.
6. The development of clear physical restraint guidelines for
staff working with children who challenge services. If it helpful to
the Inquiry we would be happy to provide further detail on any of these points
and provide oral evidence to the Inquiry.
15 August 2002 Does current service
provision meet needs of children? Will these resources
continue to meet the needs? Background to the NEXUS
Institute The nexus Institute,
founded in 1984, works to respond to the needs of anyone over the age of seventeen,
who has experienced sexual abuse at any time in their life. It is solely based
in N.Ireland and aims to:
n
Provide effective professional counselling services to survivors of sexual
abuse
n
Provide high quality training to key individuals, groups and agencies
n
Increase the awareness of sexual abuse and its consequences through research,
public awareness and information services The NEXUS Institute
delivers services from fourteen centres across Northern Ireland, including
four regional offices and ten outreach centres. We also provide a
wide range of professional training courses to voluntary and statutory groups
and a range of professionals. Training addresses various topics such as: understanding
the realities and impact of sexual abuse and addressing the myths, dealing
with disclosure and promoting the prevention of sexual abuse and protection
of children, young people and adults. Approximately 3,000 people contact NEXUS
annually for support. Clients are referred from
general practitioners, psychiatrists, mental health services, PSNI, social
services and voluntary organisations. Clients also self refer. We offer
an initial assessment interview to determine the client's needs in relation
to individual counselling, group therapy and participation in various workshops. The Nexus Institute
is therefore in the unique position of having access to information about many
aspects of the child protection services. Clients presenting at the Nexus Institute
will frequently raise issues relating to child protection. Indeed concerns
for their own or other children often prompt people to contact NEXUS to seek
advice and assistance. One of NEXUS' primary concerns is children's safety. Nexus' is very aware
that child abuse involves secrecy, confusion, manipulation, fear and shame;
this can inhibit and prohibit children and adults from recognising and reporting
abuse. Confidentiality Policy Nexus operates a
confidentiality policy, which dictates that the content of counselling sessions
is confidential, except where we receive information regarding a possible risk
to children or adults, this will be reported to social services or the PSNI.
Clients would, however, like to see a system in place whereby they could raise
their concerns, in confidence, with a specialist child protection team rather
than have to make a formal complaint to PSNI. Their confidentiality would be
maintained but their concerns could be recorded and held on file and investigated
and acted on when appropriate. While this may increase referrals to social
services and result in more children on the 'at risk' register, it would hopefully
prevent further abuse. Clients argue that the child protection services need
to be proactive rather than reactive. Case Recording: NEXUS records all
contact with clients and provides court reports when called on. We advise recording
of all relevant information on the child/adult, including information on the
relationship of abuser to child, if known, status of alleged abuser: alive/deceased/where
resident, if known and outcome of disclosure e.g. conviction etc. While obvious safeguards
would need to be built in, we would argue that information could be sought
from, and given
to, relevant agencies by social services, to provide a more 'joined up' and
proactive response to child protection. Assessment of risk
/ possible risk Counsellors in NEXUS
use professional judgement, monitored by formal supervision of their practice,
to ascertain potential risks. They would consider: Does abuser have
access to children? Are family members
aware of the risk of abuse / previous abuse? Is the perpetrator
alive? Is the perpetrator
living in the community? Is the perpetrator
known to police / social services? However we know from
the many complaints we receive from social workers and other caseworkers, that
their supervision and support is woefully inadequate. Communication. This has already
been addressed to some degree above. We would further argue that the whole
area of 'Human Rights' is a minefield, which can hinder child protection. It
sometimes appears that the PSNI, social services, et al are afraid to act against
an 'alleged perpetrator' in case it infringes their human rights. While we
support Human Rights legislation, we wonder if child protection services and
the judicial system err too much on the side of caution in favour of perpetrators.
For example, sharing information is crucial because of the deviousness and
manipulation of sex offenders Linkage Promoted between: CARE units Professional links:
Teachers Social workers NEXUS actively promotes
public awareness of sexual abuse through its work in schools, churches and
in other venues, NEXUS delivers workshops, participates in a number of representational
bodies highlighting the issue of sexual abuse. NEXUS' clients, who are survivors
of sexual abuse, continually raise the need for public education as the most
important element in reducing incidence of sexual and encouraging more reporting. Workforce Issues NEXUS counsellors work to
the British Association Code of Ethics, which demands adequate practice supervision
and monitoring of the effectiveness of the counsellor. This includes assessing
the counsellor's client workload. In 2001, NEXUS held a conference on 'Assessing
the Needs of Clients and Practitioners' in which virtually all those participants,
statutory and voluntary, working with children and adults who have been abused,
complained about the lack of effective supervision and the unrealistic demands
being made on them. This included performing duties
they were not trained for and not being given adequate resources to carry out
the demands of the job. NEXUS believes, strongly, that the child protection
services in N.Ireland are uneven, inconsistent and veer from quality practice
to significantly poor practice. The gap between senior management's understanding
of the needs of workers and worker's actual needs, seems, in many cases, to
be huge. N.Ireland needs a consistency across the Health Boards on how and
when to respond to child protection issues and concerns, and on availability
of services for children, young people and adults. For example the Eastern
and Southern Boards/Trusts recognise the need to realistically core fund NEXUS
counselling services for survivors in their areas while the Northern Board
refuse any core
funding, despite 25% of clients coming from this Board area, and the WHSSB/Trusts
provide a miniscule grant topped up periodically from slippage. It is
of great concern to NEXUS that sexual abuse has not been prioritised in the
'Priorities for Action' document, which has, in turn, been used by trusts and
boards to avoid funding services. Lessons learnt. Having been working
in this area for eighteen years, NEXUS recognises that reporting of abuse is
increased through:
n
Public education on the nature of sexual abuse
n
Information on options re reporting
n
Sensitive handling by all personnel in contact with service users
n
Counselling, which helps a client understand their experience and empowers
them to report The long-term effects
of child sexual abuse often leaves people vulnerable to further abuse, consequently
clients' children are also made vulnerable. Consequently counselling can educate
and empower clients in protecting themselves, and their children. NEXUS' experience over eighteen
years suggests that the majority of sexual abuse is not reported. Many survivors
wait until the perpetrator is deceased or until another person discloses abuse
by the same perpetrator. Over 3,000 people
contact NEXUS annually. In Belfast alone, the waiting list grows at the rate
of forty people a month and is currently standing at three hundred. Someone
from N Ireland has abused each waiting client. Where are these people, because
they are not all in prison and they are not all dead? Forty people a month
in Belfast alone are disclosing their experience of sexual abuse; ninety percent
of these people have not reported it to the police. NEXUS has centres across
N.Ireland, each with their own waiting lists. Further, conviction rates for
reported cases are grossly inadequate. The DPP refuses to proceed with many
cases or plea-bargains which results in a much-reduced sentence and the true
story behind a case never being heard. When survivors do get to give their
evidence in court, the process has little to do with uncovering the truth and
more to do with 'demolishing ' the witness. We need a multi-tiered response
to sexual abuse. We need to provide adequate services for survivors who can
be supported to disclose information on perpetrators; we need to develop a
more creative response to working with perpetrators particularly adolescent
perpetrators, it's not just about conviction or non-conviction rates. And we
need to aggressively promote a public education campaign to raise the community's
awareness of the realities of abuse.
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 1. INTRODUCTION The Northern Ireland Public
Service Alliance has been active for a considerable period of time in highlighting
the serious problems arising from a consistent failure to provide adequate
resources to implement the Children's Order and subsequent policies such as
n
The changes in the juvenile justice legislation
n
Children's services' planning
n
Northern Ireland Child Care, Children's Trust
n
Review of "Co-operating" to protect children
n
Social Services Inspectorate Reports e.g. "Planning To Care" (1999)
n
National Foster Care Standards and Code of Practice
n
Children Matter
n
Sex Offenders Act
n
Introduction of the "Framework
of the Assessment of Children Matter Inquiry into Residential/ General
Accommodation. Children in Need and their Families. Concern about the inadequacy
of resources reached a point in June 2002 where members engaged in childcare
programmes staged a rally at Stormont and initiated a continuing work to rule.
The opportunity was taken to make a presentation to the Health Services Committee on that
date. Four NIPSA representatives addressed the committee and highlighted
the gravity of the situation and gave examples of the practical problems experienced by Social
Work Staff on an ongoing basis. Structures, Legislation and Service Issues. Many of our members who work
in this field feel that there are a number of concerns ranging from both Lacunae
in the original legislation to child protection procedures. Members are concerned that
the ethos of the order and principles of Paramouncy, Partnership, Parental
Responsibility, Principle of No Delay and Prevention within the legislation
are not being met and that what is required is co-ordinated investment of resources
across all departments to develop preventative services to support families
before developing into crisis. A failure by this inquiry to address these issues
will result in further cycles of inquiries and crises in child care.
n
Case Work: On a continuing basis
caseloads are so tight they prohibit the delivery of the service expected of
staff but are nevertheless accountable for. There is an unacceptably high level
of working at home and out of hours. Members are extremely concerned about
consequent levels of risk. They have highlighted the fact that continuing under-funding
necessitates the prioritisation of work to the point where staff are (continually)
prioritising high-risk cases. There is no consistent methodology for case weighting
nor are there guidelines for the protection of caseloads. The burden
falls disproportionately on newly qualified or relatively inexperienced staff
administering the Childcare Programme.
n
Communication: Whilst procedure and protocols
with key parties have been introduced the mismatch between workloads and staff
resources mean that these mechanisms are continually under pressure and therefore
have been constrained in their development.
n
Linkages: Whilst staff are committed to
the development of appropriate linkages. This often demands the commitment
of social work staff to attendances at meetings outside the normal working
and over and above the expected commitment to already full workloads.
n
Workforce Issues: NIPSA is actively involved in the Workforce Planning
Initiative, which has highlighted the continuing shortfall in social
care workers and social workers in particular. The issues of training and supervision
are key matters for social work staff and often noted in important inquiries
within the service.
n
Resources: NIPSA has repeatedly made the
case that under funding constitutes to be the single most crucial contributor
to the under-resourcing and continued problems in childcare.
n
Lessons Learnt Inquiries into child protection
issues continually highlight the key lessons learnt in any particular situation
but progress is almost inevitably hampered by the fundamental resourcing problem.
Members feel let down and demoralised by this situation. 2. GENERAL COMMENTS Since the introduction of
the Children's Order (1995) NIPSA has constantly raised the issue of the lack
of resources to fully implement the provisions of the order. NIPSA Conferences
have repeatedly expressed the view that a crisis of significant proportions
exists in Childcare Services. The crisis has led to a number
of industrial disputes in recent times. The disputes were not focussed on additional
remuneration but rather were centred on the inadequacy of the resources provided
to allow the delivery of adequate services. Most recently this case was demonstrated
at the rally at Stormont on 19th June 2002 and presented to the
Heath Services Committee on that day. While NIPSA supports the
general concept of the NI Social Care Council we are concerned that the current
plan for implementation will have a negative impact on children services. It should be noted that the
pressures and stress referred to apply equally to all support staff including
administration and clerical staff. WRITTEN
SUBMISSION BY: BRIEFING FROM THE NORTHERN IRELAND
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
2. The evidence below focuses on the protection of children in custody in Northern Ireland. 3. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is empowered to carry out investigations under section 69(8) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. However, the Commission has no concurrent powers to compel the disclosure of documents or testimony. 4. In May 2000 the Human Rights Commission decided to conduct an investigation into the care of children in juvenile justice centres. In Our Care, the investigation report was published in March 2002. The full report is available on the Commission's website. Chapter five, which deals with the right of the child to protection from harm, is copied for the information of the Committee. 5. As youth justice remains a reserved matter, authority for the care of children in juvenile justice centres lies with the Northern Ireland Office and Juvenile Justice Board. However, the issues raised below touch on the duties of bodies which are accountable to the local administration and the recommendations of the report have implications for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. 6. International human rights standards give children an absolute right to protection from harm. There has been longstanding concern that allegations of abuse made by children in custody have not been properly investigated. 7. Contrary to international standards there is no independent complaints mechanism for children in custody. The child protection procedures currently in use in the centres are out of date. 8. Two recent official audits have been carried out of child protection cases emanating from Rathgael and Lisnevin. The general findings from these audits have not been placed in the public domain to date. 9. The Commission has serious concerns about the way that Joint Protocol arrangements are handled in respect of children in custody. When boys from Lisnevin make allegations either against other boys or staff, if the allegations relate to 'minor assaults' they are not investigated by the police CARE team but delegated to uniformed officers. As far as the Commission could establish (not withstanding its inability to access the relevant child protection files) for the past two years, all cases emanating from Lisnevin have been passed to police at Donaghadee for investigation. The Commission understands that there have been no joint social services/police investigations since the police adopted the practice of referring allegations to Donaghadee uniformed officers. The Commission understands from discussions with the police that the delegation of investigation of allegations of this nature to non-CARE team officers is permitted under a PSNI Force Order on child protection. However, the Commission has serious concerns about what it considers is, at best, a misinterpretation of the Joint Protocol. 10. The Commission recommendations include that both police and social services should review their role in operating the Joint Protocol in relation to Lisnevin; the role of the Social Services Inspectorate in relation to monitoring the investigation of child protection cases should be reviewed to see whether this can be enhanced; the Child Protection Panel of the Ulster Hospital and Community Trust should have responsibility for child protection policy in the centres, given that both centres are in that Trust area. 11. The Commission was unable to access files relating to child protection because of its lack of powers. It is imperative that the Children's Commissioner should not be hampered in this way. 12 September 2002 Executive
Summary Introduction The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is empowered to carry out investigations under section 69(8) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. However, the Commission has no concurrent powers to compel the disclosure of documents or testimony. In May 2000 the Human Rights Commission decided to conduct an investigation into the care of children in juvenile justice centres. The process of this investigation has demonstrated the inadequacy of the Commission's powers. The investigation involved a variety of methods including analysis of relevant international human rights standards; interviews with eleven children and twenty staff in juvenile justice centres; an examination of files; a focus group discussion with probation officers; analysis of legislation, documentation and statistical information relating to the centres; information gathering meetings with key people involved in the operation of the juvenile justice system. Background 1. When this investigation commenced there were three juvenile justice centres (all former Training Schools) in operation: n St Patrick's situated in West Belfast, originally held only Catholic boys but latterly a small number of Protestant boys were detained there. St Patrick's closed in November 2000 as part of Government rationalisation of the juvenile justice estate. n Rathgael situated near Bangor accommodates boys and girls. Prior to the introduction of the CJCO, Rathgael accommodated 'non Roman Catholic' children but is now used for the detention of girls and a small number of younger or vulnerable boys. n Both St Patrick's and Rathgael were relatively open facilities but with some secure facilities. n Lisnevin, in Millisle, is a secure centre built on the model of a Grade C prison. Lisnevin is currently resourced to accommodate 25-30 boys of any religion. 2. The physical environment at Lisnevin has been criticised by children's and human rights campaigners and in March 2000 the Criminal Justice Review recommended that it should close. Government subsequently announced plans to rationalise the juvenile justice estate. These plans included closure of St Patrick's (with immediate effect) and the closure of Lisnevin (still to take place). Northern Ireland is to have one, new-build juvenile justice centre on the Rathgael site, housing boys and girls. In the interim Lisnevin is to close and young people be detained in updated accommodation in Rathgael. This rationalisation will result in a decrease in the capacity of the system from 110 places to 40 places. 3. The Commission expressed its view to Government that the development of small, family sized units, based in local communities was more in keeping with international human rights standards than the building of a single centre. 4. The Commission has concerns about Government's plans including: n inadequate consultation with staff, children and their families about the proposals; n plans to house a small number of girls along with a larger number of boys; n the siting of the proposed centre in the predominantly Protestant area of Rathgael; n the inaccessability of the proposed centre for families particularly from the north and west of Northern Ireland; n an over-representation of Catholic children in the centres particularly from north and west Belfast; and n an under-representation of Catholics amongst the staff in the centres. 5. International human rights standards identify three core principles children's: the best interests of the child must be paramount (Article 3 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child); children have a right to be heard (Article 12); children have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis, for example, of race, religion or gender (Article 2). These principles are inadequately reflected in law, policy and practice relating to children in custody and it is recommended that steps be taken to address this gap. 6. Juvenile justice centres are used for detention of children aged 10-16 who have been remanded or sentenced under the Criminal Justice (Children) (NI) Order 1998 (CJCO) or remanded under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (PACE). 7. The Commission considers that the age of criminal responsibility at 10 years of age is too low and is in breach of international standards. It recommends that Government raise the age. 8. International human rights standards define children as all those under 18. The Commission considers that Government is in breach of this principle through its failure to include all 17 year olds in the ambit of the CJCO. Girls as young as 15 can be sent to the Young Offenders Centre at Maghaberry Prison in clear breach of international standards which state that children should not be detained with adults. 9. The Justice (NI) Bill (currently progressing through Parliament) fails to incorporate human rights standards in its proposed aims for the youth justice system. This legislation should be amended accordingly. Findings 10. International standards state that children should be detained only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest period of time. The Commission has concerns about a high level of remand under the CJCO for children are not subsequently given custodial sentences. 11. The Commission is concerned about detention in Lisnevin under PACE with the effect that Lisnevin is used predominantly as a holding centre rather than as a centre for rehabilitation. 12. There is an over-representation of children from care backgrounds in custody especially on remand, yet these children are not any more likely to receive custodial sentences than other young people. 13. Over-use of remand to custody results in a high turnover of young people and presents difficulties for staff working in the centres. 14. The Commission urges Government to monitor the use of remand; to develop a strategy with the Juvenile Justice Board and police service to reduce the levels of admission under PACE; and to review existing care provision with an emphasis on provision of specialist and differentiated care and to develop creative alternatives to custodial remand. 15. International standards stress that assessment of a child's needs is the starting point in the rehabilitation process which must be followed by development and implementation of an individualised treatment plan. Although there has been some recent improvement the system for assessment, planning and review in the centres is not yet fully compliant with international standards. 16. Children's rights in assessment and planning can only be achieved if sufficient resources are there to meet the needs identified and the investigation found that this was not the case in relation to education, health care and rehabilitation. There is a need for an improved multi-agency approach in assessing children and meeting their needs. It is recommended that a multi-agency assessment and review panel be established for this purpose. 17. International standards emphasise the need to prevent offending, divert young people from the formal court system and undertake rehabilitative work in the community. Children deprived of their liberty have a right to be guaranteed the benefit of meaningful activities and programmes aimed at developing their potential as members of society. The Justice (NI) Bill should be amended to include these standards within the stated aims of the system. 18. The lack of available information makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of work being carried out in the centres on children's offending behaviour. All future programmes should be monitored and evaluated. 19. While the range of programmes on tackling young people's offending has improved in both centres over recent years, some problems are outstanding. Measures to address this should include enhanced staff training on rehabilitative work; a review of the existing staff provision in Lisnevin; more resources for rehabilitative work; and increased contact between the centres and communities children will return to. 20. Multi-agency involvement is crucial to children's rehabilitation and reintegration. Consideration should be given to the creation of a multi-disciplinary staff team to co-ordinate the custody and community phase of Juvenile Justice Centre Orders. 21. International human rights standards give children an absolute right to protection from harm. There has been longstanding concern that allegations made by boys of a child protection nature have not in the past been properly investigated. 22. Contrary to international standards there is no independent complaints mechanism for children in custody. 23. The child protection procedures currently in use in the centres are out of date. 24. Two recent official audits have been carried out of child protection cases emanating from both centres. The general findings from these audits should be published. 25. The current operation of the child protection process gives cause for concern. When boys from Lisnevin make allegations of a child protection nature these are not investigated by the police CARE team but delegated to uniformed officers. This results in inadequate measures for the protection of children. The Commission recommends that an independent expert investigation be established by the Juvenile Justice Board to review the child protection process including the roles of police and social services. 26. International human rights standards stress the need for regimes for young people deprived of their liberty to strike an appropriate balance between respecting the rights of young people and securing the safety of others, including staff. 27. The Juvenile Justice Centre Rules do not strike the right balance but are prison-like rather than care oriented. They should be rewritten and made accessible for children. 28. A code of conduct for staff in the centres should be developed in consultation with staff and young people and made available to young people in an accessible form. 29. The Scrabo isolation block in Lisnevin is still being used, although for more restricted periods. This practice should stop. 30. Staff training on the use of restraint has recently been carried out by Home Office approved trainers. All staff should also be given training in de-escalating situations. The Juvenile Justice Board should monitor and review incidents of the use of restraint to ensure compliance with international standards. 31. Children have a right to health and health care. Where possible, children in custody should access health care in the community but custodial centres should also be sufficiently equipped to deal with children's health care needs. 32. Responsibility for the health care of children in custody does not fall within the Department of Health and Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) but is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office (NIO). This results in inadequate health care access. NIO's failure to date to consult with the DHSSPS about future plans for health care in the juvenile justice system is contrary to international standards which emphasise the need for a multi-agency approach. 33. Current levels of therapeutic provision (including psychological and psychiatric services) for children in custody are seriously inadequate. This potentially puts children's mental health, and indeed their lives at risk. There is an urgent need for the Juvenile Justice Board and centre management to put in place both policy and staff provision to deal with young people's psychological and emotional needs. 34. Health education and promotion is important for young people in custody and should be prioritised and supported through additional resources. 35. Children in custody have a right to private and family life. The siting of the current and proposed centres creates difficulties for contact between children and their families. If Government goes ahead with its plans for a single centre a strategy should be developed for ensuring that children's contact with their families is maximised. Policies should be developed for working in partnership with families throughout the child's sentence or period on remand. 36. The Juvenile Justice Centre Rules do not adequately protect children's right to privacy. 37. Children have a right to an effective education. Education for children in custody should be suited to their needs and abilities and designed to prepare them for their return to society. Education in the centres is inadequately resourced especially in relation to children with learning disabilities. 38. NIO responsibility for education in the centres marginalises children from mainstream education and can deprive teachers of vital training and support. This responsibility should be passed to the Department of Education. In the interim, contact between NIO and the Department in respect of educating children in custody should be maximised. The Future Most children entering custody present challenging behaviour. The responsibilities of management and staff are many and complex. These children are in the care of the state and there is an onus on all of society to contribute constructively to their well-being and reintegration. Human rights provide a framework for transforming the care of children in the youth justice system. The Human Rights Commission looks forward to working in partnership with others in meeting this challenge. Chapter
5 The
right of the child to protection from harm International standards International human rights law gives children an absolute right to protection from all forms of ill-treatment, torture, neglect and physical, emotional and sexual abuse. [i] International standards specifically provide that the youth justice system should uphold the rights and safety, and promote the physical and mental well-being of children. [ii] Accordingly, children in custody must be protected from ill-treatment by staff and other young people. [iii] Staff, too, have a right to protection and while international standards recognise their obligations to protect young people from abuse, they also express their right to receive training, which will enable them to carry out these responsibilities effectively. [iv] It is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) and the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) to ensure that this occurs. This chapter examines whether the policies and procedures on child protection in juvenile justice centres comply, and are applied in a way that complies with international and indeed national requirements. In order to put this assessment into context, it is necessary to take a brief look at the history of concern that exists around child protection issues, and the reviews currently on-going in this area. The chapter will then go on to consider the current arrangements to protect children in custody looking specifically at the child protection procedures and the investigation of child protection allegations in the juvenile justice centres giving special consideration to the role of NIACRO's Independent Representation scheme in this area. Complaints made by young people about ill-treatment and threats of violence by the police and by paramilitary organisations respectively are also represented, notwithstanding that they fall outside the strict terms of the investigation. Finally, the chapter addresses the issues of substance abuse and bullying as both fall within the wider scope of child protection requirements. The history of concerns There is a history of concern about the adequacy of child protection procedures for children in custody in Northern Ireland. The following historical overview aims to show that current deficiencies in child protection are not new, but represent a continuation of existing failure. [v] Lisnevin A report by the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO) - a non-governmental organisation working in the field of criminal justice and community safety - details issues arising from the Independent Representation (IR) scheme in Lisnevin between 1994 and 1999. [vi] The report documents a history of complaints from boys in Lisnevin and records 20 allegations made during this five year period ranging from extremely serious incidents of assault by staff to bullying by other boys. The report also reveals that the response of Lisnevin management to the allegations involved a mixture of flawed policies and procedures and poor practice. Before 1995, allegations were investigated internally by the centre director, but new guidelines introduced in that year provided that internal investigation was no longer permitted. From then on all, allegations of a child protection nature had to be referred to the police and social services. Evidence shows, however, that this practice was not always followed. In May 1997, for example, an allegation of physical assault on a boy by a staff member was investigated internally by Lisnevin management. [vii] In 1998, concerns were expressed about management having interviewed boys who had made complaints of a serious nature before the police were contacted, and of at least two boys dropping allegations following these discussions. [viii] Lisnevin management practice of investigating child protection allegations internally before informing the police (if at all) was confirmed by the SSI report in 1997. [ix] NIACRO records the situation coming to a head in 1998. In November of that year, a boy complained to an IR volunteer that staff were watching him when he went to the toilet. The new IR co-ordinator (in place during the permanent IR co-ordinator's secondment) was deeply unhappy about the failure of Lisnevin management to process the complaint in the appropriate manner. When the co-ordinator visited the boy, the child expressed fear for his safety and spoke of having witnessed a boy being attacked by another boy, as a staff member present failed to intervene. He said that he himself was being threatened by these boys. The NIACRO report notes that despite the strenuous attempts made by the co-ordinator to insist upon compliance with procedures, the issue was not referred through the appropriate child protection process. The co-ordinator argued that the IR scheme should be withdrawn from Lisnevin in the absence of compliance with the agreed child protection procedures. NIACRO management disagreed arguing that, although sharing the coordinator's concerns, it was in children's best interests for the project to retain the IR role in the centre. Having failed to negotiate a withdrawal of the scheme and the implementation of a service that maximised child safety and the proper processing of allegations of abuse, the co-ordinator resigned. In April 1999, NIACRO was informed by Lisnevin management that allegations of verbal abuse were no longer considered child protection issues by the police. This was in response to an incident where a young person alleged that a staff member had threatened to take him to his room by the throat. Lisnevin management had (correctly in the Commission's view) passed the issue on to the police CARE team at Newtownards, which rejected it as not a child protection issue. [x] Concerns regarding child protection issues have been raised by others in this area: A former member of Lisnevin staff has publicly raised concerns that some staff were involved in physical abuse of boys. [xi] n The matter has been raised in Parliament. For example, in answer to a parliamentary question put by Kevin McNamara MP, the (then) Secretary of State for Northern Ireland confirmed that two boys were compensated for injuries allegedly inflicted by staff in Lisnevin during the 1991-1998 period. These incidents occurred in 1995 and 1996. In its 1997 inspection, the Social Services Inspectorate was told by a boy that care workers would give 'a clip round the ear' for misbehaving. This remark confirmed other comments made by concerned staff to SSI that rough handling of boys had occurred in the past and was continuing, albeit less frequently. [xii] Rathgael and St Patrick's Anxieties regarding the failure to operate child protection procedures correctly have also been expressed with regard to the other (then) Training Schools, Rathgael and St Patrick's. In its 1997 inspection report on Rathgael, SSI found that copies of NIO guidance on policy and procedures for child protection had not been distributed to all staff and that 'little had been provided in the way of training.' [xiii] The Inspector has also reported incidents of sexual assault by one resident on others, in which proper procedures were not followed. [xiv] In St Patrick's in 1997 the Social Services Inspectorate was concerned about the protection of a boy who was in custody on charges of sexual offences and was himself being bullied by his peers. SSI found that the school's new child protection policies were not being properly implemented to protect the child. [xv] Later in 1999, the Inspectorate found an 'overpreoccupation with bullying' among St Patrick's staff. While agreeing that all bullying is 'child abuse' SSI argued that formal child protection procedures do not always need to be invoked if it is possible to deal with the issue at the point of disclosure. [xvi] It is clear from this evidence that, historically, there have been grounds for concern about the protection of children in all three juvenile justice centres. In the light of these concerns, official audits are currently being carried out in relation to cases emanating from Lisnevin and Rathgael. Audits of past cases A review of child protection procedures and separate audits of previous child protection cases are on-going in both Lisnevin and Rathgael The Social Services Inspectorate and Juvenile Justice Board recently completed an audit of cases coming through the NIACRO IR project relating to Lisnevin. The audit resulted in the identification of nine cases considered to have been inappropriately closed, in which it was recommended that the young person be contacted and asked whether they wish to have the case reopened. In this regard, SSI recommended to the JJB that an independent organisation with expertise in child protection issues be contracted to follow up cases requiring further investigation. The Human Rights Commission strongly supports this proposal. The JJB has written to the young people involved asking them if they wish their case to be reopened. While the Board has provided those young people with a stamped addressed envelope to facilitate their reply, [xvii] the Commission disagrees with an approach which appears to place an onus on young people with regard to re-opening the complaints made in the past. The Commission has a number of misgivings about this audit and follow-up approach: it is concerned that the audit took the form of a paper exercise. Neither young people, nor those associated with the issue, were interviewed. n the audit dealt only with cases arising from NIACRO's IR project. The Commission is aware that other cases have been referred through the Joint Protocol. n as far as the Commission is aware, the audit did not cover all aspects of the child protection process, such as the role of the police. In any case, the Commission is unclear to what extent the SSI is empowered to examine police practice in relation to the working of the Joint Protocol. n while confidentiality of the young people needs to be secured, the general findings of the review have not yet been made public. The Rathgael audit is being conducted under the auspices of the Joint Strategy Group, a group involving the Ulster Hospital Community Trust, the police, SSI, NIO and Rathgael. The audit deals with allegations dating back to when Rathgael was a Training School, ranging from failure by management and staff to intervene in incidents to protect children, to allegations of staff involvement in inappropriate behaviour, to physical abuse. The impetus for this audit came from a joint view that although there was insufficient evidence for prosecution in some cases, they raised issues of relevance for policy and practice. Given its concerns relating to past and current practice in child protection in relation to juvenile justice centres the Commission has called on the Juvenile Justice Board to establish an independent, expert investigation into policy and practice. As long as no such investigation is forthcoming, the Human Rights Commission intends to continue and extend this part of the current investigation into the child protection process in juvenile justice centres. The Commission has accordingly asked the Board for access to child protection files and for assistance in contacting those young people with experience of the system. Recommendations 1. Juvenile Justice Board should instigate an independent, expert investigation into child protection in the juvenile justice centres. The remit of this review should include reference to international human rights standards and the standards set in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. The remit should include a commitment to interview children and others with experience of the child protection system. The findings should be made public. 2. The general findings and recommendations of the audits carried out by the Juvenile Justice Board with SSI, and the Joint Strategy Group should be published. Law, policy and practice Both the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 contain protection for children reflective of international standards. Additionally, the 'Joint Protocol' for social services and police outlines procedures for investigating allegations of child abuse. The Human Rights Act 1998 Section 6 of the Human Rights Act (HRA) requires public authorities to act in compliance with Convention rights, including Article 3, which prohibits torture, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. The European Court of Human Rights has made it clear that the vulnerability of children requires that they have sufficient protection against any treatment constituting a serious breach of personal integrity. [xviii] Under the HRA, therefore, all public bodies involved in the care of children in juvenile justice centres (including the centres, the JJB and the NIO) are obliged to take steps to ensure that young people are not ill-treated and to protect them from harm. If they fail to take adequate measures to protect young people from abuse by others, whether in a private or public capacity, they may be liable under the HRA. The Children Order The Children (NI) Order (1995) is the main piece of legislation dealing with the protection of children from abuse in Northern Ireland. NIO Standards for Juvenile Justice Centres demand that child protection policies and practices in the centres conform to Children Order guidance. [xix] Under the Children Order, Health and Social Services Boards and Trusts have a duty to investigate where there are concerns about a child suffering or being likely to suffer 'significant harm'. Although this term is not defined by the legislation or its guidance, the Order does identify different forms of child abuse, including physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse and neglect. [xx] The Order contains guidance and regulations concerning the protection of children including children living away from home. [xxi] The guidance stresses the importance of interagency working in the best interests of the child; [xxii] thoroughness in conducting investigations; [xxiii] parental participation throughout and participation of the child insofar as it is in their best interests; [xxiv] sound record keeping, transparency [xxv] and clear policies, procedures and training for all staff. [xxvi] The 'Joint Protocol' In the early 1990s, a protocol for joint investigation of child abuse allegations was developed between social services and the police, [xxvii] the most recent edition of which takes into account the requirements of the Children Order. When a young person in custody makes an allegation of a child protection nature, the agreed procedure in both juvenile justice centres is to refer the complaint to police and social services for processing through Joint Protocol arrangements. However, the Commission has serious concerns about the way the Joint Protocol arrangements are handled in respect of children in custody. [xxviii] Standards and procedures for child protection in juvenile justice centres While the Juvenile Justice Centre Rules state as a general principle that children ordered to be detained in a juvenile justice centre shall be held safely for their protection, [xxix] they offer no further guidance as to how to secure to each child the right to be protected from harm. The NIO Standards require that each juvenile justice centre have specific policies and practices for keeping young people safe from self harm and abuse from family, staff, visitors and other residents. As noted above these polices and practices must conform to Children Order guidance. [xxx] Despite these requirements, arrangements for child protection in the juvenile justice centres are apparently based on an outdated NIO document, 'The Child Protection Policy and Procedures for Training Schools', 1995. This was not revised to reflect the changes brought about by the CJCO 1998 and consequently, juvenile justice centres are still working to a document which is entirely inappropriate to the current system. [xxxi] Although 'copies of the child protection process are available to children' [xxxii] , there does not appear to be any document to explain child protection procedures to children in the centres or their parents. Children are informed, however, that they can telephone Childline and receive a contact card (informing them who to contact about a problem or query) and details for contacting 'Chalky', the Children's Law Centre's free information and advice line. The review of child protection procedures initiated in November 1998 is being conducted by the Social Services Inspectorate and has now become the responsibility of the Juvenile Justice Board. The remit of this review is: 'to undertake a review of the child protection policy and procedures in training schools which were issued to the training schools by NIO in November 1995. The review should make recommendations for any changes in both procedure and practice that would be beneficial to safeguarding the wellbeing of the young people and protecting the interests of staff.' The work of the Juvenile Justice Board in revising these procedures has been delayed pending the publication of DHSSPS guidance on child protection. Regardless, the ongoing failure to produce revised procedures stands in apparent breach of the state's obligations under international law to protect children from harm, as well as its own standards. It is conceivable that the current situation, under which there is no effective procedure in place to protect children from harm, is in breach of Article 3 ECHR and Human Rights Act. [xxxiii] This is an area in which staff themselves feel vulnerable. One member of staff at Lisnevin commented: "I would like some more specific training [on child protection] because it's an area where I have never been formally trained. Once a child did make a disclosure to me and I wasn't 100% sure what to do. I felt I was in a situation where I was treading on egg shells." [xxxiv] Another staff member said that they had done training in their own time on dealing with children who had been abused and found it invaluable in their work. [xxxv] The production of revised procedures will of course necessitate refresher training for all staff (care and ancilliary) in the child protection process. It is recommended that as many staff as possible are provided with specialist training in the area. The Commission was unable to access any document which detailed what protection is afforded to children who have made allegations. The procedure for dealing with complaints made on behalf of young people at Lisnevin does not involve a policy of routinely suspending staff against whom allegations have been made. [xxxvi] Instead, the member of staff is merely required not to discuss the complaint with the complainant and efforts are made to ensure that the member of staff is placed where they will not come into routine contact with the young person. This could place considerable strain on management of the centres in terms of staffing arrangements. This is an issue which must be considered when staffing levels are being reviewed to ensure protection for both children and staff. At present there is no formal requirement for young people themselves to have to 'sign off' that they are content that a complaint has been properly investigated. One interviewee (who was no longer resident in a juvenile justice centre) explained to the Commission that he was unhappy about how his complaint was processed. He had received a letter from Lisnevin (viewed by the researcher) informing him that his complaint had been investigated by the police and that there would be no prosecution or disciplinary action. The letter also stated that a strategy meeting would be held to discuss the outcome of his complaint. It was clear that the interviewee felt marginalised from this process. The Commission understands that one of the recommendations arising out of the joint SSI/JJB audit was that it should be standard practice for young people to be asked to 'sign off' complaints in the presence of a trusted adult. The Commission supports this recommendation. [xxxvii] Recommendations 3. Juvenile Justice Board should produce and disseminate revised child protection procedures with urgency. The guidance and procedures should: n conform with guidance in the Children Order, 'Cooperating to Protect Children' and 'Working Together to Safeguard Children', as well as international principles. n have a clearly defined remit, including the definition of abuse, and set out the principles by which it is to be governed. n detail the procedures to be followed when abuse is suspected, including where the suspected perpetrator is a member of staff n include details of how the young person who has made the allegation and any witnesses will be protected and supported during the process. n Ensure that young people 'sign off' complaints in the presence of a trusted adult. 4. Juvenile Justice Board should appoint two contact personnel, one of whom must be on site at all times, specifically trained with a remit of liaising with social services, as well as other appropriate agencies for advice and consultation and supporting the child who has made the complaint and other young people who may have acted as witnesses. This could be a seconded post from another agency such as probation or social services. The post should have a status equivalent to management level. 5. Justice Board and centre managers should develop and implement refresher training for all staff following the production of revised child protection policies. 6. A strict policy of medical assessment should be put in place in the centres whereby everyone admitted to the centre by the police or from court must undergo a medical within 24 hours and those released or transferred to another centre should be similarly assessed prior to departure. 7. An updated child protection policy should be made available for staff, children and their parents. There must be a child friendly version disseminated to all young people on admission. 8. Once the revised procedures are in place, the Juvenile Justice Board should initiate constant, independent monitoring of the working of the child protection process. 9. As a significant number of staff were appointed before the Pre-Employment Consultancy Service was established and have never been vetted, all staff working in the juvenile justice centre should be checked regardless of their start date. Child protection in practice - operating the Joint Protocol When an allegation of a child protection nature is made in a juvenile justice centre, management must immediately inform the local social services unit and the local police CARE team. Lisnevin cases are referred to the PSNI CARE Unit at Newtownards, and Rathgael cases to PSNI CARE Unit at Willowfield, Belfast. These can involve allegations of abuse of children in the centre (caused either by other young people or by staff) or disclosure of abuse alleged to have happened to the child prior to their detention or during home visits. The police CARE unit at Newtownards provided figures showing that in 1999 two cases from Lisnevin were referred to its office, in 2000 there were three allegations against staff and two allegations of abuse by other young people and by May 2001 there had been two allegations. NIO figures record seven Joint Protocol referrals from Lisnevin and one from Rathgael from January 2000 to March 2001. [xxxviii] The Human Rights Commission has serious concerns about the operation of the Joint Protocol in relation to Lisnevin. The Commission considers that current practice may compromise the safety of children in the centre and does not meet the standard of prioritising the child's best interests. It is important to stress that as far as the Commission is aware Lisnevin management is now correctly following procedures in alerting the police CARE unit and Newtownards Family and Childcare Social Services team of any allegations of a child protection nature. Both the police and social services in Newtownards have confirmed that they are informed immediately when a child protection allegation is made. However, the Commission is concerned about recent changes in the way that allegations are then processed, particularly by the police. Historically, when a complaint relating to child protection was referred from Lisnevin to the police CARE team, this unit carried out the actual investigation of the case in liaison with social services. However, due to the CARE unit's wide regional remit and heavy workload, police management decided on a change of policy. The view was put to the Commission that the role of the unit is primarily to deal with 'child abuse' rather than with what was perceived as a simple assault. [xxxix] The decision of the police in early 2000 was that the CARE unit would make a paper based assessment of the complaint and, from this, would determine if it should be investigated within the unit or referred to uniformed officers at Donaghadee. Current practice is that: n if the reported assault was alleged to have been carried out by Lisnevin staff and is 'low level' it will be referred to Donaghadee; n if it involves serious injury it goes to CID; n if the alleged assault happened outside the area it goes to the local sergeant for investigation (eg if a boy discloses that he was assaulted prior to going into Lisnevin or on home leave); n if the allegation involves sexual assault or a pattern of abuse it is investigated by the CARE Unit. The police have developed a written 'draft' protocol for dealing with allegations emanating from Lisnevin. An initial strategy meeting (by telephone) is held between staff from social services and police. However, an officer from the CARE unit informed the Commission that it is only if there is an allegation of sexual assault or suspicion of a pattern of abuse that appropriate contact with social services wil be made using Joint PJ1 forms. In these cases a Joint Protocol trained social worker will be involved from the child's area. [xl] As far as the Commission is aware (notwithstanding its inability to access the relevant child protection files) for nearly two years now, all cases emanating from Lisnevin have been passed to police at Donaghadee for investigation. A representative from Ards Social Services Initial Response Team confirmed that there have been no joint social services/police investigations since the police adopted the practice of referring allegations to Donaghadee uniformed branch. The Commission understands from discussions with the police that the delegation of investigation of allegations of this nature to non-CARE team officers is permitted under a PSNI Force Order on child protection. However, the Commission has serious concerns about what it considers is, at best, a misinterpretation of the Joint Protocol: Definition of 'child abuse' and 'significant harm'. The definition of child abuse as involving only sexual assault or patterns of assault is inconsistent with the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which identifies different forms of child abuse including neglect, emotional abuse, physical injury and sexual abuse. Physical injury is defined in the Joint Protocol as 'actual or likely deliberate physical injury to a child, or willful or neglectful failure to prevent physical injury or suffering to a child.' [xli] The key issue is whether the child may have sustained 'significant harm'. Harm is defined as the ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development. Whether it is 'significant' is determined by his/her health as compared to that which could reasonably be expected of a similar child. [xlii] In the Commission's view, it is difficult to determine whether a child held in custody has suffered 'significant harm' without talking to the child and otherwise investigating the situation. The particular vulnerability of these young people, most of whom have a history of family, social and educational problems, coupled with the closed nature of the institution, the inhospitable physical environment of the centre and the unequal power relations within any custodial situation must be taken into account. In these circumstances there is a need for openness and transparency which is in everyone's interests. Additionally, the failure to talk to the child before deciding whether the case is a child protection one means that Lisnevin is acting as the sole conduit for information. This is a situation which leaves both the child and Lisnevin staff very vulnerable. The Joint Protocol stipulates that single agency investigations by the police should take place only in 'exceptional' cases'. None of the examples given for suitable police-only investigations match the sort of allegations emanating from Lisnevin. [xliii] On the contrary, the Protocol notes that Joint Investigation should particularly be considered for 'looked after' children. [xliv] The Commission is assured that uniformed officers in Donaghadee have had child protection training. However, the appearance of a uniformed officer may be intimidating to a child who may wish to be protected against harm but does not necessarily want to bring the full rigors of the criminal law into effect. The Joint Protocol is clear that an important part of the function of the child protection process is to assess the child's need. In the Commission's view investigation by the CARE team sends a stronger signal that the child is at the centre of the process. A representative from Social Services Newtownards Initial Response Team described his role in relation to allegations from Lisnevin as having four components: 1. To ensure that the young person was afforded the opportunity to make a complaint; 2. To ensure that the relevant Probation Offficer and/or Social Worker was informed; 3. To ensure that the young person's family were informed; 4. To ensure that Lisnevin management responded appropriately to the allegations. [xlv] Following consultations with the police, social services also attend meetings in Lisnevin to discuss the outcome of the investigation. However, since the implementation of the police policy of delegating 'minor assaults' to Donaghadee for investigation, social services have played no 'joint investigation' role in relation to cases emanating from Lisnevin. In the Commission's view, this marginalisation of social services from the process is not in children's best interests. The Children Order notes that social services and police officers approach child protection from different perspectives. Police involvement stems from their primary responsibilities to protect the community and to bring offenders to justice. The Order guidance notes: the police and social services have different functions, powers and methods of working. While police will be concerned with investigations of alleged offences, the focus of social services work will be on the welfare of the child and the family. [xlvi] The current process means that the child does not have access to the full range of police and social services functions under the Joint Protocol. This is largely due to the exclusion of children in custody from the protection of the Children Order. Recommendations 10. Both police and social services should review their role in operating the Joint Protocol in relation to Lisnevin. It is recommended that the Social Services Inspectorate play a part in these discussions. 11. The role of SSI in relation to monitoring the investigation of child protection cases should be reviewed to see whether this can be enhanced. 12. Following this review all those involved in the Joint Protocol should be trained specifically on the operation of the Protocol in relation to the juvenile justice centres. 13. The Child Protection Panel of the Ulster Hospital and Community Trust should have responsibility for child protection policy in the centres, given that both centres are in that Trust area. The juvenile justice centres should also have a representative on that Panel, which would ensure that centres were up to date with Child Protection Policy information and encourage good liaison with other agencies. The role of the NIACRO IR project An important way (indeed perhaps the main way) in which allegations of ill-treatment of children (either by other young people or by staff) can be raised in juvenile justice centres is through the Independent Representation (IR) Project managed and run by NIACRO. The aim of the scheme is to provide a service whereby volunteers visit juvenile justice centres on a weekly rota basis, listen to the views of young people and make these views known to staff or management in the schools. The volunteers' training includes a short element on child protection. The IR project has a reporting function only. Although NIACRO can follow up child protection (and other) issues through its regular meetings with centre managers, it has no statutory powers of investigation. The circumstances in which IR visits to children are carried out militates against potential disclosure of abuse. [xlvii] In particular, visits are short and take place in view of staff and other residents. While a child may ask to see an IR in private this will be facilitated by staff but in doing so the child may draw unwanted attention to themselves. Despite the limitations, allegations of a child protection nature continue to be made through the volunteers. Figures provided by NIACRO show that in the years 1999/2000 there were seven issues related to child protection raised through the project in Lisnevin and one bullying incident. [xlviii] A previous co-ordinator of the IR project, who had resigned because of his concerns, expressed the view that the project was encouraging children to raise issues but that these were not effectively addressed through the existing child protection procedures. He concluded that, ironically, the project was potentially placing children in an increased position of vulnerability as, having provided a channel for the allegation to be expressed, the project was unable to ensure that the child would be protected or that the allegation would be thoroughly investigated. The former co-ordinator explained that as a trained social worker with experience in the statutory sector, he had brought the thinking from that sector to the post in NIACRO. This meant: "I had an awareness of legal responsibilities, that if policies are written down, you use them - you don't use your imagination, the time scales that are specified should be followed." [xlix] He was concerned early on that NIACRO, a voluntary organisation, was being placed almost in a statutory, regulatory role without accompanying powers to enforce compliance with procedures and policies. He voiced doubts that a service which was not on-site and had no investigative remit or track record of instigating successful outcome on child protection issues within an appropriate timescale was in the best interests of young people. Clearly, the existence of the IR project should not be seen as a substitute for an effective complaints process with an independent element and on-site independent support for children who have made allegations of abuse. Given the concerns outlined above, the Commission believes that the Juvenile Justice Board must give urgent attention to ensuring that an independent complaints process is put in place and that sufficient protection is given to young people making allegations of a child protection nature. Recommendations 14. The role of the IR project in relation to child protection should be reviewed. 15. Complaints procedures with an independent element should be introduced urgently. Child protection and allegations of police assault While the treatment of young people by the police is not within the strict remit of this investigation, two boys interviewed by the Commission alleged that they had been assaulted by police officers following their arrest and prior to going into the Juvenile Justice Centre. The Commission believes it is important to raise their allegations here. The first boy alleged that he had been abused by the police when he was apprehended while absconding. He said that he had been held in handcuffs with a brown paper bag over his head: "I was spitting on the peelers because I didn't like them. I was high. I got to the police barracks and then they came in to take the handcuffs off me and put a brown paper bag over my head. I couldn't see anything. I tried to bite a hole in the bag and they squashed me up against the wall. There was no need to put a brown paper bag over my head. Do you think that's right?" [l] This interviewee alleged that he had also been assaulted by police on a previous occasion. He had stolen a car and got involved in a chase with police through into Bangor: ".and the car got rammed at Bangor and when I got out the peeler got me on the ground and said this would teach you, you joyriding wee b and hit me a boot to the jaw, and saying shut up or you'll get another one." Another boy said that he had been assaulted by the police on arrest: "Caught stealing a car. Got stopped at a roadblock, they chased me for about half an hour and couldn't catch me when I went through the roadblock. When they did they gave me a bad beating, bruises all over." [li] He said that he had got bruises, a broken arm and scarring. This interviewee said that he had made several complaints about the police but these had been unsuccessful: "They got away with it. when there's three or four cops and you're by yourself they'll believe them before they believe you." Recommendations 16. Centre management should ensure that staff and young people are made aware of the office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and its role in carrying out independent investigation of complaints against the police. 17. Juvenile Justice Board should monitor the extent of allegations of boys being mistreated by police prior to entry to the centres and should make such information available to the Police Ombudsman. Bullying While it does not traditionally
fall within the scope of child protection, protecting young people from bullying
in the juvenile justice centres falls squarely within the authorities' obligations
under international law and the HRA to protect young people from harm. Bullying has existed as a problem in the juvenile justice centres for some time. In recognition of this fact, Lisnevin has an anti-bullying policy and an effective booklet entitled Bullying: 'What is it? What can you do about it?' [lii] which is distributed to the young people before they attend a talk on bullying following their admission. This is a positive and welcome initiative. The same policy also exists in Rathgael. [liii] In his inspection of St Patrick's in 1999 SSI recommended that staff attempt to genuinely resolve episodes of bullying at the point of disclosure or discovery. If the problem persisted, however, either for the victim or perpetrator having serial victims there should be a preliminary or strategy discussion involving social services and the police. An investigation leading to a case conference would be necessary if the problem is intractable and a protection plan is needed. [liv] SSI comments highlight the need both for training for all staff on dealing with bullying and on the necessity of having a layered strategy for dealing with incidents of bullying. More generally, it is necessary to tackle the underlying reason why bullying takes place, both in relation to the ethos of the centre and more importantly perhaps, by examining why certain young people are being bullied and are choosing to bully. In this regard, it can really only be eliminated by undertaking specialised treatment programmes with the individual young people, as well as, on a more general level, attempting to foster in the centres a general ethos of self- and mutual-respect among staff and young people. While some young people interviewed in Lisnevin were not aware of bullying in the centre, two interviewees reported the existence of violence between boys. One interviewee said: "I may have been fighting but I kept on my own, to certain places, in the showers or in the gym, when none of the staff are about. If you get black eyes or something and they ask what happened, I just say that I walked into a door. They can't prove that." [lv] Another said that there had been a few fights and 'slabbering'. He also spoke of sectarian threats: "there's a wee lad threatening by the UDA so he is, and he's going to get beat. You can't get near him, staff stand in front of you, no fighting. In the common room he threatened me with the UDA last night - [staff name] was standing in front of me and wouldn't let me near him. . Hate that shit - sitting saying all that - you're going to get shot by the UDA and all that. He's stealing razor blades - trying to say he's going to slice people up." [lvi] Young people in Rathgael also spoke of sectarian bullying. One girl in particular was said to be threatening others and calling them names. The young people agreed that the perpetrator would not call people names in front of staff and, therefore, they felt nothing could be done about it. [lvii] According to the Social Services Inspectorate, there are frequent assaults (boys on boys) in Lisnevin against the anti-bullying policy, which deserve analysis. However, it is welcome that staff are being encouraged to apply mediation and a restorative justice approach. [lviii] Failure to deal with systematic bullying or abuse in the centre may give rise to a Human Rights Act challenge under Article 3 ECHR. For this reason and to ensure the protection of everyone in the juvenile justice centres, it is vital to put in place clear policy and guidelines, to publicise this policy among staff, young people and their families and to facilitate further staff training designed to counteract bullying behaviour. Recommendations 18. Juvenile justice centres should present clear guidance to both staff and young people as to what constitutes bullying and appropriate training for all staff. 19. Northern Ireland Office and the Juvenile Justice Board should include the issue of sectarian bullying when considering Section 75 issues relating to the proposed changes to the Juvenile Justice Estate. 20. JJB should conduct a survey to determine the extent of bullying including sectarian bullying in the centres. Protecting young people from substance abuse and other harm A further dimension to the responsibility to protect young people in juvenile justice centres relates to protecting them from harming themselves through substance or drug abuse. [lix] If this protection is to be effective, the centres must prevent the development of addictions within the centres and aim to address them where they are prevalent. In particular, efforts must be made to keep addictive substances out of the centres and in this regard search procedures need to be clear and supported by staff training. However, in 1999, the SSI described the search procedures in Lisnevin as 'dangerously inadequate' and was concerned that senior managers there were unaware of their powers in relation to searching young people. This was noted in the light of two incidents where a young person had set fire to his bedroom. There is a clear awareness among staff and management in the centres about the seriousness of this problem and in Lisnevin random spot checks and searches are carreid out following visits or on return to the centre. [lx] It was clear from interviews with staff that they feel powerless in the face of young people who, when confronted with a search, threaten staff with assault and/or abuse allegations. However, the Commission is pleased to learn that staff training on searching has commenced and that management continues to seek out ways of improving security and safety without unduly draconian methods. [lxi] Recommendations 21. Adequate procedures regarding searches should be put into place to ensure the protection of both staff and young people in the centre. Conversely, however, staff should receive training on how to deal with a confrontation where they believe a search is necessary but where the young person is making allegations of abuse or assault in order to prevent the search from taking place. 22. Policy and detailed guidelines should be drawn up, in consultation with all staff, as to the circumstances in which searches - room searches and body searches - may be carried out and the procedures and principles which should govern such searches. In particular, where searches are to be carried out on a regular or random basis, measures should be taken to ensure that practice is not arbitrary in this regard. Respect for the possessions and dignity of the young person should be guaranteed. 23. Guidelines and procedures, once in place, should be brought to the attention of all young people together with details of applicable complaints procedures should they feel victimised or aggrieved about the way in which a search was conducted. WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF SUBMISSION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 North and West Belfast Health and Social
Services Trust provides a wide range of health and social care services to
160,000 people living in North and West Belfast. We also provide specialist
regional hospital services
at Muckamore Abbey Hospital for people with learning disabilities. We work
in partnership with the local community, doctors and other organisations to provide a comprehensive
range of high quality services. The Trust employs approximately 3,600 dedicated
staff across a broad range of professions and disciplines. Family and
Child Care Services: (a)
Social work teams (b) Residential care (c) Adolescent services (d)
Foster care (e) Adoption services (f)
Day care (g)
Early years (h)
After care (i)
Family centres (j) Programme of grant aid to voluntary organisations 1.2 Our full submission report follows the
terms of Reference as set out by the Inquiry into Child Protection Services
in Northern Ireland. The following is an executive summary of the key
issues and recommendations of North and West Belfast Health and Social
Services Trust. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 Levels of deprivation in North and West
Belfast are on a scale unparalleled in the Region and have been well described
elsewhere. In addition to the negative consequences of deprivation, an issue,
well articulated by the community, is the impact of thirty years of violence
and sectarianism in North and West Belfast. 2.2 No neighbourhood and few families have
been unaffected by the trauma of the troubles. Efforts to achieve political
settlement have given people hope for a better future and paradoxically allowed
people to express grief and in some instances ambivalence about the past. 2.3 There is a clear need, expressed by all
sections of the community, for counselling services and other forms of Family
Support to assist recovery and regeneration. 2.4 People are deeply concerned about the rise
in young suicides - particularly young men. There is a reported rise in cases
of domestic violence. 2.5 There is a correlation between economic
and social disadvantage and admissions to public care and child abuse. The
rate, of Children Looked After and children on the Register is, therefore,
high. 3.0 PRESSURES IN THE FAMILY AND CHILD CARE PROGRAMME 3.1 Volumes of Work: 5,041 children received services
from the Family and Child Care Programme in the last financial year. 495 child
abuse investigations were undertaken and there are currently 268 children on
the child protection register. Of the Trusts, in the EHSSB area, North and
West Belfast has the highest rate of children on the Child Protection Register. 3.2 Implementing the Children (NI) Order 1995: Implementation
has affected every element of the Programme's activity - practice, management,
administration. Other changes that have increased the pressure are: (a)
The unplanned retraction in voluntary sector residential care provision (b)
The impact of changes in the Juvenile Justice Systems (c)
The deficit in specialist services particularly psychology and psychiatry (d)
Staff recruitment and retention. 3.3 The Impact of the Criminal Justice (Children)
Order: Fewer and shorter custodial sentences has resulted in young people, who were previously
and subjects of Training School Orders, becoming HSS's responsibilities
because of their poor home circumstances and ongoing potential to engage in
anti-social behaviour. 3.4 Resourcing: The Trust's Children's Services have
historically been underfunded and allocations to Family and Child Care generally
have subject to financial pressures from other Programmes and in particular
from the Acute Health Services Sector. This situation has necessarily affected
the Child Protection Services particularly at the preventative and family support
end of the continuum of services. 4.0 STRATEGIC DIRECTION The Trust aspires to achieving
a balanced approach to investment in child protection services. This would
include: 4.1 Engagement with the community to promote a safe
environment for children. 4.2 Early identification of problems so that
family support can be introduced to prevent situations deteriorating. 4.3 Early identification of serious abuse. 4.4 Specialist assessment and treatment services.
4.5 High quality alternative care and therapy
for children who cannot remain with their parents. Resourcing levels currently
fall significantly short of achieving this. 5.0 CASE WORK Key Issues 5.1 Adequate training should be available to staff
dependent on current role. 5.2 Staff have access to ongoing post qualifying
training in Child Protection work. 5.3 Demonstration of a clear supervisor process. Clear
lines of management accountability. Recommendations 5.4 Staff training should be available at three
levels: (a)
Basic training; (b) Intensive work; and (c) Development of specialist skills including video
evidence training. 6.0 PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT Key Issues 6.1 The ability for key staff to operate in
difficult and complex scenarios. 6.2 Staff are offered appropriate support and
supervision. Recommendations 6.3 There should be a development of structured assessment protocols
and guidelines to assist in risk management. 6.4 Social Workers should be afforded assistance
to make decisions which limit professional dangers. 7.0 COMMUNICATION Key Issues 7.1 There exists a clear structure of accountability,
which is supported by clear agency protocols and guidelines. 7.2 Effective multi-agency working should occur. Recommendation 7.3 There should be multi-disciplinary training
to ensure clear understanding of professional roles and effective exchange
of relevant information. 8.0 WORKFORCE Key Issues 8.1 Recruitment of appropriate level and quality of
staff. 8.2 Retention/development of staff. 8.3 Appropriate training at various levels. 8.4 There must be an understanding of the impact
of working in North Belfast with due consideration to its current associated
problems. Recommendations 8.5 A review of remuneration and terms of conditions
should occur, with particular emphasis on staff working in Family and Child
Care Teams. 8.6 The expansion of the Senior Practitioner
Grade. 9.0 LINKAGES Key Issues 9.1 Societal education - "Child Protection
is Everyone's Business". 9.2 An awareness of tension between complexities
of the Child Protection process and of safely involving the community (Megan's
Law). Recommendation 9.3 There is a requirement to assess the impact
of Human Rights legislation, which needs to balance the protection of the child
and the rights of a carer/parent/community. 10.0 LESSONS LEARNED Key Issues 10.1 Dissemination of information from case management
reviews. 10.2 Access to special services, both investigative
and treatment. Recommendation 10.3 Consideration is given to the formation of an
independent case management review group. 11.0 RESOURCES Key Issues 11.1 Levels of resources, staff, specialist services
and treatment services. 11.2 The absence of psychological services for
abused children and neglective parents. Recommendation 11.3 Consideration is given to the development of a range of services, which is informed by the expertise of professional staff, feedback from service users and the local community. [i] See Article 19 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and Article 3 European Convention on Human Rights.
[ii] Rule 1 UN Rules for the Protection of Children deprived of their Liberty 1990 (UN Rules) and Rule 5 UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice 1990 (the Beijing Rules).
[iii] Rule 87 (a) and (d) UN Rules.
[iv] Rule 85 UN Rules.
[v] Material used here is derived primarily from SSI Reports and information supplied by NIACRO.
[vi] NIACRO manages the Independent Representation project in which volunteers visit children in centres, talk to them about their concerns and make recommendations about these to Centre management.
[vii] NIACRO, Lisnevin: Issues of Concern for NIACRO, p13.
[viii] NIACRO, Lisnevin: Issues of Concern for NIACRO, See references for July 1998, Aug 1998, Sep 1998, pp 13-15.
[ix] SSI, Report on the Inspection of Lisnevin Training School 1997, pp 30-31.
[x] NIACRO Lisnevin report p 17.
[xi] See for example, Newtownards Chronicle, Thursday 24 April, 1997: report of case heard at Downpatrick Crown Court where Mr Wilhem Schumacher was acquitted of making threats against senior staff at Lisnevin cited in NIACRO, Lisnevin: Issues of Concern for NIACRO, p 5.
[xii] SSI, Inspection of Lisnevin Training School, p 24.
[xiii] SSI, Inspection of Rathgael Training School, p 18.
[xiv] SSI Rathgael Report 1997, p19.
[xv] SSI, Overview Report on Training Schools, p20.
[xvi] SSI, Inspection of St Patrick's Juvenile Justice Centre, 1999.
[xvii] Commission correspondence from the Juvenile Justice Board, 18 February 2002.
[xviii] Eur Court HR A v UK, judgment of 23 Sept 1998, Reports 1998-VI no 90.
[xix] NIO, Statements of Standards and Criteria for JJC NI, 1999, Standard 4: Care of the Young People, point 19.
[xx] Article 66 Children (NI) Order (1995) and Department of Health, Home Office, Department for Education and Employment, Working Together to Safeguard Children, London, Stationary Office, p 7.
[xxi] Children (NI) Order 1995: Volume 6, 'Co-operating to Protect Children', DHSS.
[xxii]
Point 6.1
[xxiii]
Point 2.6.
[xxiv]
Point 6.1.
[xxv] Point 6.19.
[xxvi] Point 8.1
[xxvii] The first Protocol for Joint Investigation was introduced in NI in November 1991. There have been three revised editions of the Protocol since then.
[xxviii] See Appendix C for a summary of the principles and procedures of the Joint Protocol.
[xxix] Rule 3 para 1(a) Juvenile Justice Rules (Northern Ireland) 1999.
[xxx] NIO, Statements of Standards and Criteria for JJC NI, Feb 1999, Standard 4: Care of the Young People, point 19.
[xxxi] While some Lisnevin policy documents refer to a document, 'Juvenile Justice Centers - Child Protection Policy and Procedures', the Commission has been unable to obtain a copy.
[xxxii] Commission correspondence from the Juvenile Justice Board, 18 February 2002.
[xxxiii] See in particular Eur Court HR A v UK, above and Eur Court HR Z and Others v UK, judgment of 10 May 2001, [2001] 2 FLR 612.
[xxxiv] Commission interview with staff (No 14).
[xxxv] Commission interview with staff (No 13).
[xxxvi] JJB Policy and Procedure for Dealing with Complaints made by, or on behalf of, Young Persons Detained at Lisnevin, June 2001, para 10.
[xxxvii] See also, SSI, Unannounced Inspection of Lisnevin JJC, 1st December 2001, p 6.
[xxxviii] Commission Correspondence from NIO, Juvenile Justice Branch, 22 March 2001.
[xxxix] Commission interview with officer from PSNI CARE unit, 5 April 2001.
[xl] Material from interviews with police officers from Ards CARE unit and Donaghadee, 5 April 2001.
[xli]
Joint Protocol p 7.
[xlii]
Article 50(3).
[xliii]
Joint Protocol, p17.
[xliv]
JP p16.
[xlv] Correspondence from Assistant Principal Social Worker, Ulster Community and Hospitals Trust, 22 January 2002.
[xlvi] Although as the Joint Protocol notes, the police's foremost objective will also be the welfare of the child.
[xlvii] NIACRO, Lisnevin: Issues of Concern for NIACRO, p 8.
[xlviii] An analysis of the nature and frequency of issues raised by young people in Lisnevin through the IR project.
[xlix] Commission interview with Mr Malachy Muinzer, 11 December 2001.
[l] Commission Interview with young person (No 7).
[li] Commission Interview with young person (No 9).
[lii] St Patrick's also had a bullying policy.
[liii] Commission correspondence from the Juvenile Justice Board, 18 February 2002.
[liv] SSI, Inspection of St Patrick's JJC, 1999, p 18, para 3.
[lv] Commission interview with young person (No 9).
[lvi] Commission interview with young person (No 2).
[lvii] Group interview (No 10) with young people in Rathgael.
[lviii] SSI Unannounced Inspection of Lisnevin JJC, December 2001.
[lix] For more on self-harm see further Chapter 7 Health Care.
[lx] SSI, Unannounced Inspection of Lisnevin, 1 December 2001, p 3
[lxi] Commission correspondence from SSI, 29 January 2002.
9 October (vol 2b) / Menu / 9 October 2002 (vol 2d) |
| Home| Today's Business| Questions | Official Report| Legislation| Site Map| Links| Feedback| Search |