| The study of decision making was commissioned by The Scottish Office as part of a programme of research to evaluate the operation of the Scottish Children's Hearings system. It was conducted by researchers at the University of Stirling from 1994-1997. |
|
| Main Findings |
- the principles on which it was based, despite some evidence of tensions and difficulties in practice.
- Panel members and professionals agreed that the greatest weakness of the system was the shortage of resources which affected the quality of service which could be delivered to meet identified needs.
- Professionals and panel members considered that the system responded more effectively to children and young people referred for care and protection than to those referred for non-attendance at school and persistent offenders.
- Reporters made decisions in less than a month in almost a third of study cases but took more than two months in 39 per cent. Their decision making was quicker for referrals on offence than care and protection grounds (71% and 43% respectively in less than 2 months). They exercised independent judgement and discretion in decision making and appraised the needs of individual children, applying the principles of diversion and minimal intervention.
- In 84 per cent of observed hearings, the decision matched the recommendations of the social worker. Decisions were unanimous in 89 per cent of hearings. In almost two-thirds of hearings, the final decision was the only option discussed.
- The participation of children and families at hearings was limited. Although the children were present at 87 per cent of observed hearings, their contributions were very brief. Family members considered that their participation was important but reported feeling nervous. They were only partially aware of their rights (their right to call a review was mentioned at only 72% of observed hearings) and perceived the views of social workers and panel members as more influential than theirs.
- Across Scotland, procurators fiscal retained from 15 to 66 per cent of cases which were jointly referred to reporters. This reflects variation in views about whether the children's hearings or criminal justice system is best placed to deal with children who offend and young people over 16.
|
|
| Introduction |
| This study of decision making was commissioned by The Scottish Office as part of a programme of research to evaluate the operation of the Scottish Children's Hearings system. The aims of the decision making study were to explore factors influencing decision making by reporters and by hearings, the links between the hearings and the criminal justice system and children and families' experience of the children's hearings. |
|
| The study |
| The research explored reporters' decision making in response to referrals through interviews with a sample of 54 reporters and analysis of their decision making in respect of a stratified sample of 130 cases; children's hearings were studied through observation of a sample of 60 hearings and follow-up interviews with 98 participants from half of the observed hearings; and the interface between the Children's Hearings and other key agencies was examined through interviews with 34 key informants (area panel chairs, sheriffs, procurators fiscal and senior officers in the police, social work and education services). |
|
| Strengths and weaknesses in the children's hearings system |
| The ethos of the system (its child-centredness, focus on needs and welfare, integrated approach, the potential for participation and the stated avoidance of punishment or retribution) were valued by panel members and professionals. There was widespread support for the principle of separation of the adjudication of evidence from disposals. |
|
| The panel members were seen as a source of strength, in their commitment, independence and their lay status. However, some professionals and panel members expressed concerns about a perceived lack of representativeness of panel members in terms of class, sex and ethnicity. |
|
| In general, panel members and professionals considered that the system was able to respond effectively to the needs of children and young people who had offended for the first time or in minor ways and to those referred on care and protection grounds. They did not think it worked so well for children and young people who offended persistently or seriously or those referred for non-attendance at school. Truancy cases were often referred at a stage when patterns of non-attendance were entrenched and there were disputes between social work departments and the education service about ownership of the problem. The shortage of resources to implement hearings decisions which was identified by panel members and professionals, was particularly notable in respect of young people who persistently offended and those who did not attend school regularly. |
|
| There were sharp divisions of view about legal representation in the Children's Hearings system. Some considered that legal aid should be provided for legal representation of parents, children and young people at hearings. Others were firmly of the view that such a development would be undesirable. |
|
| Reporters' decision making |
| Reporters made their initial decisions on the basis of referral information and, usually, supplementary written information, particularly from social work departments and schools. There was limited direct personal contact between reporters and families at the initial referral stage. |
|
| The main factors taken into account by reporters in initial decision making included the co-operation of the family, school related issues, current social work input, evidential issues, the seriousness of any offence and a prior record of offending, the child's age, risk to the child, and aspects of family functioning. |
|
| Reporters reached a decision within a month of receipt of notification in 32 per cent of the cases examined, and between one and two months in 28 per cent. In 39 per cent of cases, the decision took more than two months. Reporters were able to take decisions more quickly following notification in cases referred on offence grounds than in those referred on care and protection grounds. Whilst procedural and administrative delays occurred in reporters' offices, decision timescales were only partly within reporters' control. There were long delays in notifications to reporters (on average 58 days in respect of offences) and delays in receiving reports from schools and social work departments. Reporters considered that planned, slower decision making was advantageous on occasions but they generally preferred quicker decision making. |
|
| Observed hearings |
| Despite attempts to make the proceedings relatively informal, the proper conduct of hearings and protecting the rights of families imposed an inescapable degree of formality. This resulted in a number of problems. For example, difficulties arose because of the use of legal terms in presenting the grounds of referral at hearings and in handling the partial acceptance of grounds. |
|
| Families' awareness of their rights in hearings was partial and limited. They were informed of their right to appeal against the decision in 98 per cent of observed hearings and of their right to receive the decision in writing in 70 per cent. The availability of legal aid in connection with an appeal was mentioned in only nine per cent of hearings. The families' right to call for a review was mentioned in 72 per cent of hearings, but they were not always given correct information about timing. In all but two hearings, reasons for the decision were given. Informing families of their rights verbally at the end of hearings led to difficulties in families absorbing the information. |
|
| The co-operation of families was a key factor in decision making by panel members. In some hearings, panel members decided to impose compulsory supervision requirements on the basis of the apparent co-operation of families. In other cases, lack of co-operation under an existing requirement led to its termination. |
|
| In the majority of cases (84%) the decision of the hearing accorded with the social worker's recommendation. Panel members reached a consensus decision in 89 per cent of hearings. The final decision of the hearing was the only option discussed in 65 per cent of hearings. |
|
| Participants' views of children's hearings |
| Family members were generally apprehensive and nervous about hearings although this was lessened for regular attenders. They considered the decision reached to have been the one they expected. Panel members and professionals reported limited family participation in most hearings. The contributions of children and young people were notably brief. |
|
| Among the inhibitors were the formality of hearings, the physical environment in which they were held, families' feelings of anxiety or powerlessness, aspects of panel members' communication and, for children and young people, the presence of their parents or carers. Varied strategies were adopted by panel members and others to try to overcome these difficulties. |
|
| The factors affecting decision making within hearings included the search for consensus, panel members' views of the options, time constraints, the presence of families, lack of resources, the composition of the panel, and social work recommendations and reports. There was no mechanism for providing regular and systematic feedback to panel members on the outcomes of their decisions. |
|
| While relationships between reporters and panel members were said to be good, those between social workers and panel members were described as more problematic. It was apparent at some review hearings that panel members and social workers often had differing aims and expectations in relation to the outcomes of supervision. |
|
|
| The interface between the Children's Hearings system and the criminal justice system |
| Procurators fiscal and reporters described discussions about jointly referred cases as consensual. They held differing views about whether or not children and young people, particularly those over 16, should be dealt with by the Children's Hearings system or the criminal justice system. The rate of retention of such cases by procurators fiscal in a sample of cases in 1996 was, on average, 36 per cent, ranging from 15 to 66 per cent across Scotland. |
|
| Some professionals and panel members considered the age threshold for transition from the Children's Hearings to the criminal justice system (16 years) to be appropriate. Others argued that the Children's Hearings should be extended to cover all young people up to 18 in view of their vulnerability and the possibility of speedy progress up the tariff in the adult system. Other suggestions included: the establishment of a youth court presided over by a judge; the granting of wider powers of disposal to children's hearings including fines, mediation and reparation; a more overt emphasis on controlling offending behaviour and greater attention to victims. |
|
| Conclusions |
| Enthusiasm for the Children's Hearings has persisted despite some evidence of tensions and difficulties in practice. These include the capacity of the system to meet the needs of some children, particularly serious and persistent offenders or those referred for non-attendance at school; frustration at the shortage of resources to meet identified needs; limitations in the information available to children and families and their participation in the system. |
|
| The study was carried out by a research team from Stirling University led by Professor Christine Hallett and Cathy Murray. It was funded by the Home Department of The Scottish Office. |
|