Grampian Police Return Home Welfare Interview Pilot for Young Runaways
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
GRAMPIAN POLICE RETURN HOME WELFARE INTERVIEW PILOT FOR YOUNG RUNAWAYS PILOT EVALUATION University of Stirling And Ipsos MORI ScotlAnd FINAL REPORT May 2010 University of Stirling CHeryl Burgess MArgAret MAllocH FionA MitcHell Ipsos MORI ScotlAnd VAnessA CHAn JAne Eunson LorrAine MurrAy 2 Acknowledgements We would like to thank everyone who participated in this evaluation, particularly the respondents who made time available to speak with us. We are extremely grateful to the young people who were prepared to share their experiences of the RHWI with us. Frances McKendrick provided us with data throughout the evaluation and we have appreciated her assistance in responding to queries and requests. Thanks also to the Evaluation Sub‐group for their input. 3 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................. 6 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................13 BACKGROUND TO PILOT ........................................................................14 RESPONDING TO YOUNG RUNAWAYS: PRACTICE IN EACH AREA ....17 EVALUATION OBJECTIVES .....................................................................21 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................21 FINDINGS ................................................................................................. 28 Profile of young People..........................................................................28 CHArActeristics of young people in pilot AreAs ...................................30 ReAsons identified for running AwAy ...................................................31 Risks identified wHen young people Are AwAy ...................................33 InformAtion obtAined from RHWI.........................................................35 ReferrAl to otHer Agencies .....................................................................36 Timing of tHe RHWI ................................................................................39 'Green' cAtegory young people………………………………………………………………….39 LocAtion of tHe RHWI .............................................................................41 Effectiveness of informAtion ................................................................. 42 SHAring InformAtion ...............................................................................48 Effectiveness of pre‐pilot trAining .......................................................49 Young People’s experiences of tHe RHWI ............................................50 TecHniques for delivering RHWIs.........................................................53 Incidents reported during tHe pilot period ........................................58 COST ANALYSIS .......................................................................................60 CONCLUDING POINTS .............................................................................62 REFERENCES: ..........................................................................................64 ANNEX ONE OperAtionAl FlowcHArts………………………………………………………61 ANNEX TWO TAbles Reporting on tHe AnAlysis of tHe Monitoring DAtA…..65 ANNEX THREE Coding………………………………………………………………………………77 ANNEX FOUR TrAining………………………………………………………………………….. 79 ANNEX FIVE CAse Studies ...................................................................80 ANNEX SIX Cost cAlculAtions...............................................................85 4 ANNEX SEVEN Agencies ………….…………………………………………………………….. 87 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The overall aim of this evaluation was to explore the most effective means of delivering Return Home Welfare Interviews (RHWIs) to ensure the best outcomes for the child/young person. It set out to examine the operation of the pilot as implemented in Aberdeen City and Elgin, to reflect the range of models of delivery used and the overall impact of the pilot. One area in Aberdeenshire (Fraserburgh) formed the control area to illustrate original practice in Grampian and current practice outwith the pilot areas. At the point where a missing young person is traced in both pilot areas, a ‘safe and well’ check will be undertaken by an operational police officer. This is a visual check to ensure the young person is safe and well. At this stage, the young person will be informed that a RHWI will be arranged. The RHWI team will make contact with the young person within five working days and the RHWI will take place as soon as possible after that. The RHWI is an interview conducted by a specially trained individual (members of a dedicated team comprising two civilian employees and a seconded police officer in Aberdeen, and Community Beat Officers (CBOs) in Elgin). The purpose of the RHWI is to gather relevant information on the young person and missing incident and to speak with the young person in order to identify any factors that prompted them to run or incidents which happened while they were away. This information is then used to ensure that the young person is referred to the appropriate service/s. The principal conclusion of the evaluation is that RHWIs are An appropriate intervention; helping identify young people who require further support And referring them to an appropriate agency. Even without an onward referral, they can improve outcomes by helping young people appreciate the value of talking about their problems rather than running away. RHWIs are of most benefit to young people not already involved with services (just under a third of those who received a RHWI were not already involved with social work services). When young people were already accessing other services, other professionals were less convinced of the benefits of the RHWI. However, as the evaluation highlights, even where other services were in place, the RHWIs could provide benefits by obtaining information from young people which was not already known to services; and by providing the young person with an additional opportunity to engage and to access support by doing so. The RHWIs in both Aberdeen and Elgin were more effective than the practice in Fraserburgh in terms of the quality and depth of information collected and, therefore, the likelihood of identifying support needs and making an appropriate referral. Aberdeen and Elgin are different environments in terms of size, numbers of young runaways, resources and crucially, multi‐agency working processes. It is therefore difficult to compare the different RHWI models in terms of overall effectiveness and outcomes. Different models were introduced to each area; however the contexts surrounding these models varied significantly. Both models generally worked well and each had their own practical issues to contend 6 with. There is no clear evidence that one model is better than the other and so areas should make decisions based on what is likely to work best in their particular local circumstances ‐ taking into account current working practices, numbers of runaways and resources. The introduction of either model should be supported by appropriate training for all involved personnel, and dedicated resources. A number of specific research questions were set out at the start of the evaluation and the main findings in relation to these are summarised below. 1. How effective is tHe Return Home WelfAre Interview in Helping to identify cHildren wHo require furtHer support? What proportions of RHWIs contain enough information to make a decision about referral to the appropriate agency? • Across both Elgin and Aberdeen, the main benefit of the RHWI is that it provides an opportunity to obtain information about the young person that may not otherwise be available. • The RHWI appeared to be less valued in cases where the young person was already involved with services (e.g. had an allocated social worker or had been reported missing from a residential unit). • In a quarter of interviews overall, ‘no issues’ were identified. This may be because there were no issues of concern identified during the interview or because it was not possible to engage the young person. What decisions about referral to support were made? Which agencies were children/young people referred to and for what type of support? • Overall, just less than 50% of the interviews undertaken resulted in a referral to one agency; around 40% resulted in a referral to two agencies and 10% resulted in referrals to three agencies. • 70% resulted in contact with the young person’s existing social worker. • 40% resulted in referrals to Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration (SCRA). • 25% resulted in new, or renewed, referrals to social work. • 18% resulted in a referral to specific agencies or projects including schools, health services, Young Runaways Service and a range of independent organisations providing counselling, family and other forms of support. • Gaps or lack of resources in other services could impact on the efficacy of RHWIs in referring young people on. In particular, the lack of services for older teenagers was identified. Effectiveness of the RHWI in identifying young people who require further support • Where a young person was already involved with social work services, some social work respondents were generally dubious that the RHWI could provide additional information or support. • However, it would appear that the young person may not be in continual contact with their social worker or be engaging with services and in these cases new information could be identified. 7 • For young people without