Legal Studies CharacteristicsCentreof Users ScottishChildContact Centres: andCentre Staff SCOTTISH CHILD CONTACT CENTRES: CHARACTERISTICS OF CENTRE USERS AND CENTRE STAFF
Louyse McConnell-Trevillion and Samantha Coope with Emily Postan and Louise Lane Legal Studies Research Team Scottish Executive
Scottish Executive Social Research 2004 Further copies of this report are available priced £5.00. Cheques should be made payable to The Stationery Office Ltd and addressed to: The Stationery Office Bookshop 71 Lothian Road Edinburgh EH3 9AZ Tel: 0870 606 5566 Fax: 0870 606 5588
The views expressed in this report are those of the researchers and do not necessarily represent those of the Department or Scottish Ministers.
© Crown Copyright 2004 Limited extracts from the text may be produced provided the source is acknowledged. For more extensive reproduction, please write to the Chief Research Officer at the Office of Chief Researcher, 4th Floor West Rear, St Andrew’s House, Edinburgh EH1 3DG ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We owe a great deal of thanks to the people who have helped during this study. It could not have taken place without the co-operation of contact centre staff, both in helping with the phase 1 monitoring exercise and in responding to the phase 2 survey. We are also indebted to all of those providing advice, guidance and support in the write-up phase. Special thanks go to the Family Mediation Scotland and Family Mediation Lothian staff, particularly Pauline Linn and Carol Barrett.
The Research Team
CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1 SCOTTISH CHILD CONTACT CENTRES 1 RESEARCH AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 3 THE STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT 4 CHAPTER TWO RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 5 SURVEY OF CENTRE USERS 5 SURVEY OF CENTRE STAFF 7 CHAPTER THREE USER CHARACTERISTICS 10 INTRODUCTION 10 CHILDREN USING THE CONTACT CENTRES 10 ALLEGATIONS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE 11 MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE USE PROBLEMS 12 REFERRAL SOURCES 12 COURT ORDERS AFFECTING THE FAMILIES 14 TYPE OF CONTACT TAKING PLACE 14 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARENTS 15 GENDER AND ETHNICITY OF RESIDENT / NON RESIDENT PARENTS 16 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEWLY REFERRED PARENTS AND CHILDREN 16 NEWLY REFERRED FAMILIES WHO STOPPED USING THE CONTACT CENTRE 16 SUMMARY 17 CHAPTER FOUR CONTACT CENTRE STAFF 18 INTRODUCTION 18 EXPERIENCE & SKILLS 19 TRAINING 20 RESPONSIBILITIES AND ROLES OF CONTACT CENTRE WORKERS 23 SERVICES OTHER THAN SUPPORTED CONTACT 24 FAMILIES WITH SPECIFIC ISSUES 26 SAFETY AND SUPPORT 28 SUMMARY 31 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION 33 INTRODUCTION 33 FAMILIES USING CONTACT CENTRES 33 ALLEGATIONS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE 34 ACCESS TO SERVICES 35 SUPPORTED AND SUPERVISED CONTACT 36 RESPONSIBILITY FOR APPROPRIATE REFERRALS 36 CHAPTER SIX KEY CONCLUSIONS 39
ANNEX ONE 26 CONTACT CENTRES 41
BIBLIOGRAPHY 42
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
1.1 This research was undertaken as part of the programme of research into the operation of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. The Act is a major piece of legislation, covering matters of private and public law. Centred on the needs of children and their families, an underpinning principle of the Act is that parents normally should be responsible for the upbringing of their children and should share that responsibility, even if separated or divorced. The Act makes it a parental responsibility (and corresponding right) to maintain personal relations and direct contact on a regular basis with a child that is not living with them.1 At an international level, this principle is enshrined in the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, and the European Convention on Human Rights.
1.2 The Scottish Office gave a commitment to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the 1995 Act through a number of means, including research. The overall aim of the research programme is to evaluate the impact of the Act on the lives of children and their families, as well as its impact upon court practices and procedures. This research was conducted as part of that obligation.
SCOTTISH CHILD CONTACT CENTRES
1.3 Contact centres are
“neutral, safe and welcoming venues, which exist to promote and support regular contact between parents and children who no longer live together. Ultimately the goal of a contact centre is to protect children from parental conflict so that the time parents and children do spend together is not spoiled by the display of hostile feelings between parents”.2
1.4 Contact centres predate the implementation of the Children (Scotland) Act (1995)3. The first centres were opened in 1988. Family Mediation Lothian and One Parent Families Scotland were the first organisations to provide the service. Since then there has been a large growth in numbers, and at the time the research was embarked upon there were 26 centres operating in Scotland.4 The centres were set up by a variety of organisations, predominantly Family Mediation and the Women's Royal Voluntary Service (WRVS). They are staffed by a mixture of paid organisers and voluntary workers.
1.5 All centres are affiliated to the Scottish Network of Child Contact Centres. The Network is an informal body and does not manage or direct the affiliated centres. The Network’s role is to encourage the development of good practice across centres and to standardise service provision. The Network is co-ordinated by the Scottish Contact Centre Development Officer, who is based at Family Mediation Scotland. The Development Officer produces information packs for organisations seeking to set up a centre, with guidance on issues such as staff, premises and funding, and provides training for contact centre staff.
1 S1 (1) (c) and S2 (1) (c). 2 Scottish Network of Child Contact Centres information leaflet 15/3/leaflet/aims June 1998 3 The 1995 Act received the Royal Assent on 19th July 1995. Implemented in 3 phases, it was fully operational on 1 April 1997. 4 Please see Annex 1 for a list of the 26 centres.
1 1.6 There is no single model of a Scottish child contact centre. They operate within constraints imposed by the limitations of their premises, the availability of staff and funding. The majority of centres are open for a very limited number of hours per week, and as a matter of course are usually only open at weekends. The Network has a Scottish Code of Practice, which all affiliated centres abide by and which states that contact centres:
• are child-centred • support the principle of the Act of continued parenting following separation/divorce • do not provide written reports to the court or any other agency • do not provide statutory supervised contact.
Type of Contact Offered
1.7 Contact centres are used when a difficulty exists in establishing or re-establishing contact. The difficulty is not confined solely to situations where there is conflict between the parents. Other reasons include fears of abduction, no relationship with the child, or a gap in contact.
1.8 The definitions of the different kinds of contact that have been used throughout this report are as follows:
Supported contact / supervision of venue contact – Low vigilance contact, typically with more than one family per room and more than one family per worker. The venue itself is supervised but there is no supervision of the parents. Centres take a neutral stance and do not comment on the quality of parenting. However, centre staff will intervene where there is perceived danger of abuse of the child. Use of the centre can be instigated by courts, solicitors or by families themselves. All centres provide supported contact.
Supervised contact – High vigilance contact, typically with one family per room and with at least one mutually agreed third party monitoring contact. This does not involve reporting or assessment. Again, this can be instigated by courts, solicitors or by families themselves. Supervised contact may be possible on the basis of local negotiations with the centre5.
Statutory supervised contact – High vigilance contact, typically with one family per room and at least one worker monitoring contact. This typically involves reporting or assessment. Such contact must be instigated by courts or social work departments. This type of contact is provided by local authority social work departments, and must be conducted by a trained social worker or equivalent. Scottish centres do not generally provide statutory supervised contact. This is not to say, however, that contact centres may not be used as venues for statutory supervised contact. The Network is aware of the possible confusion surrounding the type of service provided.
5 e.g. as defined and discussed in Mitchell (2001).
2 1.9 As contact centres do not generally provide statutory supervised contact, this report focuses on the former two types of contact. Some further points of clarification on what these levels of contact may involve are offered below.
1.10 Under the generic term supported contact, centres can provide a range of contact, extending from contact solely within the confines of the centre to exchange supervision. Contact centres see themselves as stepping stones to parents making their own future contact arrangements outwith the centre. The range of contact available is seen as progressive points along this path, covering, in ascending order:
• Contact solely within the confines of the centre from which the child cannot be removed. In these cases, staff manage the ‘handover’ arrangements concerning the children. Within this there may be varying levels of vigilance. For example, contact with a high level of vigilance may involve constant surveillance and one worker allocated to a family for the whole visit. Whereas, low vigilance contact would involve a low ratio of centre workers to users, with occasional checks made by the centre workers.
• Contact within the centre, but the child can be taken out for short walks or activities.
• Exchange supervision - the child is picked up and dropped off at the centre, or alternatively, the child is picked up at the centre but returned to the resident parent's home.
1.11 In line with the terms of the NACCC guidelines, Furniss describes supervised contact as follows: “Typically only one family has contact in the room at one time, and there is at least one worker (often professionally trained in social work or a similar discipline) closely monitoring the behaviour and conversations during the contact session. Interventions occur when necessary. Although reporting and assessments are more common in the supervised setting, they are not always undertaken.” (Furniss 2000: 256). In this study, supervised contact is not taken to include any kind of reporting or assessment. No reporting and / or assessment had been undertaken according to the members of staff responding to the survey.
RESEARCH AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
1.12 The primary aim of the research was to collect key demographic characteristics of families using contact centres, and on the roles and experiences of staff working at contact centres. It was anticipated that the basic quantitative information collected would identify issues for further investigation. Further, these data may provide the centres with a working example of information they may want to collect routinely. The research was not designed as an audit or evaluation of service provision across the centres.
3 THE STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT
1.13 The report discusses the findings of the survey of contact centres undertaken in order to establish basic demographic information about their users.
Chapter 2 sets out the research methodology.
Chapter 3 describes the general characteristics of centre users.
Chapter 4 explores the issues concerning contact centre staff.
Chapter 5 discusses the findings in the context of pertinent social issues.
Chapter 6 reports on the key findings, and draws conclusions from across the two surveys.
4 CHAPTER TWO RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
SURVEY OF CENTRE USERS
2.1 A national survey of Scottish contact centres was conducted. Each centre was asked to complete a number of forms over a 13-week study period. Centres were supplied with multiple copies of blank forms, an instruction sheet (and mock example) and pre-paid return envelopes. There were 3 different forms to complete, each designed to record different information. The number of forms completed and the timing of their return were different - their completion and return was dependent on the subject matter. Essentially the information collected by the forms fell into 2 categories:
• Data on the total number of families using the centres • Data on individual families using the centres.
2.2 The names and addresses of the families were not requested and were not revealed to the researcher. The researcher did not request, nor have access to, the centres' records. Families were not directly surveyed and no qualitative data was obtained.
2.3 At the outset, it was acknowledged that the success of the research would be dependent upon the goodwill of the contact centres. They would be responsible for extracting the necessary data from their records. This influenced the design of the forms in that the information sought had to be recorded across all the centres run by the different organisations. Furthermore, data collection had to strike a balance between extracting meaningful information whilst not overburdening the centres with administration.
Form 1
2.4 This was a monthly return from each contact centre showing the total number of families using the centre over the last month. It recorded, in aggregate, for each month:
• Number of families • Number and ages (in bands) of children • Total number of contact visits and type of contact • Average duration of visits • Parental gender, relationship to each other, ethnicity and history of addiction or mental illness • Referral Source • Number of families with court orders and type of order • Number of families making an allegation of domestic abuse.
The aggregate nature of the returns meant that it was not possible to identify overlapping families between each month. The results are, therefore, presented on a monthly basis.
A response rate of approximately 70% of participating centres was achieved across each of the 3 months.6
6 Month 1: 19 centres out of 26 (73%); Month 2: 18/26 (69%); Month 3: 17/26 (65%)
5 Form 2
2.5 This form was completed every time a new family was referred to the centre. It recorded basic details about the family in question, namely:
• Parental gender, age (in bands), ethnicity, relationship to child, relationship to other parent and history of substance use or mental health problems (where available) • Children's gender, date of birth and date of last contact with contact parent • Referral Source • Date of first visit • Court orders • Allegations of domestic abuse (where available) • Intended type of contact, intended frequency and duration of visits • Length of time intended to use the centre.
Centres were asked to return the form on a weekly basis, regardless of whether they had a new referral that week. This allowed the response rate of centres to be gauged. 21 centres returned forms, a response rate of 81% of centres.
Form 3
2.6 This was completed whenever one of the newly referred families stopped using the contact centre. This element of the research was intended as a very limited exercise to ascertain whether there were any common characteristics among families who stopped using the centres within a very short space of time. As it was an ad hoc form, response rate was not relevant in this case. Details collected were as follows:
• Date of last visit • Reasons for ceasing to use the contact centre • Type of contact, average frequency and average duration of visits • Length of time that the centre was used • Total number of family visits
Data considerations
2.7 As anticipated, completion of the forms required some effort on the part of centre workers. The response rate was good and only one centre withdrew from the research on the basis that staff did not have enough time to devote to filling in the forms. The research found that centres are keen to be involved in research and a significant number will participate to enable valid conclusions to be drawn.
2.8 Although the intention was to achieve a balance between effort and a feel for volume of activity, the aggregate monthly return (Form 1) would have been less burdensome if completed only once at the end of the research period. The aggregate nature meant that it was not possible to identify duplicate families between months. This has made the presentation of the findings less concise.
6 2.9 Data on whether parents had an addiction problem or a mental health problems were very limited. Largely contact centres did not answer the question on the new referrals form and limited numbers were reported in aggregate on the monthly return. The response rate was better in relation to the question on allegations of domestic abuse, although for 34% (30) of the new referral forms this question was left blank. Data were also patchy in relation to details of any civil or criminal remedies in relation to the alleged abuse. These limitations in the data are likely the reflection of the fact that centres do not actively assess or screen users, nor do they seek to substantiate claims where the information is volunteered.
SURVEY OF CENTRE STAFF
2.10 The survey was conducted with both paid and voluntary workers in Scottish contact centres between January and March 2001. Centre staff were surveyed by telephone, using an interviewer-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire was intended to ascertain individual respondents’ points of view, rather than asking them to represent the organisations or contact centres that they worked for.
2.11 The survey of contact centre staff was designed to collect basic demographic information on key characteristics of contact centre workers, and also to collect some basic information on respondents' experiences while working at contact centres. This included questions on the roles and responsibilities of contact centre workers, security and support within the centre, and the training staff are provided with.
2.12 In order to understand more fully the responsibilities of contact centre workers and some of the specific types of training and support that they may require, participants were also questioned about their experiences of working with centre users who may have a different range of requirements from the centre. They may present more complex and challenging scenarios for the centre staff to deal with. Thus, this part of the questionnaire focused on participants’ experiences of working with families or individuals with problematic histories such as those with histories of domestic violence, substance abuse and mental health problems.
Sampling and response rates
2.13 The sampling strategy was simply to obtain as close to a ‘census’ of contact centre staff in Scotland as was possible, and to maximise response rates accordingly. The small number of people who were eligible to participate in the survey ultimately dictated the number of responses that could be obtained. This approach may also have fallen victim to some bias, as this was a self-selecting sample.
2.14 All 26 of the contact centres operating at the time of the study were approached to participate in the survey. After the consent of centres was gained, 73 contact centre workers, from 16 contact centres in Scotland, were contacted for interview. 42 contact centre workers participated in the survey, from 14 different contact centres across Scotland. At least one worker from 14 of the 26 centres contacted participated in the study. The response rate among individuals was 58%.
7 Coverage of contact centres
2.15 Tables 2.1 and 2.2 provide details on the centres represented in the survey. Please note that this table details the main centre that the respondent works at. Two respondents worked at more than one centre. Both of these respondents were paid workers and answered the questions based on their experience of the main centre that they work at on a day-to-day basis.
Table 2.1 Primary Centre by Council Area Area of centre Number of respondents Number of centres Number of centres operating interviewed represented at the time of the research City of Edinburgh 12 4 4 Borders 5 1 2 Aberdeen City 5 1 1 East Lothian 4 1 1 Moray 3 1 1 Renfrewshire 3 1 1 West Lothian 3 1 1 Western Isles 3 1 1 Falkirk 2 1 1 Clackmannanshire 1 1 1 Dundee City 1 1 1 Glasgow City 0 0 3 Dumfries and Galloway 0 0 2 Angus 0 0 1 Inverclyde 0 0 1 Perth and Kinross 0 0 1 South Ayrshire 0 0 1 South Lanarkshire 0 0 1 West Dumbartonshire 0 0 1 Total 42 14 26 Please note that at the time of the research, the following 13 council areas were not served by any contact centres: Aberdeenshire, Argyll and Bute, East Ayrshire, East Dumbartonshire, East Renfrewshire, Fife, Highland, Midlothian, North Ayrshire, North Lanarkshire, Orkney Islands, Shetland Islands and Stirling.
2.16 As illustrated in Table 2.1, the majority of council areas (at the time of the research) were served by one contact centre, if any at all. This is therefore not a suitable basis for assessing the representativeness of the survey population. However it is worth noting that none of the centres in the Glasgow City Council area are represented. These centres chose not to participate. Both rural and urban areas are represented in the range of centres covered.
2.17 As Table 2.2 demonstrates, WRVS, the second largest organiser of contact centres in Scotland, are not as well represented as Family Mediation centres in Scotland. However it should be noted that although Family Mediation centres are overseen by their umbrella group, Family Mediation Scotland, the area offices function as independent organisations.
8
Table 2.2 Primary Centre by Organising Agency Number of centres operating Organising agency Number of respondents Number of centres at the time of the research Family Mediation 25 9 11 WRVS 8 2 10 Church organisations 3 1 2 Other 6 2 3 Total 42 14 26
2.18 At least one paid worker from all of the volunteer organisations represented responded to the questionnaire, with the exception of the WRVS. This is partly explained by the fact that representatives from only 2 of the 10 WRVS centres in operation at the time participated in the survey. However this is also likely to be the result of the differences in the way that the WRVS operate in comparison to the other agencies running contact centres in Scotland, as (the majority) of their centres are staffed solely by volunteers. The other agencies tend to have one qualified and paid member of staff running the contact centre, with the rest of the staff working on a voluntary basis.7
1 7 The SNCCC guidelines (SNCCC 1999: 6) recommend that staff who are responsible for managing the referral process and who have responsibility for the service are paid. Please note that while this model is largely followed in Scotland, contact centres in England and Wales tend to be run by volunteers alone (see for example a description of how contact centres operate in England and Wales in Mitchell 2001: 613).
9 CHAPTER THREE USER CHARACTERISTICS
INTRODUCTION
3.1 This chapter presents the results of the 13-week survey of contact centres and their users. The purpose was to establish basic quantitative demographic information about centre users, based on the centres completing a number of forms. These forms were designed to gather information on both the total number of families using the centres and on individual families. Families were not directly surveyed.
The chapter covers the following topics:
• General characteristics of the children using contact centres • Allegations of domestic abuse • Parental history of addiction and/or mental illness • How families are referred to contact centres • Court Orders affecting families • Type of Contact taking place at centres • Relationship between the Parents • Parental Gender and Ethnicity • Relationship between parents and children • Characteristics of those families who stopped using the centre within a short period of time.
CHILDREN USING THE CONTACT CENTRES
3.2 In the 3-month research period, a total of 228, 202 and 236 children used the centre in the course of each month. These children came from 159, 145 and 165 families respectively. Included in these numbers are the 127 children from 87 families who were new referrals to the centres during that 3-month period.
3.3 Centre returns placed the children into age bands of 0-5, 6-10 and 11+. The dominant age group among total centre users and the new referrals was 0-5 years. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 provide more detail on the age distribution.
10 Figure 3.1 Age Ranges of Total Number of Children Using Centres
150 0-5 100 6-10
Number 50 11+
0 123 Months
Figure 3.2 Age Ranges of Children of Newly Referred Families
100 80 60 40 Number 20 0 0-5 6-10 11+ Age Ranges
3.4 In the case of new referrals, centres were asked to provide the date of last contact with the contact parent. Data from 97 children showed that the average period since last contact with their other parent was 185 days.
ALLEGATIONS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE
3.5 Of the total number of families using the contact centres over the 3-month period, 37 (23%), 31 (21%) and 32 (19%) families respectively had made an allegation of domestic abuse (to centre workers). The form did not record details of how many children were included in these families, or of the alleged abuser and victim. The figures suggest that approximately a fifth of all families using the centres each month had made an allegation of domestic abuse. Centres were asked to provide details of any civil or criminal remedies in relation to the alleged abuse. The information imparted in this part of the study was patchy. This is likely to be because centres do not actively screen users over these matters, nor seek to substantiate claims where the information is volunteered. The figures should, therefore, be treated with caution.
3.6 A total of 87 new families were referred to centres during the research period. Data on allegations of domestic abuse was available for 57 (66%) of the families. In the remaining 30
11 cases (34%), the question was left unanswered. Of the 57 families, 24 (28%) had made an allegation of domestic abuse. These 24 families represented just over a quarter of the new referrals (28%). These families included 32 children, accounting for 25% of the children of the newly referred families. For new referrals the centres were asked for details on the alleged abuser and victim. Predominantly the allegations involved the contact father abusing the resident mother (71% of allegations). In 2 cases (8%) the mother allegedly abused the father.
3.7 In addition to these 24 newly referred families, 1 further family (referred by a social worker) alleged that the child was the victim of abuse. The return did not specify who the alleged abuser was. There were no other reported instances of children as alleged victims of domestic abuse.
MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE USE PROBLEMS
3.8 As with allegations of domestic abuse, contact centres do not seek to substantiate allegations/self-disclosures of mental health or substance use problems. Nor do they operate a universal screening policy that actively seeks such information or which excludes such families from contact centres. Guidance issued from the Network advises that centres should not admit anyone to an individual session who is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Due to the lack of routine screening, and substantiation of allegations/self-disclosures, the figures should be treated with caution. Approximately 1% of resident parents and 5% of contact parents were alleged to have mental health problems. Around 1% of resident parents and 12% of contact parents were alleged to have alcohol problems. Finally, 1% of resident parents and 5% of contact parents were alleged to have drug problems. Of course, some individuals will have co-existing substance use and mental health problems
REFERRAL SOURCES
3.9 Families are referred to contact centres by a variety of sources. Most commonly, the referrer will be a solicitor. Around three-quarters of all families using the centres and the new referrals were referred by either a solicitor, by the court, or a combination of the two. Just under a fifth of all centre users self-referred, as did a tenth of the new referrals. The involvement of a social worker in the referral process was identified in a small number of cases for both total centre users and new referrals. Figures 3.3 and 3.4 provide more detail.
12 Figure 3.3 Total Centre Users: Referral Sources
90
80
70 Solicitor Court 60 Self Social Worker 50 Mediation Court/Solicitor
Number 40 Social Worker/Court 30 Health Other 20 Contact Centre 10
0 123 Months
Figure 3.4 New Referrals: Referral Sources
45
40
35 Solicitor Court 30 Court/Solicitor Self 25 Social Worker Health
Number 20 Mediation Contact Centre 15 Solicitor/Social W orker Solicitor/Mediation 10 Social Worker/Self
5
0 1 Referral Source
13 COURT ORDERS AFFECTING THE FAMILIES
3.10 The contact centre respondents were asked how many of the families had court orders in place. Around half the families had court orders in place in each month examined. Centres were also asked to provide information on the type of orders and the number of each order. The types and numbers were not broken down into the individual families and it was anticipated that the number of orders would be greater than the number of families affected, as one family may have more than one order. However, information was not always supplied and the number of orders detailed was less than the number of families affected.
3.11 The figures give a broad indication of the more common orders among families using contact centres. Predominantly this was for contact (80%) with a small number for residency (10%) and interdict (5%).8 As the centres were not asked for details of the orders, it is not possible to say whether the contact order required contact to take place at the centre. For new referrals, information was sought on the type of order affecting the individual family. Returns for 38 families (44%) indicated that they had a court order in place. This was predominantly for contact (77% of the 38 families).
TYPE OF CONTACT TAKING PLACE
3.12 Under the generic term supported contact, centres provide a range of contact; each type may be seen in terms of progressive steps along the path to the parents making their own future arrangements outwith the centre. At one end of this spectrum, contact takes place solely within the confines of the premises from which the child cannot be removed. Further along this spectrum, the centre acts as a handover point, with contact taking place away from the centre. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the child is returned to the resident parent’s home following a supervised exchange at the centre.
3.13 Over the 3-month study period, in total families made a total of 472 (in month 1), 349 (in month 2) and 383 (in month 3) contact visits. The average duration of a contact visit was just over 2 hours. Approximately three-quarters of all visits took place within the confines of the premises, from which the child could not be removed. It should be noted that some centres do not offer the whole range of possible contact. This may skew the figures towards one type of contact taking place. Figure 3.5 provides more information on the distribution of the data.
8 Month 1: Information supplied on 65 orders – 52 for contact (80%), 6 for residency (9%), 3 for interdict (5%). Month 2: information supplied on 57 orders – 44 for contact (77%), 6 for residency (11%), 3 for interdict (5%). Month 3 information supplied on 69 orders – 56 for contact (81%), 7 for residency (10%), 3 for interdict (4%).
14 Figure 3.5 Types of Contact Taking Place
400
350
300 Within Centre- child cannot be 250 removed Within Centre - child can go on short breaks 200 Exchange Supervision- drop Number off & pick up at centre 150 Exchange supervision - return to resident parent's home 100
50
0 123 Months
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARENTS
3.14 The centres were asked to provide details on the previous relationship between the parents. The results showed that the number of parents who were married and those who were cohabiting were roughly equal. Approximately 46% of all centre users were or had been married to the other parent, whilst 44% had cohabited. Around a tenth of adult centre users had a different relationship with the child; for example, some of these centre users were maintaining contact with a grandchild or extended family member.
Table 3.1 Total Centre Users: Previous Relationship Between the Parents
Previous Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Relationship Number % Number % Number % Married/Divorced 80 50 65 45 63 45 Cohabited 64 40 68 47 61 44 Other 15 9 12 8 15 11 Total 159 100* 145 100 139# 100 * Does not add to 100 due to rounding #165 families used the centres in the 3rd month. Data was only provided on 139
15 Table 3.2 Newly Referred Families: Previous Relationship Between the Parents
Previous Relationship Number % Cohabited 40 51 Married/Divorced 35 44 Parent-Child 2 3 None 2 3 Total 79# 100* *Does not add to 100 due to rounding #87 families were newly referred. Data was provided in 79 cases
GENDER AND ETHNICITY OF RESIDENT / NON RESIDENT PARENTS
3.15 Among all centre users and new referrals, the vast majority of resident parents were female (96%) and the majority of contact parents were male (92%). The centres were asked to provide details on ethnic origin of parents. The vast majority of parents were white, both across all the centre users and the new referrals (over 95%).
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEWLY REFERRED PARENTS AND CHILDREN
3.16 The resident guardian was usually – in 95% of cases - the child’s mother or father. There were 3 instances where the resident guardian was a grandparent and 1 case where an aunt had residency. All contact parents were the child’s mother or father. There were 78 contact fathers and 8 contact mothers9. Among contact fathers, over half had cohabited (51%) whilst 46% were or had been married.
NEWLY REFERRED FAMILIES WHO STOPPED USING THE CONTACT CENTRE
3.17 This element of the research was intended to ascertain whether there were any common characteristics among families who stopped using the centres within a very short space of time. It was anticipated that this might give an initial insight into whether contact centres were inappropriate for certain families. Of the 87 newly referred families, 11 (13%) stopped using the centre within the study period. The families had been using 7 different contact centres.
3.18 A range of reasons was given for ceasing to use the contact centre. In more than half of the cases (6, or 55%), the matter had either gone back to court or further court action was pending/contemplated. In one case, the family had made their own arrangements for contact. In another case, the contact parent had assaulted the child. In a third case, the centre had terminated the use of its facilities because of the family's conduct. In the remaining two cases, the reason for ceasing use was unknown.
9 Data was missing in the remaining case.
16 SUMMARY
• Families were most commonly referred to centres by their solicitors, and just under three- quarters were referred by solicitors and / or by the courts. Just under a fifth of families had self-referred. Approximately one half of families had court orders in place.
• The most common reason for ceasing to use a contact centre among the newly referred families in the study was that the contact dispute had gone, or was about to go back to court.
• Approximately three-quarters of all contact visits took place solely within the confines of the centre from which the child could not be removed.
• On average, the children of newly referred families had not had contact with their other parent for 185 days.
• Approximately a fifth of total centre users and a quarter of new referrals had made an allegation of domestic abuse. These allegations generally involved the contact father abusing the resident mother.
• Most of the children using the contact centre were aged up to 10 years. Resident parents were frequently female, and contact parents were commonly male.
• Parents using the centre were equally as likely to have been married as to have cohabited. There were a small number of adults using the centre who had a non-parental relationship with the child.
17 CHAPTER FOUR CONTACT CENTRE STAFF
INTRODUCTION
4.1 This chapter outlines the results of the national survey of contact centre staff described in Chapter 2. It was designed to collect basic demographic information on key characteristics of contact centre workers, and also to collect some basic information on respondents' experiences while working at contact centres. This chapter covers the following topics:
• Sample characteristics • Experience and skills of contact centre workers • Training needs and training received • The responsibilities and roles of contact centre workers • Services provided other than supported contact • Experience of working with users with a history of domestic violence, mental illness and / or substance abuse • Safety and support within the contact centre.
Sample characteristics
4.2 The majority of respondents were females aged 45 or over. Only 2 respondents (4%) were aged under 35 and 3 respondents (7%) were male. Three respondents identified themselves as disabled. All of those responding to the survey identified themselves as white and British
Figure 4.1 Age of respondents
40 35 30 25 20 15
% of respondents 10 5 0 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Age
18 Status and hours of contact centre workers
4.3 As Figure 4.2 shows, the majority of respondents to the survey were volunteers – 29 respondents (69%) worked at the centre on a voluntary basis. Twenty-five of these volunteers (59%) worked in a non-supervisory capacity. The distinction was drawn between voluntary organisers (those running contact centres) and voluntary workers (those helping on a more casual basis) because of the different responsibilities these two roles entail. Five of the respondents worked in contact centres full time and 37 worked part time. Of the full time workers, 2 were paid workers and 3 were volunteers.
Figure 4.2 Employment status
Volunteer organiser / co- ordinator Voluntary worker 10% 59%
Paid worker 31%
4.4 The majority (21 of 29) of part time volunteers worked one day per month. The paid part time workers worked between 1 and 4 days per month. The large proportion of part time workers working 4 days or less per month in the survey population is not surprising, as on average contact centres are open to users for around 5 hours per week, and usually only on Saturdays.
EXPERIENCE & SKILLS
4.5 The median length of time at their current contact centre for all respondents was 3.5 years. The median length of time at their current contact centre for paid workers was 4 years and for volunteers it was 3.5 years. Nine respondents had worked at contact centres in the past (two had worked at more than one). The median length of time that they had spent working at other centres was 18 months10. Five of the paid workers and four of the volunteer workers / co-ordinators had previously worked in another contact centre.
4.6 Ten (77%) paid workers and 19 (66%) volunteer workers had other paid commitments in addition to their contact centre commitments. Types of other paid work tended to be work such as child care, social / community work, advice and education work. In addition to this, 13 respondents had other voluntary commitments. Over half of these were in similar fields (e.g. youth work / family mediation).
10 However please note that the numbers are small and length of time working at previous centres ranges from 4 – 72 months.
19 4.7 In general, both voluntary and paid staff had a wide range of relevant experience to bring to their contact centre work. Only 2 respondents (both volunteers and non-organisers) did not seem to have any relevant experience, and both had been given initial and refresher training in the course of working at a contact centre.
Languages
4.8 Thirteen respondents spoke more than one language. All but three of these respondents spoke French as their second language. The remainder named English, Italian & Spanish as their second language. All but one of the respondents’ first language was English (this respondent’s first language was Italian).
4.9 Of the 13 respondents who did speak a language other than English, only two had ever had reason to use it during the course of their work at the contact centre. Of the remaining 29 that had no second language, 12 stated that they had been in at least one situation where a second language would have been useful, although there was no one language which appeared to be significantly in demand.
Reasons for working at contact centres
4.10 Only the volunteers interviewed were questioned about their reasons for working at a contact centre. Their responses are listed in Table 4.1 below:
Table 4.1 Reasons for volunteering at contact centres Reasons Number of respondents % of respondents Wanted to give to community 23 79 Had some spare time to give 21 72 Wanted to use skills 20 69 Interested in work of contact centre 19 66 Experience of contact issues 7 24 Asked to do it 5 17 Worthwhile cause 3 10 Wanted to work with children 2 7 *Other reasons for working at contact centre 11 38 N=29 *‘Other’ reasons for working at a contact centre included the ways in which they had heard about the opportunity to work there. One had formerly been a centre user, another had spoken with staff at a contact centre before deciding to volunteer, and another had responded to an advert in a newspaper.
TRAINING
4.11 A total of 37 out of the 42 respondents (89%) had received either formal or informal training. Respondents were asked to specify if they had received any formal or informal training and guidance. There was the potential for variation among respondents about what constituted ‘formal’ and ‘informal’. However the open question at this point in the
20 questionnaire allowed them to go into a little more depth, and the definition was fairly consistent between respondents11.
4.12 Respondents who had received some kind of training were asked what form the training delivery took, the majority of those receiving training were given this in the form of a course over several days. Twenty-six (84%) of the 31 respondents who answered this question stated that either Family Mediation Lothian or Family Mediation Scotland provided their training. The standard training provided by FMS also functions as a screening process, whereby potential volunteers can assess whether the role of a contact centre worker is appropriate for them, and the centre staff can assess whether the candidates are suitable for the role.
4.13 Three contact centre workers said that they had not received any training until after they had started working at the contact centre, which was perceived to be of limited use by these respondents.
4.14 It should be noted that the high levels of relevant experience generally held by centre staff is pertinent when considering training issues. While superficially it may seem to be of some concern that three out of the 13 paid organisers surveyed had not received formal training, in practice they are experienced professionals who had ‘trained themselves’ by attending courses and seminars as and when they felt that it was appropriate.
4.15 Respondents were also questioned on what topics their training covered. The training topics which were listed as options in the questionnaire were based on those recommended by the SNCCC guidelines for training of voluntary and paid staff (SNCCC 1999:5). These are:
- General facts / statistics about divorce and separation - Effects of divorce and separation - Loss and separation issues - Domestic violence guidelines - Child protection procedures - Legislation - What a contact centre is / is not - Sources of referral - Advantages and disadvantages of using a contact centre - Managing conflict
4.16 Tables 4.2 and 4.3 outline the topics covered by the training given to the participants.12
11 Day courses, longer courses and induction meetings were regarded as ‘formal’. One respondent who received training in the form of shadowing regarded this as formal as it was a structured programme of work shadowing, where as for the rest of the respondents this was regarded as an informal process. 12 Please note that respondents were given the opportunity to identify any additional topics that their training covered if they were not listed in the questionnaire. Additional responses given by more than one respondent have been included in the tables above and indicated with an asterisk.
21 Table 4.2 Training received: Paid / voluntary organisers Number of Training topic responses % of cases Effects of divorce / separation 14 88 Issues of domestic violence 14 88 What a child contact centre is 14 88 Sources of referral 14 88 Child protection 13 81 Health and safety 13 81 Managing conflict 12 75 Family law legislation 11 69 General administrative skills 10 63 How to prepare for and receive families 9 56 Staff training skills 6 38 Cultural awareness 6 38 Finance / fundraising 5 31 Management skills 4 25 Confidentiality* 1 6 Neutrality* 1 6 Communication skills* 1 6 Other 0 0 No answer 2 13 N=16
Table 4.3 Training received: Voluntary workers Number of Training topic respondents % of cases What a child contact centre is 20 83 Family law legislation 18 75 How to prepare for and receive families 17 71 Child protection 16 67 Sources of referral 16 67 Managing conflict 15 63 Effects of divorce / separation 14 58 Health and safety 14 58 Issues of domestic violence 13 54 Neutrality* 4 17 Cultural awareness 3 13 Confidentiality* 3 13 General administrative skills 2 8 Communication skills* 2 8 Role of volunteer* 2 8 Other 4 17 No answer 4 17 N=24
22 4.17 The respondents who had received training were also asked if there were any areas where they would have liked to receive more training. Eleven out of the 37 respondents who had received some training said that there were areas where they would like more training. The areas that they would like more training in included: child protection (2), managing conflict (2), staff training skills (1), family law (1), sources of referral (1), drug & alcohol abuse (1), cultural awareness (1), issues around domestic violence (1) and how to help families relax / play together (1).
4.18 SNCCC guidelines also note the following; “regular ongoing training and built in support is strongly recommended for both organisers and volunteers”. Twenty-eight (76%) of the 37 respondents who had received training also stated that they had received refresher training. This was typically received at least twice a year (as was the case of 19 of these respondents, or 68%), and a further 5 stated that refresher training was given “on demand”.
4.19 Those who did not receive any training were asked whether they would have liked to receive some, and if so, in what areas they would have liked to be trained. As the number of workers who did not receive training was small, there were no discernible trends detectable.
RESPONSIBILITIES AND ROLES OF CONTACT CENTRE WORKERS
4.20 The main roles and responsibilities identified by contact centre workers are described below.13
4.21 For both volunteer workers and volunteer organisers / co–ordinators, the main responsibilities identified were the responsibility of making sure that the handovers and the contact itself go as smoothly as possible.
Volunteer workers - main responsibilities: Of the volunteer workers, 64% said that chatting with families to make them feel at ease was one of their main responsibilities, and 55% stated that overseeing handovers was one of their main responsibilities.
Volunteer workers – other responsibilities The vast majority of volunteer workers stated that they were involved in play activities in some way – 84% provided play ideas if asked to do so, and 92% were responsible for putting out toys and play materials for children visiting the centre. The other roles identified by a large majority of volunteer workers centred around taking care of families; such as talking to families, and making tea and coffee.
Paid workers and volunteer organisers – main responsibilities: Of the paid workers and volunteer organisers, 67% said that ensuring that handovers and contact proceed as agreed was one of their main responsibilities. Other roles identified as ‘main’ responsibilities were health and safety (40%), the briefing and debriefing of staff (33%), liaison with referrers and other agencies (27%) and overseeing the entry and exit of centre users (27%).
Paid workers and volunteer organisers – other responsibilities: All of these respondents said that they had responsibility for maintaining records, and for health and safety within the
13 The role of an contact centre organiser / co-ordinator is to manage the contact centre on a day to day basis. This role may be paid or voluntary.
23 centre. Again, the vast majority identified roles involving taking care of centre users, such as preparing for families (94%) and overseeing the entry and exit of centre users (88%). Staff issues such as briefing / debriefing and staff supervision were also commonly cited. However only 5 of the paid workers and volunteer organisers (29%) identified fundraising and / or budgetary management as a responsibility of theirs.
SERVICES OTHER THAN SUPPORTED CONTACT
Defining levels of contact
4.22 This part of the study has looked at the different levels of contact provided by centre workers in terms of supported and supervised contact (rather than statutory supervised contact)14. Various terms are used to describe the various types of contact available within contact centres. These are set out in Chapter 1.
Service provision in Scottish contact centres
4.23 All Scottish contact centres provide supported (low vigilance) contact, and for most this is the only service provided by the centre. As discussed elsewhere in this report, contact centres in Scotland are not generally set up for the purpose of providing counselling or statutory supervised contact. However as one of the aims of this stage of the research was to investigate the types of services that are currently provided by contact centres in Scotland, respondents were questioned about provision of services other than supported contact. Respondents were also questioned regarding additional services beyond this; namely, supervised contact, counselling and statutory supervised contact. In addition this part of the research also sought to collect basic information on centre staff’s perceptions of the demand for services other than supported contact.
Supervised (high vigilance) contact
4.24 57% of respondents (24) had been asked to provide supervised contact. Of these, the majority stated that they were ‘sometimes’ or ‘rarely’ asked to do so. The remaining 6 said that they were asked ‘all the time’ or ‘frequently’. Thirteen respondents, from 8 centres, had actually provided supervised contact. Of these respondents, less than half (5) were paid respondents; the rest were voluntary workers (1 was a voluntary organiser). Most respondents who had chaperoned had done so for between one and five families.
4.25 The reasons why respondents had been asked to provide supervised contact are given in Table 4.4 below.
14 Please note that centre workers were questioned about whether or not they had provided chaperoning rather than supervised contact. ‘Chaperoning’ in this case was defined in the same way as supervised contact is defined above. This term was used as it was felt to be more readily understandable, and less likely to be confused with supervision of venue contact.
24
Table 4.4 Reasons chaperoning asked for Reasons Number of responses Child on 'at risk' register, or on court request 3 To 'ease' parents into the contact centre 3 Parental concern 3 Child uncomfortable / upset 2 Parents asked for chaperone 2 Other 3 No answer 1 Total 17 N=13 NB: Respondents could give more than one answer to this question
4.26 Most of the requests for supervised contact were made by parents (named as the source of a request by 10 respondents). The 11 respondents who had been asked to chaperone a child during contact, but who had not actually done so, were asked why they did not provide this service. All of these respondents stated that it was against their centre’s policy to do so.
Counselling
4.27 Seven respondents had, at some point, been asked to provide counselling, mainly for adult members of the family. Only two stated that they had actually provided any counselling; both of these were paid workers with experience in social work, and were from different centres. However, one of these respondents defined ‘counselling’ in the informal sense of listening and giving advice, whereas the other respondent regarded it in terms of a more formal process that was part of her job. Of those who had not, two stated that their centre policy precludes counselling.
Statutory Supervised Contact
4.28 Eleven respondents had been asked to provide Statutory Supervised Contact (SSC) at some stage while working at their current contact centre. Of these respondents, three had been asked frequently, five had been asked ‘sometimes’, and the remaining three said that this was rare.
4.29 Only three respondents stated that their centre had actually provided SSC at some point – these were all volunteer workers at the contact centre in the Western Isles. The two respondents that provided an estimate of the extent to which this service is provided stated that between 1 and 5 families had received SSC over the past 6 months. The reasons given for providing this service were in response to court and / or social work requests.
4.30 Eight respondents had been asked to provide SSC but had refused this request; all said that this was because it was not the centre’s policy and / or responsibility to provide this service.
25 Services other than supported contact: The Western Isles
4.31 The reporting of provision of counselling and statutory supervised contact in this part of the study originates from only one contact centre. While the practice throughout the rest of this report has been to anonymise the centres and report results in aggregate form only, there are special circumstances to note in this case. The provision of counselling and SSC are not standard functions of a contact centre, and it is to an extent the geographical location of the centre in the Western Isles that determine their provision of these services15.
4.32 Counselling and family mediation are provided by centre staff. However this is on the condition that a staff member does not see a family in more than one capacity. For example, if a family member is receiving counselling from a member of staff, this person should not be on duty when they are visiting the premises in its role as a contact centre.
4.33 It appears that the Western Isles contact centre is the only centre in Scotland at the time of the research to provide statutory supervised contact. As it is a small community there are a limited number of neutral venues available to social workers in which they can provide statutory supervised contact. In these circumstances contact centre staff would still provide a basic service while a social worker provided formal supervision and undertook any reporting duties.
FAMILIES WITH SPECIFIC ISSUES
4.34 Centre workers were questioned on their experiences when dealing with families who may require additional attention or have specific needs that may need to be borne in mind by workers responsible for supporting them during their visits. They were questioned about any contact they may have had with centre users with histories of domestic abuse, substance abuse and mental health issues, and whether there were specific requirements that such users may have of the contact centre and its staff.
4.35 Contact centres do not operate universal screening policies when taking on new centre users. In addition to this, the information held by centre organisers regarding the backgrounds of centre users is generally reliant on either the information given by referrers such as solicitors, all of whom will use their personal discretion regarding what the centre needs to know about the family in question, or on the information volunteered by the centre users themselves. Similarly, it is left to the centre organiser’s discretion whether families are admitted to the contact centre.
4.36 With this in mind, it must be appreciated that centre workers will not necessarily be aware of users’ personal histories, even though such referring agencies may be party to this information. It must also be noted that workers occasionally expressed reservations that these allegations were always true or accurate, particularly as hostile and estranged parents or other family members may have made these allegations.
4.37 Further, the accuracy of allegations impact on the validity of the results outlined below. For example, participants were asked about their experiences in working with centre
15 Although it should be noted that some organisations do provide counselling, mediation and contact centre services all over Scotland. The distinction here is that the contact centre staff do not provide counselling services apart from in the Western Isles; counselling is undertaken by different members of staff.
26 users with a history of mental health problems. Allegations notwithstanding, this is something that respondents are not really in a position to assess. Mental health problems will not always manifest themselves in a recognisable behavioural form. Further, types of behaviour that the respondent has judged as indicative of mental illness may not have such reasons as their root cause.
4.38 Respondents were asked to distinguish between what they believed to be ‘mental illness’ from what they believed to be anti-social behaviour unrelated to mental illness. However these judgements may be very impressionistic and are highly subjective. There are cognate problems involved in respondents’ accounts of working with the other ‘user groups’ covered in this section. Staff are not well placed to form a complete or well informed picture of abusive family histories or a person’s history of substance abuse.
4.39 Finally, these three issues are only examples of the types of situations which may make contact difficult for families, and which may necessitate different types or quantities of attention from the centre and its staff. The complexity of how such issues interact with and impact upon a family’s circumstances is difficult to assess. The results from this section can be taken only as indicative of some of the kinds of issues and complex social situations that contact centre staff must navigate in the course of their work.
Users with a history of domestic abuse
4.40 79% (33) of respondents said that they had worked with families that had a history of domestic abuse. Most of these respondents (30 of the 33) felt that such users have specific requirements of the contact centre. Only four of these respondents said that they did not feel equipped to meet some of these needs. Three of them identified the same issue that could be problematic for families with a history of domestic abuse, which was that the centre does not allow for the staggered entry of centre users. These respondents all worked at different centres.
4.41 This has been identified as a problem for some centres in a more general sense, but is clearly a serious issue for families with a history of domestic abuse. If the resident parent cannot leave the centre after dropping the child off, or enter the centre to pick the child up without passing the visiting parent at some point, then this may, at the very least, limit the usefulness of a contact centre to such families16. The contact centre may be seen as a way in which a child can have contact with a non-resident parent whom the resident parent does not want to see. This is clearly very serious in cases where issues of domestic abuse are involved. Domestic abuse was also cited by some respondents as a safety issue when working in the centre.
Users with a history of alcohol / drug abuse
4.42 The SNCCC guidelines state that “if it appears, in the organiser’s opinion, that the contact parent is under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the commencement of contact (such that they are unable to care for the child during contact, appropriately relate to the child during contact or follow the reasonable directions of the organiser) the contact should not be allowed to take place”. (SNCCC 1999: 7)
16 Also see Furniss 1998: 8 on handovers / separate entrances.
27 4.43 93% of respondents (39) stated that they had worked with centre users who had a history of drug or alcohol abuse. Twenty seven of the respondents who had had experience of working with those with a history of substance abuse (69%) stated that they felt these users had specific needs that ought to be attended to when using the centre.
4.44 Anecdotally, there appeared to be differences in opinion among organisers as to whether centre users under the influence of alcohol or drugs should be admitted to the centre, and correspondingly different practices in these circumstances.
Users with ‘problematic’ histories: some further issues
4.45 It is worth noting that there are a number of issues with how this part of the questionnaire was framed, with concomitant effects upon the responses and results obtained. Firstly, no details were ascertained regarding such ‘problematic’ histories; for example, the roles of resident / non-resident parents. Secondly the labelling of ‘problem’ families is possibly stigmatising, both implicitly in terms of this research, and possibly explicitly if a centre chooses to ‘screen’ for certain families with certain issues that we have categorised here as ‘problematic’. Finally, the ‘specific needs’ named by centre staff tend to refer to the needs of centre workers rather than centre users. This is likely to be a result of the way that the question was framed, and the context of the whole questionnaire, which focused very much on the respondent and their work rather than the service users.
SAFETY AND SUPPORT
4.46 Respondents were asked a range of questions about their well-being while working at contact centres. This part of the survey focused on the perceived safety of the centre they currently work at, any aspects of their work that they find upsetting or emotionally taxing, and the types of formal and informal support that they have available to them as centre workers.
Abusive or violent incidents encountered by centre staff
4.47 Four of the respondents reported that in the past they had been threatened with violence while working at the contact centre. One stated that they had been threatened once, and the remaining three stated that they had been threatened between 2 and 5 times, during the previous 12 months.
4.48 No-one had actually been physically assaulted over the last 12 months. However 18 respondents (43%) stated that they had been “verbally assaulted” at least once during the previous 12 months.
4.49 In addition to this, 23 respondents (58%) stated that they had witnessed physical or verbal violence directed at a contact centre worker over the previous 12 months. Of these, 15 (36%) had witnessed physical violence and 22 (53%) had witnessed verbal violence.
4.50 This is in contrast to the number of incidents recorded on FMS’s Serious Incident Register. At the time of the research only 2 incidents had been recorded since 1997, when the register was first set up. There may be a number of reasons for this discrepancy.
28 4.51 Firstly, a serious incident is defined as one where formal action of some kind has been taken; for example, if a warning letter is sent to a user or referrer regarding future behaviour in the centre or the police are called. It is clearly feasible that not all of the incidents referred to by the survey respondents resulted in this kind of action, which is likely to be a major factor in this discrepancy.
4.52 However at the time of this research it was the case that the reporting of serious incidents is not actually incorporated into the SACCC guidelines. It may be that lack of knowledge of the register is the main reason why the number of serious incidents reported in the register is so low. There was nothing to suggest that the prevalence of physical violence or verbal abuse was concentrated in particular centres.
Safety measures
4.53 83% of respondents (35 in total) stated that they were confident with the centre’s safety. The seven respondents who were not confident of the centre’s safety were asked if there were any measures that could be taken to make them feel more comfortable. Few suggestions emerged among the 7 respondents. The measures that were suggested included more training for centre staff, higher staffing levels and a different system for people entering the centre.
4.54 There was nothing to suggest that the individual centre or the centre organisers had any bearing on respondents’ perceptions of the centre’s safety; all of the 7 respondents were from different centres, which were in turn distributed among most of the organisations running child contact centres.
Support issues
4.55 A total of 31 respondents (74% of the survey population) stated that they found aspects of working at the centre emotionally challenging. The aspects that these respondents named as such are outlined in Table 4.5 below.
Table 4.5 Emotionally challenging aspects of working at contact centres Aspects Number of respondents % of cases* Effects on children / children distressed 12 64 Breakdown of contact / long gaps in contact 6 33 Conflict between parents / children "caught in the 6 33 middle” of parents’ conflict Contact or resident parent not turning up 4 21 Distress of centre users 3 17 Hearing difficult / sad stories from users 3 17 Hard to be neutral 3 17 Dealing with children with behavioural problems 1 5 Other 6 33 Total responses 44 240 N= 42 * Percentages are of the whole survey population (42 respondents); however only the 31 respondents who stated that they found aspects of their work upsetting were asked to identify what these aspects were.
29 4.56 While 43% stated that they had been ‘verbally assaulted’ over the past 12 months, 36% had witnessed a physical assault in the centre and 53% had witnessed a verbal attack in the centre, none of the respondents referred to aggressive encounters by centre users when naming the aspects of their work that actually upset them. It is difficult to say why this is, as the definition of a verbal or physical attack in this case is not clear.
4.57 Only 2 respondents (5%) stated that no support was available to them in the centre if they found their work upsetting. The remaining 40 respondents were questioned about the kind of support that was available to them; an outline of their account of support available in the centre is given in Table 4.6 below.
Table 4.6 Kinds of support available to workers
Number of respondents Support type: Formal Formal debriefing by organiser / co-ordinator 11 Professional counselling 4 Meetings 2 Availability of formal support from umbrella group 1 Support type: Informal Informal support network* 37 Support type: Other 2 N= 40 Please note that respondents could give more than one answer to this question.
4.58 As was the case with the definition of ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ training, it was left to respondents to explain what they regarded as formal and informal support. Respondents’ definitions of formal and informal support are summed up in the classifications outlined in Table 4.6 above. However caution should be exercised in interpreting this table, as there could be some disparity among respondents. For example, what is regarded by some as a formal debriefing may in reality have the same content as “speaking to the centre director” for others. However it may be useful to recant that 94% of paid workers and volunteer organisers regarded briefing and debriefing of staff as a responsibility of theirs, and 33% regarded this as one of their main responsibilities.
4.59 Using this definition, 14 respondents in total named at least one type of formal support that was available to them in the course of their work. A further 26 respondents named at least one type of informal support available to them. The remaining 2 respondents stated that they did not have any support available to them.17
4.60 The other type of support available which was not classified as ‘formal’ or informal’ that was described by respondents was the freedom given to volunteers to decline work that they did not feel comfortable with – for example the supervision of families.
4.61 Two respondents said that they did not have support available to them in the centre when they were upset. The types of support these respondents said that they would like to be available were: debriefings by organiser / co-ordinator, professional counselling and an informal support network (all were cited by both respondents). Both of these respondents worked at different centres, run by different organisations.
17 Please note that the SNCCC guidelines (SNCCC 1999: 9) state that all staff should be debriefed after a contact session.
30 SUMMARY
• In general both voluntary and paid staff had a wide range of relevant experience to bring to their contact centre work.
• 14 respondents in total named at least one type of formal support that was available to them in the course of their work. A further 26 respondents named at least one type of informal support available to them.
• 37 out of the 42 respondents (88%) had received either formal or informal training. 28 respondents (67%) stated that they also received refresher training. This was typically received at least twice a year (as was the case of 19 of these respondents).
• 57% of respondents (24) had been asked to provide supervised contact (with high vigilance as opposed to statutory supervised contact). 13 of these respondents had actually provided supervised contact;
• 8 respondents had been asked to provide statutory supervised contact but had refused this request; all said that this was because it was not the centre’s policy and / or responsibility to provide this service;
• 7 of the respondents had, at some point, been asked to provide counselling, mainly for adult members of the family. Only 2 stated that they had actually provided any counselling; both of these were paid workers with experience in social work.
• The reporting of provision of counselling and statutory supervised contact in this part of the study originates from only one contact centre. The geographical location of this centre in the Western Isles determined their provision of these services.
• 79% (33) respondents said that they had worked with families with a history of domestic abuse. Most of these (30 of the 33) felt that such users have specific requirements from the contact centre.
• Only 4 of these respondents said that they did not feel equipped to meet some of these needs. All of them identified the same issue that could be problematic for families with a history of domestic abuse, which was that the centre does not allow for the staggered entry of centre users.
• 93% of respondents (39) stated that they had worked with centre users with a history of substance abuse. 27 of the respondents who had had experience of working with those with a history of substance abuse stated that they felt these users had specific needs that ought to be attended to when using the centre.
• 31 respondents (74% of the survey population) stated that they had worked with centre users who had a history of mental illness. 5 respondents felt that the centre was not equipped to deal with some of the requirements of these centre users. These respondents mentioned issues such as the extra staffing which would be helpful when extra vigilance is needed, and the need for greater awareness among workers regarding the skills needed to cope with some centre users with mental health problems.
31 • 4 of the respondents reported that in the past they had been threatened with violence while working at the contact centre. 1 stated that they had been threatened once, and the remaining 3 stated that they had been threatened between 2 and 5 times, in the course of the previous 12 months.
• No one had actually been physically assaulted over the course of the last 12 months. However 18 respondents (43% of the survey population) stated that they had been “verbally assaulted” at least once during the previous 12 months.
• In addition to this, 23 respondents (58% of the survey population) stated that they had witnessed physical or verbal violence directed at a contact centre worker over the previous 12 months. Of these, 15 had witnessed episodes of physical violence and 22 had witnessed episodes of verbal abuse. However, 83% of respondents (35 in total) stated that they were confident with the centre’s safety.
• 31 respondents (74% of the survey population) stated that they found aspects of working at the centre emotionally challenging. The aspects that these respondents named as such tended to centre on witnessing the distress of centre users, especially children.
• One third of respondents had some kind of ‘formal support’ available to them in the course of their work. All but 2 of the remaining respondents stated that they had an informal support network available to them. It should be noted, however, that the distinction between ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ is not completely clear.
32 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
5.1 This chapter discusses some of the implications of the data provided in chapters three and four. It attempts to place the information on general user characteristics and the profile and experiences of contact centre staff within the context of selected, pertinent social issues.
FAMILIES USING CONTACT CENTRES
5.2 No figures exist which identify the total number of children affected each year by their parents’ separation. Of the 11,864 divorces in Scotland in 1999, 8% (981) involved children.18 In the region of 1013 children were the subject of residence orders and 1523 children the subject of contact orders, in Scotland in 1999.19 It is not possible to make an accurate judgement from this research what proportion of these families use contact centres, although it would appear that this would be rather small.
5.3 The official statistics on divorce and on residence and contact orders are not disaggregated by the ages of children affected. The research showed that the largest group of children using contact centres was aged 0-5 years. Children aged 0-10 accounted for approximately 95% of the children using contact centres. Only 5% were aged 11+. Around half the families using centres had court orders in place and where information was provided, the order was for contact.
5.4 In a study piloting the monitoring of Part 1 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (Hardin et al, 2000), the researchers found that from a sample of 502 court processes, the average age of children involved in family actions was 7 years old and that 31% were aged under 4. A quarter were aged 12 or over. In non-divorce and defended actions the average age was 6 years and in divorce cases the average age was 8 years.
5.5 Under sections 1 and 2 of the 1995 Act it is a parental responsibility and right to:
• Safeguard and promote the child’s health, development and welfare • Provide direction and guidance to the child • Maintain personal relations and direct contact on a regular basis with a child that is not living with them • To act as the child’s legal representative.
5.6 Section 6 of the 1995 Act requires those with parental responsibilities and rights to have regard to the views of the child concerned (as far as practicable). Section 11 requires the court, when considering whether or not to make an order, to give a child the opportunity to express his or her views, and to have regard to those views.
5.7 Both section 6 and section 11 contain a statutory presumption that a child aged 12 or more is of sufficient age and maturity to a form a view. The correlation across the research
18 Scottish Executive Justice Department Civil Judicial Statistics Scotland 1999, Edinburgh: The Stationery Office 19 Management Information System, Sheriff Courts
33 concerning the relatively small number of children aged 12+ and the predominance of children aged under 10 has implications for how those involved in family transition inform, obtain and regard the views of children. Parents, too, must be aware of the onus placed upon them by virtue of section 6. Such matters were beyond the scope of the work, but are issues requiring further investigation.
5.8 As Cleaver (2000) observes, case law since the introduction of the 1995 Act has followed the presumption of contact in cases of divorce or parental separation. She states “Contact between a child and non-resident parent is seen as advantageous. Indeed, case law has ruled that it is not necessary to show a positive advantage or benefit for the child from such contact” (Bispham 1999, in Cleaver 2000). This is significant in understanding the context in which contact is granted and in which contact centres may be used.
ALLEGATIONS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE
5.9 Contact centres do not generally seek to elicit information on families’ backgrounds, or to exclude families on the basis of this. The implications of this, and issues surrounding appropriate referrals to contact centres will be discussed later. This section looks at some of the issues facing contact centres in working with families with a history of domestic abuse.
5.10 Previous research has illustrated that living with the fear of domestic abuse is detrimental to children, even where that abuse is not directed to them, but is carried out by one parent against the other. Hester and Radford’s research on child contact centres in the context of domestic violence found that in the majority of cases where such contact is established, the child or mother is exposed to further abuse or harassment. They argue that in such situations contact should not be presumed to be in the child’s best interests. (Hester & Radford 1999, in Cleaver 2000: 5-6)
5.11 It is acknowledged that there are different ways of defining domestic violence and, therefore, of measuring it. In terms of the prevalence of domestic abuse, the Scottish Crime Survey is one source of data. The Scottish Crime Survey (SCS) is conducted approximately every 4 years, with sweeps conducted in 1996 and 2000. It was found that 6% of women and 3% of men reported being the victim of either threats or force from their partner or ex-partner during 1999. Over half (56%) of all victims reported that at the time of the incident(s) the perpetrator was a current partner/husband/wife with a quarter describing the perpetrator as an ex-husband/wife/partner. Over half (54%) the incidents of threats or force involved the perpetrator having been under the influence of alcohol, while in 28% of cases they had taken drugs. In 21% of cases the perpetrator had been under the influence of both alcohol and drugs.
5.12 A new question was added to the 2000 survey that asked whether children had seen or heard any incidents of force. Whilst only 63 respondents answered the question, in households with children, 37 of these (58%) saw or heard at least one incident of force20.
20 Please note that 5059 respondents completed the main questionnaire in the 2000 sweep of the SCS.
34 5.13 Scottish Police figures for April – December 1999 recorded that 26,000 incidents of domestic violence were reported.21 In 93% of incidents where the sex of the victim was recorded, the victim was female. Where the perpetrator’s sex was recorded 93% were male. The majority did not lead to the recording of a crime/offence (57%). Where a crime/offence was recorded this was mostly for petty assault (21%) and breach of the peace (18%). Serious crime accounted for 5% of all incidents.
5.14 Both stages of the research seem to indicate that there is a relatively high prevalence of domestic abuse - either historical or current - among families using contact centres. The first stage of the research found that approximately a fifth of total centre users had made an allegation of domestic abuse and a quarter of new referrals. Predominantly the allegations involved the contact father abusing the resident mother. A quarter of children from newly referred families came from households where there had been an allegation of domestic abuse. The second stage found that 79% of centre workers surveyed had worked with families who they believed had a history of domestic abuse.
5.15 In the survey of centre staff, respondents were not questioned specifically about their experiences in working with families with a history of domestic abuse, nor about the identity of the alleged abusers and victims. However they were questioned on the ability of the centre to cater to the needs of such families. The most common concern among centre workers was that measures should be taken to ensure that parents do not have to come into contact with each other when attending a centre. Three respondents (9% of those who had worked with families with an alleged history of domestic abuse) reported that this problem existed in the centre that they worked in; these respondents all worked at different centres; in other words, at least three contact centres in Scotland had this particular problem.
5.16 It is not possible to tell from this research whether any of the children witnessed the abuse referred to. It must also be borne in mind that the figures for domestic abuse relate to allegations; as previously stated, contact centres do not seek to substantiate such claims.
ACCESS TO SERVICES
5.17 There was a lack of data in the study on centre users and centre staff from ethnic minority groups. It is notable that many of the centres included in the study were located in areas with the largest ethnic minority populations, particularly Glasgow and Edinburgh. The evidence gathered in this research, however, is far too small-scale and inconclusive to suggest that the uptake of contact centre services is especially low among members of ethnic minority populations.
5.18 The recruitment of centre staff from ethnic minority groups, however, is of course only one issue that may affect the inclusivity of the service. For example, only 21% of respondents to the staff survey had received any kind of cultural awareness training. Language barriers may be another issue from centre users’ or potential centre users’ points of view, although staff had rarely experienced situations while working in the centre where they had felt that language barriers had been an issue.
21 Scottish Executive (2000a) Domestic Abuse Recorded by the Police in Scotland 1 April – 31 December 1999, Statistical Bulletin, Criminal Justice Series Bulletin CrJ/2000/5, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive
35 5.19 There are, of course, many other access and equality issues that this research did not address, although some anecdotal evidence supplied by staff during the course of the study may be worth noting at this point. One example is that it was reported by some centre staff that there was no access to the centres for wheelchair users. We may also refer back to the observations of centre staff on the requirements of families with a history of domestic abuse; clearly the use of a centre is problematic for people if the structure of the building does not allow them to avoid an abusive ex-partner.
5.20 One accessibility issue that was not investigated as part of this research is the apparent lack of services available in many parts of Scotland. It is also clear that services generally have extremely limited opening hours, and tend to be restricted to weekends only. It is not within the bounds of this research to suggest whether or not there is unmet need for contact centre provision; however this may usefully be investigated further.
SUPPORTED AND SUPERVISED CONTACT
5.21 As stated earlier in this study, under ‘supported contact’ the venue is supervised, but the contact itself is not, unless the parents agree an independent chaperone. In the latter case, the contact becomes supervised contact. However, Scottish centres do not tend to provide statutory supervised contact (with the known exception of the centre in the Western Isles discussed in Chapter 4, due to its remote location and small size of the community served).
5.22 The staff survey results indicated that 57% of respondents had been asked to provide supervised contact. 31% of respondents had actually provided supervised contact at some stage (from 8 centres, or 57% of the centres represented in the survey population) over the past 6 months. 26% had been asked to provide Statutory Supervised Contact (SSC) at some stage while working at their current contact centre. Only 3 respondents stated that their centre had actually provided SSC at some point – these were all volunteer workers at the contact centre in the Western Isles, and the statutory supervision itself was provided by social workers within the centre (in accordance with social work legislation on SSC).
5.23 These results can be set against the findings of Furniss’ 3-year study of English child contact centres (Furniss, 2000). The research included an in-depth examination of 9 centres and interviews with referrers and parents. Her work identified diversity in service, not only in terms of facilities and opening times but also in the type of service offered. Supported contact was offered by 99% of the centres surveyed, which involves staff keeping a general eye on families and contact and offering unbiased help. In contrast, supervised contact was offered by 12% of centres (defined as contact taking place in private rooms where only 1 family at a time has contact, with at least 1 professionally trained staff member in the room at all times).
RESPONSIBILITY FOR APPROPRIATE REFERRALS
5.24 This study found that solicitors and the courts account for the largest number of referrals (combined over the three months of the study they accounted for 72% of all referrals). Scottish centres also accept self-referrals, which accounted for a fifth of total centre users self-referred. The research also found that approximately 5% of referrals were made by a social work department. It appears from the views expressed by respondents while participating in the research, and from other research in the area (e.g. Furniss, 2000) that the
36 terminology surrounding the type of contact offered by centres and the inter-changeable use of terms seems to be confusing, for users, referrers22 and workers alike.
5.25 The SNCCC does not have a screening policy that it recommends to its centres, and it is not a universal practice of contact centres to actively seek information on families’ backgrounds that may impact on families’ requirements for additional support and / or vigilance. There are also not recommendations on exclusion of such families by reason of their histories.
5.26 However anecdotal evidence from this study suggests that there is a great deal of diversity in contact centre practice in this area, and that there are differences in the ways that organisers may exercise their discretion in not accepting a family (for example, in making the decision whether a non-resident parent with a history of perpetrating domestic abuse should be permitted to use the centre).
5.27 For contact centres the issue of responsibility for appropriate referrals is something which needs to be carefully considered. The assumptions underlying referrals must be made explicit, either by the referrers or identified by the centres at the point of intake. In any case, it would seem to be important that referrers should have clear information on the services provided by the different centres that may fall within their jurisdiction. This may require the Network to co-ordinate an audit of services across the various centres, to ensure that such information is regularly updated and to ensure comprehensive dissemination of the information.
5.28 Furniss’s work has demonstrated the ways in which diversity can lead to confusion for referrers and parties and create potential for inappropriate referrals. She found that someone working within the family justice system had referred the majority of users: judge, magistrate, solicitor, court welfare officer or guardian ad litem. Often solicitors, court welfare officers and judges worked together in recommending a contact centre to parents. Her qualitative work revealed confusion over the different type of contact on offer and she quotes examples were this confusion has affected solicitors and in turn the information they provided to their clients.
5.29 Her work also revealed that centre co-ordinators were over-optimistic in their assumptions regarding the level of information provided by referrers to users. In the absence of pre-contact visits, referrers may be the only source of information upon which a parent bases his/her decision on whether to use a centre. Referrers could be placed on a spectrum which ran from those who saw it as their duty not to refer families where they believed that this was likely to cause further problems, to those who would refer anybody to a centre, regardless of the level of support that was available at the centre and of any problems in the family’s history. Furniss counselled against contact centres placing too much reliance upon referrers and concluded that there was a greater role for centres to develop their own
22 As Halliday (1997: 53) notes: "The importance of the distinction between supported and supervised contact is frequently not appreciated by the courts who make orders for supervised contact at a centre when the centre makes it clear on their literature that they do not offer supervised contact and no one has obtained the consent of the centre to supervise it. If the wrong terminology is used there is a danger that a family who need 'supervised contact' are not getting it and that one or both of the parties come to the centre expecting more of the volunteers than is on offer." Please note, however that Halliday's article is not referring specifically to contact centres in Scotland, and that Phase 3 of this research explores the issue of conflicting expectations of contact centres in depth.
37 practices. She posited that where a centre cannot meet a family’s needs then a referral should be refused (Furniss, 2000).
38 CHAPTER SIX KEY CONCLUSIONS
6.1 This chapter aims to briefly summarise the key messages on contact centre service provision, and the characteristics of centre users and centre staff, gained from both stages of this research.
Contact centre service provision
• Contact centres are provided by the voluntary sector as neutral, safe environments where contact can continue between a child and a non-resident parent. There is no single model of a contact centre. They operate within the constraints imposed by the limitations of their premises, the availability of staff and funding. At the time of the study, contact centre provision in Scotland was patchy; 13 of the 32 council areas in Scotland did not have any contact centres. Of those centres in operation at the time, opening hours were typically restricted to weekends, for an average of 5 hours per week.
• Contact centres see themselves as a stepping-stone to parents making their own arrangements for contact outwith the centre. Yet the majority of contact visits taking place are at the lower end of the spectrum on offer, i.e. contact taking place solely within the confines of the premises from which the child cannot be removed. A far smaller number of contact visits were ‘exchange’ contacts; i.e. the use of the centre as a place to pick up and drop off children, but with the rest of the contact visit taking place outside of the centre.
• Most of the contact centres’ service provision comprised supported (low vigilance) contact. Just over half of staff (57%) had been asked to provide supervised (high vigilance) contact, and 31% had actually provided supervised contact. Provision of counselling and statutory supervised contact was made in only one of the contact centres included in this study.
Characteristics of families using contact centres
• The picture that has emerged is one of centres facilitating contact for families with children aged under 10, with the majority of contact parents using the centres being their fathers. For a sizeable minority of families using contact centres, issues such as domestic abuse, substance misuse and mental health problems were frequently reported, in both stages of the research.
Referral routes for families using contact centres
• Families were most commonly referred to centres by their solicitors, and just under three- quarters were referred by solicitors and / or the courts. Just under a fifth of families had referred themselves.
39 Characteristics of contact centre staff
• Contact centres in Scotland are largely staffed by volunteers, although most organising agencies stipulate that the overall running of centres must be undertaken by paid, qualified staff (and this, on the whole, appears to be the case).
• On the whole, levels of work experience relevant to contact centre work seemed to be high, and the provision of training for staff was seen by respondents as satisfactory. Much of this training, however, was provided on an informal basis.
Challenges facing centre staff & support provided
• Levels of reporting of episodes of physical violence and verbal abuse within the centre seem to be rather high (43% had been subject to verbal abuse and 58% had witnessed at least one episode of verbal or physical abuse directed at staff over the past 12 months). However it should be emphasised that none of the survey respondents had actually been subject to a physical attack within the centre. Such incidents were not reported by respondents as an element of the work that they found especially upsetting; witnessing centre users’ distress was generally cited as the most emotionally taxing part of their work. Nearly all centre workers stated that they had some kind of support available to them in the centre when they found elements of their work upsetting; most of this support was in the form of informal support networks.
40 ANNEX ONE 26 CONTACT CENTRES
Area Contact Centre Name Run By Aberdeen Children’s Society Family Voluntary Service Aberdeen Contact Centre Alloa Alloa Family Centre Family Mediation Central Arbroath Child & Family Centre Family Mediation Tayside Ayr WRVS Contact Centre WRVS Ayrshire/Dumfries & Galloway Area Office Dumfries WRVS Contact Centre WRVS Ayrshire/Dumfries & Galloway Area Office Dundee One Parent Families Scotland One Parent Families Scotland Contact Centre Edinburgh George Street Contact Centre Family Mediation Lothian Edinburgh Granton Contact Centre Family Mediation Lothian Edinburgh Hailesland Contact Centre Family Mediation Lothian Edinburgh Viewforth Contact Centre Family Mediation Lothian Elgin Elgin Contact Centre WRVS Moray District Office Falkirk Falkirk Contact Centre Family Mediation Central Galashiels Galashiels Contact Centre WRVS Borders Area Office Glasgow Glasgow Contact Centre Stepping Stones in Scotland Glasgow St Stephen’s Church Centre WRVS Glasgow Area Office Glasgow Glasgow Southside Contact Family Mediation West Centre Greenock Inverclyde Family Contact Church Organisation Centre Hamilton WRVS Contact Centre WRVS Glasgow Area Office Kelso WRVS Contact Centre WRVS Borders Area Office Livingston Eliburn Contact Centre Family Mediation Lothian Musselburgh Olivebank Contact Centre Family Mediation Lothian Paisley Paisley Child Contact Centre Church Organisation Perth Contact Centre WRVS Perth & Kinross District Office Stornoway Western Isles Contact Centre Family Mediation Stranraer Family Centre WRVS Ayrshire/Dumfries & Galloway Area Office West Dumbarton WRVS Contact Centre WRVS Glasgow Area Office
41 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Children (Scotland) Act 1995, c36
Cleaver, H.: Fostering Family Contact, HMSO (2000).
Furniss, C.: Family Contact Centres and Parents in Conflict, University of Leeds, Department of Law (unpublished work).
Furniss, C.: The process of referral to a family contact centre: policies and practices, in Child and Family Law Quarterly 12 (3) 2000: 255-281.
Halliday, E.: The role and function of child contact centres, in Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 19 (1) 1997: 53-60.
Hardin, J., Bissett-Johnson, A. and Main, S.: Monitoring the Children (Scotland) Act 1995: Pilot Study, Scottish Executive Central Research Unit (2000).
Mitchell, J.: How should contact centres be used?, in Family Law (August 2001): pp 613 – 618.
Pankaj, V.: Family Mediation Services for Minority Ethnic Families in Scotland, Scottish Executive Central Research Unit (2001).
Scottish Executive: Preventing Violence Against Women: An Action Plan for the Scottish Executive, Scottish Executive (2000).
Scottish Executive: Domestic Abuse Recorded by the Police in Scotland 1 April – 31 December 1999 Statistical Bulletin, Criminal Justice Series Bulletin CrJ/2000/5, Scottish Executive (2000a).
Scottish Executive Justice Department: Civil Judicial Statistics Scotland 1999, The Stationery Office (2000).
Scottish Executive Justice Department: Parents and Children, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/justice/familylaw/ (2000).
Scottish Needs Assessment Programme: Domestic Violence, SNAP (1997).
Scottish Network of Child Contact Centres: Information Leaflet 15/3/leaflet/aims, n.p. (1998).
Scottish Network of Child Contact Centres: Guidelines for Contact Centre Procedures, n.p. (1999).
42 Scottish Office: (Preventing Violence Against Women – a Scottish Office Action Plan, n.p. (1998).
Wilson, G.: Fathers after Separation, University of Glasgow / Scottish Executive Central Research Unit (unpublished work).
43 ISSN 0950 2254 ISBN 0-7559-3681-7 ISBN 0 7559 3681 7 Price £5.00 www.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearch
The text pages of this document are produced from 100% Elemental Chlorine-Free material. 9 780755 936816 The paper carries the Nordic Ecolabel for low emissions during production, and is 100% recyclable.
Astron B34819 3/04