Are controversial ‘fix rooms’ a solution or a problem?

By Steven McGinty

In August, Glasgow City Alcohol and Drug Partnership (ADP) announced that it had found a potential site for its pilot drug consumption facility.

This new service provides drug users with a place to inject drugs under clinical supervision and discard their needles. Other services may also be offered, including the prescription of pharmaceutical grade heroin (administered under strict controls) and the development of a peer support network.

The site in Glasgow’s city centre would be the first in the UK and it’s hoped that it would be up-and-running by 2018. However, these proposals have been met with a mixed response.

Drug consumption rooms

First established in Bern, Switzerland, in 1986, drug consumption rooms were a response to concerns over the spread of HIV/AIDS, increases in drug related deaths, and the rise of public drug deaths in European cities. They were also part of a wider shift in drugs policy, where traditional abstinence-based approaches were being replaced by harm reduction programmes, which focused on reducing the negative impacts of drug abuse.

Since then, over 90 drug consumption facilities have been opened in countries such as Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and Canada.

The case for Glasgow

Approximately 500 drug users inject in public places in the city centre. This small group of people accounts for the majority of discarded needles – a major public health risk for the city – and for many instances of public order problems. As a result, Glasgow City Council, Police Scotland and other agencies are spending significant resources managing drug misuse in the city centre.

Although this small group of public injectors provides challenges, they are also vulnerable and often experience other issues such as homelessness, mental health issues, and recent imprisonment. In particular, they are far more likely to suffer health problems. This includes an increased risk of blood-borne viruses, injecting-related serious infections, and overdoses and drug-related deaths. In recent years, the statistics have shown a decline in the health of Glasgow’s drug users. In 2015, the number of HIV infection cases rose from a consistent 10 to 47 per year. Drug-related deaths also rose from 157 to 170 in 2016.

As Susanne Millar, chief officer of Planning, Strategy and Commissioning for the Glasgow City Health and Social Care Partnership, and chair of the ADP, explains:

People injecting drugs in public spaces are experiencing high levels of harm and are impacting on the wider community. We need to make our communities safer for all people living in and visiting the city, including those who publicly inject.”

What the experts say

Many have welcomed the announcement.

Dr Emilia Crighton, director of Public Health at NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, and vice chair of the ADP, argues that Glasgow is decades behind other countries in how it responds to drug addiction. She highlights that the city has been at the centre of high profile cases of anthrax, botulism and HIV infection, and that conventional treatment has not been successful at reducing health risks. She explains:

Our ultimate goal is for drug users to recover from their addiction and remain drug free. However, until someone is ready to seek and receive help to stop using drugs it is important to keep them as safe as possible while they do continue to use drugs.”

David Liddell, Chief Executive Officer of the Scottish Drugs Forum, is also in favour of the new facility, explaining that they have been successful in other countries.

They may seem controversial but when you see that these have been running in many countries in Europe for up to 30 years, you get a different perspective. Holland now has 31 drug consumption rooms and Germany has 24, for example. From these years of practice, clear evidence has emerged as to the effectiveness of these facilities.”

But there has also been some notable criticism. For example, Professor Neil McKeganey, an expert in drugs policy with the Centre for Substance Use Research in Glasgow, argued that the scheme is highly flawed. He believes that David Liddell is wrong, and contends that the proposed facilities are controversial. Professor McKeganey highlights previous research with drug addicts in Scotland which found that only 5% wanted to inject more safely, with the overwhelming majority wanting to receive treatment and become drug free. Professor McKeganey also suggests that ‘supposedly’ safer places to inject will not reduce the rising cases of HIV infection and other drug-related harms.

He warns that although these services have a role to play, “there is a real danger here we are moving steadily away from services to get addicts off drugs.

Final thoughts

There is a growing body of research into the effectiveness of drug consumption rooms. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction has found that drug consumption facilities can deliver a number of benefits, including:

  • increasing access to health and social services;
  • supporting safe and hygienic drug use; and
  • reducing public drug use and associated nuisance.

However, the evidence on whether drug consumption rooms reduce cases of HIV or the hepatitis C virus remain unclear. And research has also shown that some countries can find it difficult to establish a legal basis for facilities – as the recent suspension of a facility in Greece demonstrates.

For Glasgow, it probably is about time that a drug consumption room was piloted. However, it will be important that its impacts are fully evaluated and that resources for drug treatment services are maintained in the coming years.


Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team.

If you found this article interesting, you may also like to read some of other health-related articles. 

Going grey behind bars: meeting the care needs of older people in prisons

The population is ageing. People are living longer, and are in need of greater levels of care than ever before. But how is this increase in life expectancy and demand for care being met in prisons? Our prison population is also ageing, at a time when the sector is under increasing pressure, low staff numbers, higher levels of prison violence and disorder, and poor, crowded living conditions. In an environment which is largely designed to support young, able bodied men, how are prison staff and care teams liaising to help meet the needs of older prisoners?

A care plan for ageing prisoners

A report published in 2017 by the Scottish Prison Service called for a specific care plan for ageing prisoners to react to and provide planning to reflect the change in demographic of the prison population. The report found that between 2010 and 2016, the number of men aged over 50 in Scotland’s prison population rose by more than 60%, from 603 to 988. According to a Ministry of Justice report on prison population, the number of inmates aged over 50 is projected to grow from 12,700 to 13,900 by the end of June 2020, a rise of 9.5%, while the number of over-60s behind bars will grow by 20% from 4,500 to 5,400 over the same period.

In July 2017 Prisons and Probation Ombudsman produced the Thematic Review: Older Prisoners, which stated that HM Prison and Probation Service needs a national strategy to address the needs of the increasing numbers of elderly prisoners. It highlighted six areas where lessons still needed to be learned: healthcare and diagnosis, restraints, end-of-life care, family involvement, early release and dementia, and complex needs.

The difficulties older prisoners face on prison estates are far reaching. Not only are there physical barriers to moving around and living within a prison environment, but the increased mental health and social care burden is significant, as well as the potential need to begin end-of-life care. Many prison inmates suffer from multiple, longstanding and complex conditions, including addiction, and these conditions are exacerbated by a phenomenon known as “accelerated ageing”, which suggests that prisoners age on average 10 years faster than people of the same age in the wider community.

While some prisons have effective care plans which allow older prisoners to live with dignity, often older prisoners rely on the goodwill of officers and fellow inmates to meet the gaps in their care needs. And while in England and Wales the Care Act means that, a statutory requirement to provide care lies with the local authority within which the prison is located, this is not a guarantee. Calls have been made for care planning in prisons to become more robust, with minimum standards of care and a clear pathway of delivery, with accountability and responsibility of specific bodies being made explicit.

 

Prison staff, care teams and the NHS in partnership

Any care planning for older people needs input from a number of different sources, and care planning for older people in prison is no different. It will require input from professionals across health, social care, and housing and the criminal justice system as well as wider coordination support and legislative and financial backing from central and local government.

Prisoners with physical disabilities or diseases such as dementia need specialist care at a level that standard prison officers cannot give. Research has suggested that prison staff are being expected to shoulder this extra burden, often having to perform beyond their duty to care for and look for signs of degeneration in prisoners, particularly those who show signs of Alzheimer’s and dementia.

A number of research studies have looked at the provision of training and the use of additional, multi-agency staff to try to bridge the gap in care for elderly prisoners. In 2013 a review was conducted of multiple prisons, including some in England, the USA and Japan, which examined the training available on each estate for prisoners with dementia and similar conditions.

A number of schemes have been trialled, including extra training for staff, the allocation of specific wings or cells adapted to cater to the specific needs of older and vulnerable prisoners, and the use of peer to peer buddying or befriending services to help with care and support. Some prisons have also trialled the introduction of “dementia champions” to identify and support those with early signs of dementia or Alzheimer’s.

Extra challenges on release

As well as social care needs inside prison, specific rehabilitative needs of older prisoners being released from prison is also something that prison charities and reform bodies are keen to raise onto the agenda. A report from the Prison Reform Trust in 2016 highlighted the challenges of rehabilitative and parole needs of older prisoners, commenting that older people released from prison are being “set up to fail” by a lack of adequate provision to meet their health and social care needs on release. It highlights the limited and inconsistent housing, employment, debt and substance abuse advice available specifically for older offenders and suggest that their particularly vulnerable position puts them at risk of serious harm or reoffending.

Final thoughts

The population of older prisoners in our prisons is growing, and it is clear that a comprehensive strategy is needed to ensure that the specific, and at times unique care needs of these prisoners are met. This will mean greater cooperation from social care, health and criminal justice agencies, but will also mean reassessing how we think about social care, how it should be delivered and funded. The needs of older prisoners go beyond physical adaptations, to mental health, dealing with social isolation, the onset of chronic illnesses and at times the provision and planning of end of life care.

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments are interesting our research team.

If you enjoyed this blog, you may also be interested in our other articles:

Helping people with dementia to live well through good urban design

Planning for an ageing population: some key considerations

Co-production in the criminal justice system

Smart Chicago: how smart city initiatives are helping meet urban challenges

Outside a Chicago theatre, with a huge 'Chicago' sign outside

By Steven McGinty

Home to former President Barack Obama, sporting giants the Chicago Bulls, and the culinary delicacy deep dish pizza, Chicago is one of the most famous cities in the world. Less well known is Chicago’s ambition to become the most data-driven city in the world.

A late convert to the smart city agenda, Chicago was lagging behind local rivals New York and Boston, and international leaders Barcelona, Amsterdam, and Singapore.

But in 2011, Chicago’s new Mayor Rahm Emanuel outlined the important role technology needed to play, if the city was to address its main challenges.

Laying the groundwork – open data and tech plan

In 2012, Mayor Rahm Emanuel issued an executive order establishing the city’s open data policy. The order was designed to increase transparency and accountability in the city, and to empower citizens to participate in government, solve social problems, and promote economic growth. It required that every city agency would contribute data to it and established reporting requirements to ensure agencies were held accountable.

Chicago’s open data portal has nearly 600 datasets, which is more than double the number in 2011. The city works closely with civic hacker group Open Chicago, an organisation which runs hackathons (collaborations between developers and businesses using open data to find solutions to city problems).

In 2013, the City of Chicago Technology Plan was released. This brought together 28 of the city’s technology initiatives into one policy roadmap, setting them out within five broad strategic areas:

  • Establishing next-generation infrastructure
  • Creating smart communities
  • Ensuring efficient, effective, and open government
  • Working with innovators to develop solutions to city challenges
  • Encouraging Chicago’s technology sector

 Array of Things

The Array of Things is an ambitious programme to install 500 sensors throughout the city of Chicago. Described by the project team as a ‘fitness tracker for the city’, the sensors will collect real-time data on air quality, noise levels, temperature, light, pedestrian and vehicle traffic, and the water levels on streets and gutters. The data gathered will be made publicly available via the city’s website, and will provide a vital resource for the researchers, developers, policymakers, and citizens trying to address city challenges.

This new initiative is a major project for the city, but as Brenna Berman, Chicago’s chief information officer, explains:

If we’re successful, this data and the applications and tools that will grow out of it will be embedded in the lives of residents, and the way the city builds new services and policies

Potential applications for the city’s data could include providing citizens with information on the healthiest and unhealthiest walking times and routes through the city, as well as the areas likely to be impacted by urban flooding.

The project is led by the Urban Center for Computation and Data of the Computation Institute  a joint initiative of Argonne National Laboratory and the University of Chicago. However, a range of partners are involved in the project, including several universities, the City of Chicago who provide an important governance role and technology firms, such as Product Development Technologies, the company who built the ‘enclosures’ which protect the sensors from environmental conditions.

A series of community meetings was held to introduce the Array of Things concept to the community and to consult on the city’s governance and privacy policy. This engagement ranged from holding public meetings in community libraries to providing online forms, where citizens could provide feedback anonymously.

In addition, the Urban Center for Computation and Data and the School of the Art Institute of Chicago ran a workshop entitled the “Lane of Things”, which introduced high school students to sensor technology. The workshop is part of the Array of Things education programme, which aims to use sensor technology to teach students about subjects such as programming and data science. For eight weeks, the students were given the opportunity to design and build their own sensing devices and implement them in the school environment, collecting information such as dust levels from nearby construction and the dynamics of hallway traffic.

The Array of Things project is funded by a $3.1 million National Science Foundation grant and is expected to be complete by 2018.

Mapping Subterranean Chicago

The City of Chicago is working with local technology firm, City Digital, to produce a 3D map of the underground infrastructure, such as water pipes, fibre optic lines, and gas pipes. The project will involve engineering and utility workers taking digital pictures as they open up the streets and sidewalks of Chicago. These images will then be scanned into City Digital’s underground infrastructure mapping (UIM) platform, and key data points will be extracted from the image, such as width and height of pipes, with the data being layered on a digital map of Chicago.

According to Brenna Berman:

By improving the accuracy of underground infrastructure information, the platform will prevent inefficient and delayed construction projects, accidents, and interruptions of services to citizens.

Although still at the pilot stage, the technology has been used on one construction site and an updated version is expected to be used on a larger site in Chicago’s River North neighbourhood. Once proven, the city plans to charge local construction and utility firms to access the data, generating income whilst reducing the costs of construction and improving worker safety.

ShotSpotter

In January, Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Chicago Police Department commanders announced the expansion of ShotSpotter – a system which uses sensors to capture audio of gunfire and alert police officers to its exact location. The expansion will take place in the Englewood and Harrison neighbourhoods, two of the city’s highest crime areas, and should allow police officers to respond to incidents more rapidly.

Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson highlights that although crime and violence presents a complex problem for the city, the technology has resulted in Englewood going “eight straight days without a shooting incident”, the longest period in three years.

ShotSpotter will also be integrated into the city’s predictive analytics tools, which are used to assess how likely individuals are to become victims of gun crime, based on factors such as the number of times they have been arrested with individuals who have become gun crime victims.

Final thoughts

Since 2011, Chicago has been attempting to transform itself into a leading smart city. Although it’s difficult to compare Chicago with early adopters such as Barcelona, the city has clearly introduced a number of innovative projects and is making progress on their smart cities journey.

In particular, the ambitious Array of Things project will have many cities watching to see if understanding the dynamics of city life can help to solve urban challenges.


Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team.

If you found this article interesting, you may also like to read our other smart cities articles:

What’s going on in our universities … and what does the crisis around campus sexual harassment say about our society?

by Stacey Dingwall

One of the most worrying elements of Donald Trump’s election campaign was his apparent attitude towards women. Critics have highlighed a wide range of sexist comments made by the now President-elect over the years – comments he now claims to regret and has apologised for.

The continuing problems of ‘isms’

Sexism is just one of the ‘isms’ that we seem unable to get rid of, despite efforts to create a more tolerant and diverse society. We’ve highlighted this several times on the blog this year; from the persistent gender pay gap to an increase in hate crime. Yet it seems we are still frustratingly far from living in an equal society.

Trump’s critics have suggested that it is in fact insecurity that has driven him to make some of his remarks. Although it is true that large numbers of (white) women voted for him, it has also been argued that part of his success is down to “angry white men” who feel threatened by the progress made by women, ethnic and other minorities towards the creation of a more equal society.

Sexual violence on campus

The all too frequent accounts of sexual harassment on university campuses around the world represent a particularly ugly aspect of enduring inequality within our society. While the media may focus on incidents occurring within the fraternity system in American campuses, the problem is just as bad in Britain. In September, a poll conducted by the charity DrinkAware indicated that 54% of the female students they surveyed had experienced some form of physical or verbal sexual abuse.  15% of male students reported similar experiences.

It’s not only male students who are subjecting their peers to this abuse, or female students who are on the receiving end. Last month, more than 100 women – students and academics – shared their experiences of sexual harassment and abuse at the hands of male university staff.  The stories depict a culture dominated by the male voice, in which women are frightened into silence rather than taking action against their abusers. Many of the victims indicated feelings of futility in terms of reporting their experience, due to the perpetrators’ power and status. Those who did have the courage to make a complaint reported their frustration at the limited action taken.

How is this being addressed?

Recent reviews by the National Union of Students (NUS) and Universities UK have made recommendations to universities on how to tackle sexual harassment on their campuses. A particular focus has been on implementing policies to prevent and deal with the issue: both reviews found that institutions sometimes didn’t have a sexual harassment policy at all, or it was ineffectively tied in with an overarching policy on bullying and harassment.

Universities UK’s review highlights several examples of good practice from universities in terms of improving the reporting process (the University of Cambridge), implementation of policy (SOAS, University of London), and establishment of taskforces to both raise awareness of and deal with sexual violence on campus (Durham University Sexual Violence Task Force).

More prevention work needed

While it’s encouraging that universities are taking action to respond to this problem, and work is also being done in terms of communicating that campuses should be a safe space for all, the majority of initiatives are focused on dealing with the aftermath of abuse rather than prevention. This is similar to the message often communicated by the media and others that people (predominantly women and girls) should take steps to ‘avoid’ being attacked or raped, rather than communicating to men and boys that they shouldn’t perpetrate these crimes in the first place.

While girls are fed these messages from an early age both at home and at school, there is no similar onus placed on their male peers to learn about consent at the same time. The fact that the debate over the provision of a sex education that is appropriate for the society in which we currently live remains unresolved unfortunately means that these depressing statistics on sexual violence in our universities are unlikely to improve in the near future.

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team.

Highlighting policy and practice: research briefings from The Knowledge Exchange

p1670586

So far this year, our team of Research Officers in The Knowledge Exchange have researched and written more than 30 policy and research briefings on a diverse range of subjects, from housing and planning to technology and training. Written in a clear and concise style, each briefing brings together examples of recently published evidence, alerts readers to new and continuing developments and signposts sources of further information. New briefings are available exclusively to members of our Information Service, and the choice of topics is driven by what our members are asking us about.

Today’s blog post offers a flavour of just some of the topics we’ve been covering during the year.

Housing

In many parts of the UK, people are struggling to buy or rent affordable housing. One consequence is a rise in homelessness. Our briefing – Delivering solutions to tackle homelessness – describes the complexities involved in defining homelessness, and the subsequent difficulties in measuring the scale of the problem. The causes of homelessness are no less complex, and the briefing lists some of the factors that lead to people finding themselves on the street, such as eviction, unemployment, health problems and relationship breakdowns. It also highlights approaches to tackling homelessness, such as social impact bonds and homeless health peer advocacy.

Planning

Closely related to housing is the role of planning in ensuring that individuals and families not only have adequate homes, but the infrastructure and services needed to support communities. One of the significant developments in this area has been the UK government’s policy on devolving more powers (including planning) to England’s cities and regions. Our briefing – Devolution of planning powers to city-regions – explains that each devolution deal agreed between the UK government and local authorities is tailored to the local area. In the West Midlands, for example, a directly-elected mayor will be given planning powers to drive housing delivery and improvements.

The briefing notes that, while there is widespread agreement that devolution of planning powers to local areas is a positive step, there is also concern that local areas won’t be able to deliver what they need to in terms of planning without control of expenditure, much of which is still retained by central government.

Technology

Our “Ideas in Practice” series of briefings presents case studies of projects and initiatives that have tackled a range of social issues, often resulting in reduced costs or improved efficiency. Our smart cities briefing on MK: Smart outlines a technology-led urban innovation project in Milton Keynes that aims to improve the town’s key infrastructure in areas such as transport, energy, and water. One of MK:Smart’s success stories is its Smart Parking initiative, which has encouraged drivers to use limited parking spaces more effectively, as well as providing the council with a better understanding of parking behaviour.

Another technology-focused briefing looks at the increasing development of “serious games” in the domains of planning, education, health and cultural heritage. Serious games in the policy field have borrowed elements from the video games sector, such as virtual reality, simulations and digital game-based learning. As well as improving skills and engagement among individuals, serious games have been used as a powerful way of introducing new concepts to the public, and providing people with an understanding of different points of view. The briefing showcases some examples of the application of serious games, including ‘B3— Design your Marketplace!’ which created an immersive and playful environment to encourage citizens to give their views on the design of a marketplace in Billstedt, a district of Hamburg.

Education, training and skills

A number of our briefings this year have focused on the all-important areas of education, training and skills. The Ideas in Practice briefing on science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) education considers key trends and practical applications. Among the initiatives highlighted in the briefing is Third Space Learning, which connects primary schools in England and Wales with maths specialists via one-to-one online sessions.

In August, we published a briefing focusing on the impact of outdoor learning on educational attainment. It includes information on the implementation of the Forest School initiative in the UK, which places emphasis on children having contact with nature from an early age. The briefing highlights evidence that pupils with the highest connection to nature have been found to perform better in exams, and notes the positive impact on the attainment of those from deprived backgrounds.

Crime

Our briefing on urban gang crime highlights some of the ways that local authorities and organisations have sought to tackle the problem. One of the case studies focused on the exploitation of young women by gangs in Manchester. Delivered by women who have survived gang exploitation, it provides one-to-one support, allowing both mentors and victims to create lasting relationships and networks of support which help them as they transition from life within a gang. In 2013, the project won the Women in Housing award for best community/ training project for its work in rebuilding women’s lives.

Further information

This is just a taster of the variety of subjects addressed in The Knowledge Exchange’s policy and research briefings. A fuller list of briefings is provided here, and members of the Idox Information Service can keep up-to-date with newly-published briefings via our weekly Bulletin.

Equal to the task? Addressing racial inequality in public services

huddleCLR

Throughout October, a series of events to promote diversity and equality will take place as part of Black History Month. Although there are many achievements to celebrate, it is an unfortunate fact that many people in the UK today still experience disadvantage due to the colour of their skin.

Over the summer, reports by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), found that racial inequality in the UK was ‘worryingly high’.

In its biggest ever review of race inequality in the UK, the EHRC concluded that:

“while for certain people life has become fairer over the past five years, for others progress has stalled and for some– in particular young Black people – life on many fronts has got worse.”

Audit of racial disparities announced

The government responded quickly by announcing an audit of racial disparities in public services. It promises to ‘shine a light on injustices as never before’.

From summer 2017, Whitehall departments will be required to identify and publish information annually on outcomes for people of different backgrounds in areas such as health, education, childcare, welfare, employment, skills and criminal justice.

As well as enabling the public to check how their race affects the way they are treated by public services, the data is also intended to help force services to improve.

The audit is being called ‘unprecedented’ – and it certainly is – up until now, public services in the UK have not systematically gathered data for the purposes of racial comparison. Indeed, according to the FT, very few countries, if any at all, currently produce racial impact audits.

‘Worryingly high’ levels of racial inequality

The audit will have its work cut out.  The review by the EHRC found that, compared to their White counterparts, people from ethnic minorities were more likely to be:

  • unemployed
  • on low wages and/or in insecure employment
  • excluded from school
  • less qualified
  • living in poverty
  • living in substandard and/or overcrowded accommodation
  • experiencing mental and physical health problems
  • in the criminal justice system
  • stopped and searched by police
  • a victim of hate crime
  • a victim of homicide

Institutional racism

Similarly, the CERD findings into how well the UK is meeting its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) raised serious concerns about the level of institutional racism in UK public services. Omar Khan, of the Runnymede Trust, suggested that the findings would ‘embarrass the UK on the world stage’.

Longstanding inequalities in access to services, the quality of care received and patients’ health outcomes were criticised, as was the over-representation of persons belonging to ethnic minorities in psychiatric institutions.

The committee echoed the EHRC’s concerns regarding higher unemployment rates and the concentration of persons belonging to ethnic minorities in insecure and low-paid work.  They also criticised the use of discriminatory recruitment practices by employers.

In education, there were concerns regarding reports of racist bullying and harassment in schools, and the lack of balanced teaching about the history of the British Empire and colonialism, particularly with regard to slavery.

The committee also concluded that there had been an outbreak of xenophobia and discrimination against ethnic minorities, particularly since the EU referendum campaign.  Indeed, the rise in post-Brexit racial tensions has been widely acknowledged.

Equal to the task?

Although the audit has been welcomed by many, including the EHRC, others have raised concern about the extent to which it will tackle the root of the problem.  Danny Dorling, of Oxford University, remains sceptical, stating that “within two or three years every single one of these audits is forgotten”.

Some have noted that in order to be effective, the audit will also have to capture outcomes for migrant families, and for poorer White people, who also suffer from discrimination and disadvantage.  Others, including Labour’s Angela Rayner, shadow equalities minister, have noted that there is a ‘huge gap’ in the review as it would not include the private sector.

The EHRC have called upon the government to createa comprehensive, coordinated and long-term strategy to achieve race equality, with stretching new targets to improve opportunities and deliver clear and measurable outcomes.”

Certainly, the data produced by the racial equality audit may well provide some basis for the establishment of such targets.

So while this October there is cause for celebrating the progress made so far, the findings of the EHRC and the CERD underline just how entrenched and far-reaching race inequality remains.  As the EHRC states:

“We must tackle this with the utmost urgency if we are to heal the divisions in our society and prevent an escalation of tensions between our communities.”


Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team.

 

Child abuse by children: why don’t we talk about it?

As a society we don’t like to discuss it, but child-on-child sexual harm is more commonplace than we would like to admit. Whether it is young adolescent or prepubescent abuse; sibling abuse; or sexting and revenge porn among underage teenagers, it remains a taboo subject, and one which the care, education and criminal justice systems can be reluctant to tackle head on.

The scale of the issue

While the majority of sexual abuse is committed by adults, a study in 2003 reported that 20% of convictions for sexual offences in the UK relate to children who are themselves under the age of 18.

There are also high profile cases which have been extensively covered in the media and are often placed within a narrative on ‘poor parenting’, deviance and deprivation. These include the case of a 10- and an 11-year old boy from Doncaster, who were sentenced in 2009 for the beating, torture and sexual abuse of two other boys; and the murder in Liverpool of James Bulger in 1993 by two ten year-olds.

Acknowledging behaviour as harmful

Research by the National Clinical Assessment and Treatment Service (NCats) published in 2010 found that authorities, teachers, social workers and doctors often miss opportunities, or are unsure whether to intervene when they become aware of sexual behaviour.

In many instances the research found that adults were reluctant to acknowledge behaviour as “sexually harmful”, and instead label it as “playful” or “exploratory”. Recognising the difference between these and acting upon it appropriately is vital if children are to be prevented from displaying further harmful sexual behaviour (HSB) in the future.

One doctor commented in a BBC interview that it was not uncommon for a serious teenage sex offender to be referred to a doctor with a complete and detailed history of instances of harmful sexual behaviour, but with no action having been taken in the early years. Research from the NSPCC has also been critical of the provision of support services, both for victims but also for child perpetrators of child sexual abuse, with one academic describing the availability of support services as being a “postcode lottery”. They stress the need for a national strategy to deal with young sex offenders.

In early 2016, the Report of the parliamentary inquiry into support and sanctions for children who display harmful sexual behaviour was published by Barnardo’s. The inquiry found a lack of joined-up working, with different agencies too often dealing with harmful sexual behaviour in isolation from others.

To address this, the NSPCC have produced a framework for assessing harmful sexual behaviour which is designed to provide direction for frontline workers, encourage inter-agency working and help services provide support to families of children who display harmful sexual behaviour.

New challenges in the digital age

Recently professionals are also having to deal with new challenges in relation to the impact of the “digital age”, with online grooming, sexting and revenge porn, and the accessing of online pornography becoming increasingly common among young adolescents and pre-pubescent children.

A survey by one teachers’ union found that children as young as seven were found to be “sexting” at school, while a quarter of teachers who responded to the NASUWT survey said they were aware of 11-year-olds sexting.

In 2012, a qualitative study of children, young people and ‘sexting’ was produced by the NSPCC. It confirmed that even young children are affected, with access to technology and smartphones, making it much easier for them to view, share or produce their own sexual content. It found that in many instances, peers, not older children or adults were the biggest “threat”, particularly to girls.

And a recent campaign by the NSPCC highlighted that one in seven young people have taken a naked or semi-naked picture of themselves, and over half went on to share this picture with someone else.

More action needed

It has been widely acknowledged that the government needs to act to create a specific set of guidelines around child sexual behaviour, and in particular child-on-child abuse. The rise of mobile technology has presented authorities with a new problem and makes it easier than ever for young people to become exposed to, or become victim to, harmful and sexual abuse.

Better guidance and training for different professions is needed on how to recognise and deal with harmful sexual behaviour in children. Similarly, the support networks for victims and perpetrators must be strengthened in order to allow children to feel able to speak up and report instances of abuse, and also to break potential cycles of abuse and prevent children from continuing to project harmful sexual behaviours into adulthood.


Our popular Ask-a-Researcher enquiry service is one aspect of the Idox Information Service, which we provide to members in organisations across the UK to keep them informed on the latest research and evidence on public and social policy issues. To find out more on how to become a member, get in touch.

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team.

Hate crime in 2016 – pre and post Brexit

by Stacey Dingwall

Alongside economic warnings and forecasts, a suggested increase in hate crime has been the social issue dominating headlines in the fallout from the vote to leave the EU in June. In the fortnight following the vote, the British Transport Police recorded 119 allegations of racist abuse and attacks on trains and at stations, which represented a 57% increase on the number of incidents recorded in the previous two weeks, and an 87% increase on the same period in 2015. Overall, according to figures released by the National Police Chiefs Council, more than 6,000 hate crimes were reported in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the month from 16 June. This is equivalent to more than 200 per day, and 20% more than the same period last year. In response, the new Home Secretary Amber Rudd has announced a review by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) of how police forces in England and Wales respond to incidences of hate crime.

Brexit – the catalyst?

The decision to ‘Brexit’ has undoubtedly highlighted divisions in the country that some fear may never be healed. While it obviously cannot be said that only those with the inclination to commit a hate crime voted to leave, there are those who argue that the result has only served to ‘legitimise’ the views of those that do hold xenophobic views.

British politicians have been criticised by a UN committee on racial discrimination for their role in fuelling hate crime during and after the referendum campaign. The committee said that it was “deeply concerned” about the “divisive, anti-immigrant and xenophobic rhetoric” employed by some parties, with the media also coming in for criticism of its negative portrayal of minorities, immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers. While it’s easy to think of examples of this type of rhetoric from Leave campaigners (e.g. Nigel Farage’s ‘breaking point’ poster that was reported to police for inciting racial hatred), it’s important to consider that prominent Remain figures – including David Cameron, who once described migrants trying to reach Britain as a “swarm” – may also be partially to blame for the situation. The new government’s failure to guarantee the future of EU nationals currently resident in the UK is creating further unease.

Hate crime in UK

Of course, Brexit is not wholly responsible for the increase in hate crimes recorded. Nor are migrants the only group to be victims of crime, although racial hatred accounts for 82% of hate crime recorded by police. This is followed by religiously motivated crime, homophobic incidents, transgender hate crime, and disability hate crime. While misogyny is not currently included in the official definition of hate crime, Nottinghamshire Police recently announced that they would begin to record such acts, including wolf whistling, as hate crimes. The police say this is due to the “unacceptable” experiences of women on a daily basis, and has the aim of helping more victims to have the courage to report incidents. The force also recently treated an attack against a teenager who identifies as a goth as a hate crime, following Greater Manchester Police’s decision to treat these attacks as such in 2013.

Underreporting of hate crime makes it extremely difficult to gain a picture of the true extent of the problem in the UK. The UK government’s recently published plan for tackling hate crime notes the discrepancy between the numbers of crimes reported to the police and those recorded by the independent Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW), which means that hate crimes are significantly underreported. The CSEW estimates that there were 222,000 hate crimes on average each year from 2012/13 to 2014/15, which represents a decrease of 56,000 since the previous period covered by the survey. At the same time, the number of hate crimes recorded by the police increased from 44,471 in 2013/14 to 52,528 in 2014/15, which the government attributes to better practice from the police and victims becoming more confident in coming forward. Nevertheless, the CSEW indicates that victims of hate crime are less satisfied by the response they receive from criminal justice agencies when compared with other forms of crime. Additionally, incidences of online hate crime are not covered by either sets of figures meaning that due to the dominance of social media, neither are likely to be truly indicative of what’s really going on.

Moving on from Brexit

In recognition of the need to record online hate crime, the Metropolitan Police announced earlier this month that it has received funding from the Mayor of London and the Home Office to set up a specialist team dedicated to identifying online abuse and supporting victims. The two-year pilot has been set up following claims by community groups that the present police response to a problem they view as being of increasing concern has thus far has been inconsistent.

Encouraging responses to hate crime at the community level can in fact be seen across the country. Post Brexit, EU nationals have seen demonstrations of support in the form of safety pins and messages of solidarity both on and offline. It can only be hoped that those criticised for exacerbating tensions within and between communities will start to follow these examples as we continue on in deeply uncertain times.

If you enjoyed reading this post, you might like our previous post on the impact of Brexit on the Digital Economy Bill.

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team.

 

Preventing extremism in schools…implementing the strategy

by Stacey Dingwall

Last week, Ofsted published the results of its survey of how well further education and skills providers in England have implemented the government’s ‘Prevent’ duty in the year since it was put in place in the sector. The survey, based on visits to 37 providers and findings from 46 inspections or monitoring visits carried out between November 2015 and May 2016, focused on the following key tests outlined in the Prevent guidance issued on 18 September 2015:

  • Are providers ensuring that external speakers and events are appropriately risk assessed to safeguard learners?
  • Are the partnerships between different agencies effective in identifying and reducing the spread of extremist influences?
  • Are providers assessing the risks that their learners may face, and taking effective action to reduce these risks?
  • Are learners being protected from inappropriate use of the internet and social media?
  • To what extent are staff training and pastoral welfare support contributing to learners’ safety?

What is the Prevent duty?

Updated in 2011 by then Home Secretary Theresa May, Prevent is part of the government’s overall counter-terrorism strategy, CONTEST. Its key aim is to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism, and to work with sectors and institutions where there are risks of radicalisation. This includes schools and other education and skills providers such as further education colleges. Schools are identified in the strategy as being particularly important in addressing risks, as they “can play a vital role in preparing young people to challenge extremism and the ideology of terrorism and effectively rebut those who are apologists for it”.

Events such as the murder of Lee Rigby and Birmingham’s ‘Trojan horse’ affair have led to further reviews of counter-terrorism work in schools. The 2013 report from the Prime Minister’s Task Force on Tackling Radicalisation and Extremism stated the intention to introduce even tougher standards from September 2014 to ensure that schools support “fundamental British values”. This was later clarified in official guidance to mean that although “pupils should understand that while different people may hold different views about what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, all people living in England are subject to its law”, however “pupils must be encouraged to regard people of all faiths, races and cultures with respect and tolerance”.

Has the strategy worked?

The results of Ofsted’s survey paint a mixed picture of successful implementation across further education and skills providers. While the agency judged that 22 of the 37 providers had implemented Prevent well (with general further education and sixth form colleges the most successful), it concluded that the sector needs to do more to ensure that all learners are protected from the risks of radicalisation and extremism. Highlighting particular concerns over information sharing between partners and the vetting of external speakers coming onto premises, Ofsted stated that, from September of this year, it would “raise further its expectations of providers to implement all aspects of the ‘Prevent’ duty, and evaluate the impact this has on keeping learners safe”.

Evaluation of the strategy’s success in schools is difficult, due to the government’s unwillingness to provide information on how it evaluates this. Anecdotal information from teachers and other key stakeholders, however, indicate the lack of support for its implementation in schools. Teaching unions have reported that their members feel “scared and under pressure” to implement the duty, which has resulted in a surge of the number of people referred to the police by the education sector. There have also been allegations of “inadequate” training provision for teachers, with complex extreme political beliefs reduced to simplistic descriptions involving stereotypes, and that the use of these stereotypes coupled with overreactions has actually led to the creation of more divisions within communities, rendering the strategy counter-productive.

Rejection by teachers

In March, delegates at the National Union of Teachers (NUT) conference voted overwhelmingly to reject the Prevent strategy, on the basis that it causes “suspicion in the classroom and confusion in the staffroom”.  They also called on the government to “urgently conduct” an independent review of the strategy with their involvement, arguing that a failure to do so could result in a “hardening perceptions of an illiberal or Islamophobic approach, alienating those whose integration into British society is already fragile”.

At the time, the government responded to the vote with the statement that it made “no apology” for protecting children and young people from the risks of extremism through the strategy, and that it is “playing a key role in identifying children at risk of radicalisation and supporting schools to intervene.” Given that the architect of the refreshed strategy has now moved into Number 10, it seems unlikely that the government will alter their stance.

If you liked this blog, you may like our previous post on the local prevention of terrorism.

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team.

 

Secure care in Scotland: measuring outcomes and sharing practice

By Rebecca Jackson

There are five centres which offer secure care in Scotland, with around 100 of Scotland’s most vulnerable children and young people placed within these units. Placements happen if they are deemed to be a risk to themselves, or others, within their communities, and it is felt that they can only be managed effectively within a secure care setting. These placements are arranged via the courts or the children’s hearing system.

 

National Secure Care Project

In 2014 the Scottish Government granted funding to the Centre for Youth and Criminal Justice (CYCJ) for a fixed term project to build on the work of the Securing our future initiative (SOFI) report in 2009. The SOFI report was a comprehensive analysis of the secure care estate in Scotland. It made recommendations for future practice in secure care and also suggested ways that the system could be made more efficient and young person centred. These included implementing and embedding the Getting It Right for Every Child approach and making full use of the Children’s Hearing and Early Years frameworks, including the SHANARRI indicators on well-being.

A scoping study was completed by CYCJ in 2015 which considered the current legislative and academic frameworks, as well as current practices of the 5 centres of secure care in Scotland. This followed the streamlining and takeover by Scotland Excel in 4 of the centres and Edinburgh City Council in the other.

The scoping study report, along with the project plan, highlights the aims and objectives of this new national programme:

  • identifying and promoting current best practice
  • identifying and exploring alternatives to secure care
  • building capacity within the secure care sector to draw comparisons and learn from the rest of the UK (and from each other)

Other key issues that the studies identified as needing to be addressed included:

Outcomes in secure care

One of the key issues raised by academics, policy makers and practitioners within secure care is the concept of outcomes. It’s been suggested that there is a need for both individual outcome targets for each child within secure care but also for a wider framework of general agreed outcomes to allow for better comparison between centres, which it is hoped will help raise standards of practice.

It is also recognised that long term, as well as the immediate, outcomes need to be assessed and researched. This ties in with the need for more emphasis on transitionary care and support. Although there is an expectation that local social workers will follow up on behalf of the secure care units, this isn’t always the case.

Key questions also have to be addressed from within the sector itself with regards to:

  • what are the aims of the centres
  • what exactly is meant by positive outcomes
  • what counts as an outcome
  • how can we look at a child or young person and say that a certain objective has been met, and can this be attributed to any one particular event, intervention or placement

These questions are not unique to the secure care sector but they do need addressed. Similarly there needs to be a wider acceptance that there are multiple outcomes and that these can be in terms of quality of life, process or change outcomes.

Sharing best practice and using staff as “knowledge brokers”

There is concern among practitioners and academics that, as a result of the changes to secure care provision implemented in 2014, secure care units are now reluctant to collaborate and share best practice.

The nature of the new secure care framework agreement means that, despite being referred to as a “secure care network”, the five centres are now in effect “in competition with one another” for individuals to be placed with them.

There is a risk that this constrains the sharing of best practice, ultimately reducing the collective standard of all five centres and therefore reducing the standard of care afforded to some young people. This was particularly highlighted in the 2015 CYCJ scoping report.

One of the key ways to share information and best practice is to allow the people who work within the centres, working with residents on a day to day basis, a platform to discuss and contribute to a wider discussion of best practice outside of their own individual centre.

Another potentially useful strategy would be to integrate approaches from traditional social work with regards to sharing ideas and information. This may also make it easier for social workers within and outside the secure care context to liaise with one another. Using staff members as “knowledge brokers” could be an efficient and effective way to allow staff to communicate best practice. Tools such as a digital platform, interactive app or online forum could help staff to share their experiences.

With the project scheduled to run until 2017, some of the issues highlighted here were discussed at an event hosted by CYCJ and WithScotland at the University of Strathclyde in April 2016. The hope is to increase collaboration and move the provision of care and creation of successful and useful outcomes frameworks forward as part of the wider National Secure Care Project.


Read more from our blog on supporting vulnerable children and young people across the UK:

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team.