The Criminalisation and Exploitation of Children in Care

Multi-Agency Perspectives

Julie Shaw, Sarah Greenhow

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9780429678011
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

The Criminalisation and Exploitation of Children in Care explores the results of a recent qualitative study, which focused on multi-agency responses to children and young people in residential and foster care who were at risk of criminalisation and/or exploitation and abuse.

Recent high-profile reports have highlighted an urgent need for effective multi-agency work to tackle the issues of criminalisation and exploitation of children and young people in care. However, progress to date has been slow, and it is clear that there is still some way to go before effective multi-agency working becomes widespread. In response, this book draws upon the experiences and perspectives of practitioners from a sample of co-located Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs, as well as the latest research, theory and policy developments in the field. In doing so, it explores both the benefits and challenges of multi-agency working and concludes with recommendations for future policy and practice.

This timely study will be of great interest to students and scholars of criminology, criminal justice, policing studies, social work, health and childhood studies. It will also be a valuable tool for practitioners and policymakers in the criminal, youth justice and social service arenas.

1Setting the scene

Introduction

This chapter will begin by briefly outlining the nature of the contemporary children’s care sector in England, highlighting both the demographics of those currently in care and the nature of the available provision. Drawing upon a range of national and international research and relevant theory, it will then proceed to provide an account of the issues currently facing children and young people in care in terms of their vulnerability to criminalisation and exploitation, as well as the complex interplay that can exist between the two. The chapter will conclude by highlighting how multi-agency working has been repeatedly advocated as a means of more effectively tackling the criminalisation and exploitation of children and young people, thus holding out the prospect of more effective safeguarding outcomes.

Who is in care and where do they live?

Each UK nation has a slightly different definition of a ‘looked-after child’ and follows its own legislation, policy and guidance (NSPCC, 2018). However, in England, around three quarters of children in care live with foster parents, with approximately 11 per cent living in residential children’s homes, secure units and semi-independent living accommodation. Most children are ‘looked-after’ under the auspices of a compulsory care order (section 31 of the 1989 Children Act) where they have suffered or are at risk of suffering likely ‘significant harm’. Here, the local authority assumes joint parental responsibility with the child’s own parents. However, they can also be voluntarily accommodated (section 20 of the 1989 Children Act). Here, their parents continue to have full parental responsibility and, in theory at least, should continue to play a major role. There were approximately 78,150 children in care in England on 31 March 2019. In terms of the principal reasons for becoming ‘looked-after’, 63 per cent of children entered the care system due to ‘abuse of neglect’, followed by 14 per cent who went into care due to ‘family dysfunction’, 8 per cent for family in acute stress and 7 per cent due to absent parenting (DfE, 2019). Many have a range of complex needs, including behavioural, emotional and social difficulties (Department for Education, 2019; Ofsted, 2018a).

There are slightly more males than females looked after – at 31 March 2019, 56 per cent of children looked after were male and 44 per cent were female. These proportions have been quite stable in recent years, although over the last few years there have been greater increases in the number of looked-after children who are male, an increase driven largely by the increase in unaccompanied asylum-seeking children over this period. In terms of age, at 31 March 2019, 39 per cent were aged 10 to 15, with 24 per cent aged 16 or over, and the remainder in the younger age groups. Seventy-four per cent of children in care were white, ten per cent were of mixed ethnicity and eight per cent recorded as black or black British. Non-white children appear to be slightly over-represented in the looked-after children population, in particular, children of mixed and black ethnicity. Children of Asian ethnicity are slightly underrepresented (DfE, 2019).

Most children are looked after under a care order, with 75 per cent under such arrangements at 31 March 2019. The numbers of looked-after children looked after under a voluntary agreement under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 was 18 per cent, with 7 per cent under a placement order (a court order allowing a local authority to place a child for adoption) and less than 0.5 per cent detained for child protection or under youth justice legal statuses. The number of children looked after under a care order has been rising in recent years, and the number looked after under a voluntary agreement has been falling (DfE, 2019).

For both financial and ideological reasons, children and young people in care in England are primarily accommodated in foster placements (Shaw and Frost, 2013), accounting for 72 per cent of children looked after at 31 March 2019 (13 per cent being placed in a foster placement with a relative or friend and 58 per cent being placed with a foster carer who is not a relative or friend). Although a very slight decrease from 2018, this is a similar proportion to previous years and reflects the preference for foster care arrangements exhibited in a number of countries, including Australia, Canada and the USA. In contrast, 12 per cent of children were placed in secure units, children’s homes or semi-independent living accommodation (e.g. hostels or flats where staff are employed to provide support and advice), 7 per cent were placed with parents, 4 per cent were living independently or in residential employment and 3 per cent were placed for adoption (DfE, 2019).

It is noteworthy that the use of both foster and residential care as a proportion of all children in care varies across local authorities. For example with regard to foster care in 2016–2017, 87 per cent of looked-after children from Gateshead were in foster placements, 85 per cent in Croydon, 58 per cent in Camden, and 57 per cent in Barnet. Local authorities with lower proportions of children in foster care tend to have a higher proportion of children in residential care (DfE, 2018a). Local authorities have a general duty to provide accommodation that is within the local area and allows the child to live near their home. Placements inside the council boundary accounted for 58 per cent of all placements, placements outside the council boundary – 41 per cent. Information is unknown for 1 per cent of placements – usually this is to protect the whereabouts of the child. Seventy-three per cent of CLA were placed within 20 miles of home, however 20 per cent were not. Information for the remaining 7 per cent is unknown or not recorded (DfE, 2019).

Provision for children in care varies according to sector but has in common the ever-increasing prevalence of private companies, which have stepped in to fill the gap left by the decrease in local authority provision. With regard to residential care, 73 per cent of children’s homes have been found to be furnished by for-profit providers (Ofsted, 2018b), with the remainder being accounted for by a diminished stock of local authority placements or those supplied by voluntary providers. The number of children living with foster carers registered to for-profit independent fostering agencies rose five per cent to 17,410 from 2012 to 2016, compared with a one per cent rise in children with carers registered directly to the council, to 34,395 (Davies, 2018; Ofsted, 2017). The question of whether organisations should make a profit from children’s social care is a contentious one, with questions raised about both its moral acceptability, and the ability of profit-motivated concerns to provide the best possible care for children (e.g. Howard League, 2018).

Criminalisation

There has been a growing awareness both in the UK and internationally of the intersection between out of home care and the youth justice system (e.g. Colvin et al., 2018; Howard League, 2018; Hunter, 2019; Laming, 2016; McFarlane, 2017; Mills, 2020; Richards and Renshaw, 2013; Shaw, 2017, 2014; Stanley, 2017; Turpel-Lafond, 2009). This awareness exists alongside the need to prevent children in care from unnecessary criminalisation. However, in recent years there has been an increasing momentum to address this problem. In England, this is evidenced by the high profile independent review chaired by Lord Laming (Laming, 2016, for the Prison Reform Trust) and an ongoing campaign conducted by the Howard League for Penal Reform to end the criminalisation of children in residential care (Howard League, 2020a, 2019, 2018, 2017a, 2017b, 2016).

It is important to note that the majority of children in care in England do not get in trouble with the law (Laming, 2016). In the year ending 31 March 2019, three per cent of children aged ten years or over who were looked after for at least 12 months were convicted or subject to youth cautions or youth conditional cautions during the year (DfE, 2019). However, previous statistics have revealed that youth justice involvement is more likely in the older age groups, with four per cent of looked-after girls and ten per cent of looked-after boys in the age 16–17 category receiving a caution or conviction in the year 2017–2018. In addition, the Laming Review’s survey of local authorities found that children in care who come to police attention may have a higher risk of being convicted as opposed to being cautioned compared to other children (Laming, 2016). Similarly, Staines (2016) highlights that whilst less than one per cent of all children and young people in England are in care, 33 per cent of boys aged 15–18 and 61 per cent of the same aged girls in custody report having spent time in local authority care (Kennedy, 2013; see also Summerfield, 2011; Berman and Dar, 2013). This is a sobering state of affairs which clearly runs counter to the obligation placed upon local authorities to act in accordance with ‘corporate parenting principles’ that promote the best interests of and seek to secure the best outcomes for children in care (Children and Social Work Act 2017, Part 1). It is also noteworthy that the available data (DfE, 2018a) indicates that a mere one per cent of children entered care specifically because of ‘socially unacceptable behaviour’, despite popular perceptions continuing to link care experience with trouble (e.g. see Jackson, 2019). The United Nations Committee on the Rights of The Child has mandated against the criminalisation of children and highlights the importance of protecting them (UNCRC, 2019). Nevertheless, this remains a serious and enduring problem.

In terms of the likelihood of youth justice involvement according to placement type, residential care is highlighted consistently as significantly more problematic than other types of out of home care (Darker, Ward and Caulfield, 2008; Nacro, 2012; Sinclair and Gibbs, 1998; Ward and Skuse, 2001). Recent figures revealed that children living in residential care were ‘at least thirteen times more likely to be criminalised than all other children’ (Howard League, 2017a), a state of affairs that has only recently begun to improve (Howard League, 2020a). Clearly then, residential care would appear to be the more concerning environment in terms of youth justice involvement and there are a number of reasons for this.

Despite evidence and acknowledgement of the positive role that residential child care can play (Berridge et al., 2008; Emond, 2003; House of Commons, 2011; Kendrick, 2012) and in contrast with some countries in the European Union, residential care is now typically seen as the provision of last resort in England for the most challenging, often older, children and young people. This retreat from residential provision is both ideological and financial in origin (see Frost, Mills and Stein, 1999 and Shaw, 2014 for a fuller account), with recently publicised cases of historic institutional abuse (see Skold and Swain, 2015) adding to the perception that it should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. A number of local authorities have closed their own children’s homes and now rely on an ever-expanding range of private sector placements. In countries such as Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and France, outcomes for children in residential care are generally far better than those in England. However, there is disagreement as to whether this is because the different management practices and approaches used in these countries achieve better outcomes, or because children with the most serious problems are concentrated in English homes (Hannon, Wood and Bazalgette, 2010). Additionally, in England, most young people will only spend a relatively short period in care and as such, it has been argued that poor outcomes often cannot be separated from negative pre-care experiences (Stein, 2006). Indeed, it is certainly apparent that the prior experiences of the young people, including those of abuse, neglect and poor parenting, have a part to play in terms of their propensity for problematic behaviour and likelihood of youth justice involvement (Darker, Ward and Caulfield, 2008; Schofield et al., 2012; Shaw, 2014; Stein, 2006).

Nevertheless, the available evidence also suggests that other factors directly connected to the experience of being in residential care have the potential to significantly impact outcomes, in both positive and negative ways (Howard League, 2018; Shaw, 2017). These include the influence of the resident group (Barter, 2008; Emond, 2003; Morgan, 2009; Sinclair and Gibbs, 1998; Stewart et al., 1994) and staff-resident relationships (Berridge, 2002; Clough, 2000 Whitaker et al., 1998). The culture and characteristics of the homes (Anglin, 2002; Berridge and Brodie, 1998; Brown et al., 1998; Hicks et al., 2007 Sinclair and Gibbs, 1998; Whitaker et al., 1998) and wider systemic factors, including placement movement and lack of appropriate provision to meet complex needs (Munro and Hardy, 2007; Shaw, 2017) can also be problematic. Going missing from care has been highlighted as a risk factor for criminal activity, something which is more likely in residential placements (Howard League, 2017a) and in turn interlinks with multiple vulnerabilities, including the risk of sexual and criminal exploitation (Beckett, 2011; Children’s Society, 2018; Lerpiniere et al., 2013).

In addition, the inappropriate criminalisation through police and court involvement as a response to challenging behaviour or minor offending committed at children’s home premises is ‘one of the main concerns about the placement of young people in residential care’ (Nacro, 2012, p. 21). Many sources have identified a particularly low threshold for police involvement (Fitzpatrick, 2009; Howard League, 2018; Morgan, 2006; Nacro, 2012; The Magistrates Association, 2013: Ev 104;), often as a result of incidents which would in all likelihood not have been labelled as criminal acts if the resident had lived in a family home. There has been a growing awareness of the need...