A Review Team was established, to lead the review process, comprising of representation from: -

The Review focussed on the following six key areas:

The Review Team recognised that the needs of unaccompanied asylum seeking children and young people extend beyond these key areas. For this reason, it was agreed that the review would also record evidence about needs / difficulties / issues which may require to be addressed in work which would extend beyond the remit of the review

There were three methods adopted in gathering evidence during the review process. These are described below

The use of these three different approaches maximised the involvement / participation of as many people as possible in at least one of the methods adopted. There was an exceptionally high degree of interest in all aspects of the review.

3.0 BACKGROUND TO THE SERVICE

In 2004 / 2005 Social Work Services recognised the growing number of unaccompanied asylum seeking children and young people presenting in Glasgow, for whom services were required to be provided.

At this point in time, the approximate number of UASC presenting in the City was between 40 and 80 in any 12 month period and it became apparent that current services could not fully respond to the level of demand / particular needs presented by this group of young people.

In recognition of the need to ensure appropriate accommodation and support for these young people, 36 rooms were leased by Glasgow City Council, on the ground and first floors of purpose built student accommodation located in the North West of the City.

This accommodation comprises a total of 6 flats, five of these flats provide communal kitchen and a total of 30 bed spaces, with one flat, comprising six rooms and kitchen for the purpose of office, meeting and communal space.

The building also included communal laundry facilities with on-site maintenance and cleaning staff providing by the building owners.

An interim agreement was reached between Social Work Services and The Mungo Foundation to provide additional support to young people admitted to this accommodation pending the conclusion of negotiations between Glasgow City Council and the Home Office to secure funds to develop discrete services for UASC.

A Home Office Grant was awarded in March 2005 of £600,000 over three years (1^st April 2005 - 31^st March 2008) for the ongoing development of the Campus service.

A competitive tender was concluded in March 2006 and the contract to provide support services at Campus was awarded to The Mungo Foundation, with the service formally commencing on 1^st April 2006.

3.1 Aims and Objectives of the Service

An Inter-agency Working Group was established comprising representation from a wide range of stakeholders including, Health, Education, Scottish Refugee Council, Social Work Services, Cultural and Leisure Services, with the remit of agreeing the aims and objectives of the service as follows: -

“to offer appropriate support to young people on arrival in the City, facilitate peer support to young people and reduce the social isolation currently being experienced by those young asylum seekers in bed and breakfast provision.”

These to be achieved through partnership working between the support provider and other agencies to: -

and / or

4.0 STRATEGIC RELEVANCE

4.1 Children and Families Strategic Needs

This section of the report will:

The service was initially developed in recognition of the need to develop flexible, responsive services to respond to the needs of the growing number of young unaccompanied asylum seekers between the ages of 16 - 18 years who were presenting in Glasgow and who were being supported by Social Work Services.

SWS Children and Families Services identified two key strategic aims for the service as follows: -

Whilst the Campus service was one of a number of services available to UASC, it was developed with the specific intention of providing specialist support to young people aged 16 - 18 years. It remains the only service designed for this purpose operating in the City.

4.3 Service Model

The development of Campus was designed to assist in achieving the strategic objectives outlined and the service model was subject to consultation with a wide range of key stakeholders.

Campus was originally designed to deliver three core service elements: -

Direct support provision by The Mungo Foundation staff was provided from 8 a.m. until 10 p.m. over seven days. The service comprised 1 x Project Manager, 1 x Senior Project Worker and 5 x Project Workers.

An overnight concierge service was provided via the Council's Development and Regeneration Services with The Mungo Foundation providing an out of hours on call service during this time.

Following consultation with key stakeholders, the Inter-Agency Working Group agreed criteria for accessing the service:

Within three months of the service being established however, it became apparent, to both Social Work Services and The Mungo Foundation, that the needs of young people being referred to / accessing the service were greater than those that had originally been anticipated.

As experience and practice developed, the operational practices in relation to referral, admission and on-going support evolved to more appropriately reflect the needs of young people presenting in Glasgow. This was achieved through close partnership working between The Mungo Foundation and Social Work Services and, was a result of the high degree of commitment shown by the provider to respond to changing needs.

These developments are clearly evidenced through the consultation responses from both the AAT and Campus staff.

Both sets of workers feel that the original criteria quickly became outdated and unrealistic as in practice young people being referred to the service met few, if any, of the criteria agreed. The approach to referrals and admissions that evolved is more practical and appropriate to meet service user needs.

The nature and level of support provision offered by the service has evolved and includes for example:

There was evidence, from information gathered during the review process, that the majority of the young people accessing the service were encouraged to and actively participated in Education provision.

Statistics provided by the service show that 73 young people had accessed formal ESOL classes and as well as attending ESOL classes, 10 of these young people also participated in other less formal English language courses.

Most significant is the evidence provided by the service in relation to the mental health and well-being of young people accessing the service.

Statistics provided by the service for the Review, show that 27 young people who were admitted to the service were subsequently recorded as having mental health concerns ranging from low mood through to depression and one known incidence of self-harm. The service has been successful in supporting many of these young people to access specialist services or, in some cases to move on to more appropriate forms of supported accommodation.

Although originally established to meet the needs of young male and female UASC, the original profile of referrals and admissions of young people to the service were predominately for young men.

Those young women who were known to Social Work Services were assessed as having high degrees of vulnerability due to the life experiences prior to arriving in the City and it was deemed inappropriate from a safeguarding perspective to accommodate such small numbers of vulnerable young women within a male dominated environment.

The Home Office, has made additional resources available, to enable the provision of overnight support at the service, and this has been seen as a very positive aspect of service development by both young people and staff.

Occupancy levels have been such that it has not been practicable to date to set aside one flat within the service specifically to meet the needs of young women. In particular concerns have been raised in relation to the service's current capacity to respond to: -

The Review Team acknowledge that there is a significant need to develop responsive services to meet the needs of young women and this area of service development has been highlighted as a service gap during the consultation and we recommends the development of discrete services for this vulnerable group of young people.

In conclusion, the Review Team found that whilst many of the young people being referred / admitted to the service do not meet the original criteria for access to the service, there is significant evidence to demonstrate that the service has, in many respects, been successful in responding to the changing profile of needs of young men and, continues to have a strategic relevance in meeting the needs of UASC.

4.4.2 Reducing the Need for Bed and Breakfast and HAC

The Campus service is not a direct access service and, before and during the period whilst the service was becoming established, it was often necessary for young people to be accommodated in bed and breakfast and HAC resources, initially due to a lack of alternative resources and thereafter in order for an initial assessment of need and referral to the service to be carried out.

Once established, the service set a target of same day admissions for young people, where possible. This section examines the effectiveness of the service in meeting the strategic objective of reducing the use of bed and breakfast and HAC resources for young people.

Information received from the service and from the AAT suggests that the need for use of bed and breakfast and HAC resources pre-admission to Campus have reduced dramatically as the referral process and Operational Agreement between the two services have become more streamlined.

Statistics gathered, since 1^st September 2005 showed that 35 young people were admitted to Campus after initially being placed in bed and breakfast with a further 7 young people being initially placed in the Council's Hamish Allan Centre, equating to a total of 42 young people who were deemed as being inappropriately placed in these settings.

In total, approximately 52% of young people were admitted to Campus after being in B&B or HAC accommodation.

An examination of these statistics shows that, whilst use of bed and breakfast and the HAC have not ceased completely, the average length of stay in these resources has reduced overall, with the length of stay decreasing from an average of 62.7 days prior to 1^st September 2005 to 29.0 days after this date.

The analysis then focused on pre-placement activity prior to 1^st September 2005 and

benchmarked this against activity on a year on year basis since this date. The findings are as follows: -

*Dates of admission for two young people were not available.

The continued use of these resources can be attributed to a number of factors including, lack of capacity within the service to receive new admissions and further background information being required about young people to inform the referral to the service.

The Review Team concluded that the statistics above clearly evidence the success of the project in reducing the use of bed and breakfast and the HAC.

5.1 Capacity and Referral Routes

The Campus service has the capacity to provide accommodation and support for up to 30 asylum seeking young people at any one time.

The original service model assumed that 5 of these places would be made available to young people on arrival in Glasgow for the provision of assessment and orientation and the remaining 25 places would be utilised for the purposes of providing low level (foyer) support to young people. However, it quickly became apparent that the majority of young people admitted to the service were being admitted as a result of an initial Social Work Services duty assessment and, the evidence provided in the following paragraphs demonstrates the fact that the majority of the young people were admitted to the service in order for a full assessment of their needs to be carried out.

The agreed route for referrals to the service was through Social Work Services Homeless Young Person's Team, which subsequently became the Social Work Services AAT. This team retains responsibility of the assessment of young people's needs and ongoing care management and planning.

An examination of referral / admissions activity conducted during the review process showed that approximately 62% of male unaccompanied asylum seeking young people referred to Glasgow City Council Social Work Services since the 1^st of September 2005 were admitted to the Campus service. All Campus residents are supported, on admission, to register with the Woodside Health Centre GP Practice and are supported to access health services as appropriate.

There were 102 referrals to the service between 1^st September 2005 and 24^th June 2008.

Eleven of these referrals were subsequently withdrawn with the main reason provided for withdrawal of referral being that other alternative accommodation was secured.

91 young people were admitted to Campus of which, four were readmissions, giving a total of 87 residents since the project was established, 23 current residents at June 2008 and 68 ex residents.

Of these, 78 were referred to the service by the Social Work Services AAT, 2 were referred from Social Work Services South East Care and Health Partnership, 2 from Social Work Services Gorbals Area Team and 3 from Social Work Services Royston Area Team.

Two residents were referred by neighbouring Local Authorities, giving a total of Glasgow placements of 85 young people. The external placing authority is responsible for ongoing responsibility for care planning, as well as the young person's living expenses and accommodation costs until such time as the young person is eligible to access welfare benefits.

Statistics provided by the service indicate the 78 of the 85 new admissions, to the service were as a result of referral, from the AAT, and further analysis shows that 21 of these young people had been referred as a result of a duty assessment, with a further 44 young people being admitted after spending some time in bed and breakfast accommodation or, the Hamish Allan Centre.

Whilst figures on refusals to the service were not available from the provider, the Reviewing Officers are aware that the service has, in the past, refused a limited number of referrals to the service on the basis that the young person's support needs were more complex than those which could be met by the service.

Furthermore, on a small number of occasions young people have been supported by Campus staff to move to more appropriate resources as a result of mental health or other concerns.

The service provider reported that occupancy levels within the project had not been routinely collated pre 2007 therefore; it is not possible to accurately report on occupancy levels prior to this date.

Information provided by The Mungo Foundation as part of the review process indicates the average occupancy within the project for 1^st April 2007 to 31^st March 2008 was 77% although it should be noted that the occupancy rate at any particular time could vary dramatically from a low of 57.1% to achieving capacity of 100%.

The Review Team concluded that reasons for periods of low occupancy could be attributed to a variety of factors including, periods when there has been a significant reduction in the number of new arrivals in Glasgow, transfer of young people to NASS post-18 years, and a number of young people moving on from the service at the one time.

However, we anticipate that occupancy levels and turnover will increase due to acceleration in asylum decision-making resulting from the New Asylum Model.

5.4 Care Planning, Support and Outcomes for Young People

5.4.1 Desktop Exercise

The Review Team examined the practice in relation to care planning, provision of support and review for young people accommodated in Campus.

The desktop exercise involved members of the Review Team sampling individual Support Plan Evaluation, Support Meeting Minutes and sample Risk Assessment for young people and these were found to be acceptable.

In addition, the Review Team found that the service carries out individual risk assessments for young people. The service is in the process of developing a Generic Risk Assessment which is currently the subject of consultation with Social Work Services.

An Operational Agreement, jointly agreed by the Campus service and the AAT, specifies timescales relating to initial reviews and regular reviews thereafter. However, the Review Team found during the Campus / AAT staff consultation process that there was no formal agreement on the frequency of Social Work Services reviews held for young people, either within groups of staff or between them and there seemed to be no consistency of practice within or among the two teams.

However, it should be noted that despite there being no consensus in this area, there was felt to be very good levels of communication between staff groups and between various workers and the young people themselves. In addition, contact between young people and Campus is regarded as very good.

5.4.2 Consultation with AAT / Campus Staff

Campus staff were asked whether they felt that the key working and support planning arrangements within the service effectively informed the review and care management process and the majority felt that the arrangements in place were effective in informing these processes.

However, some members of staff felt that the referral criteria need to be revisited to make it more realistic and that both teams needed more staff to be able to provide more intensive support to young people.

Both sets of staff were also asked their views on how successful the service was in relation to achieving the care plan outcomes for young people and the majority of respondents felt that the service was effective in supporting outcomes for young people, although a number of respondents did highlight the difficulties in accessing move on accommodation for young people.

Campus staff also highlighted that the SWS care plan and Campus support plan were different but related documents, with Campus staff not having access to the care plan.

In considering the findings of the Desktop sampling exercise and the outcome of the staff consultation, the Review Team strongly recommend that a review of Care Management, Care Planning and Support arrangements, led by Social Work Services, be carried out with a view to achieving a consistent approach to these areas of practice.

5.4.3 Young People's View of Support

In considering the findings from the result of consultation with 11 asylum seeking young people (10 current and 1 ex-resident) who have experience of accessing the Campus service, it should be noted that these cannot be considered entirely representative of service users in general. However, these results are still significant as a snapshot of how the service is perceived by young people using it.

The consultation with young people highlighted a number of positive aspects of the service. The aspect that came through most obviously was the positive views young people had of the staff. Young people speak very highly of the amount of support provided by staff and identified a number of ways in which they received help. In total, 91% of residents taking part felt the support they got was helpful or very helpful.

Young People also reported high levels of feelings of safety at Campus (82%), and many young people attributed this to the work of staff in ensuring the building is secure and residents feel safe.

All residents felt they had benefited from the support received at Campus and cited examples of how the service has helped them as follows : -

However some felt that they had received sufficient support to the point where they were ready to move on, and actually complained about lack of opportunities to move to more appropriate accommodation.

Some of the young people identified things they didn't like so much about Campus. No one thing stood out as being an issue for everyone but views were very much the product of individual points of view (e.g. regarding lack of facilities, lack of privacy, and in some cases aspects linked to communal living).

Young people suggested that in addition to improving move-on opportunities, Campus could offer more support to young people to access education (including providing a study room, books and access to the internet) and training / employment opportunities.

The Review Team concluded that there was a high degree of satisfaction among young people about the support provided at Campus.

However, whilst recognising the limitations of the current premises, this could be improved through considering the flexible use of the available space at Campus, as well as providing more educational resources and, offering more support to access educational opportunities and practical training for work appropriate to the young person's individual circumstances.

A total of 15 individuals, representing 12 agencies responded, in full, to the electronic survey that was issued as part of the review process. Respondents reported that they are currently working with a total of 126 young asylum seekers who have received or receive a service from Campus. These figures reflect the fact that many young people will be receiving a service from more than one agency / organisation e.g. Health Service / College placement.

In seeking the views of stakeholders on the effectiveness of support provision at Campus, they were first asked if they were contacted to contribute to Social Work Services Reviews for young people. Only 7% of respondents answered that they were always invited to Social Work Reviews, with 47% responding that they were rarely invited. When asked whether they should contribute to the ongoing review process 27% felt that they should always contribute and 40% felt that they should sometimes be involved in the review process.

However, the majority of stakeholders felt that Campus staff were available when necessary to discuss issues relating to young people and, kept relevant partners informed of issues that affected young people they were working with. There was also satisfaction expressed on the quality of contact between Campus and partner agencies.

Stakeholders were asked whether they were aware of the outcomes Campus was trying to achieve through their work with / on behalf of young people using the service.

11 people responded to this question and six provided specific details of what they thought the service's objectives were. The detailed responses are included at Appendix 1 of this report. In general respondents identified support to access other services e.g. Education, Health and Housing Associations among others and, that outcomes included enhancing young people's independent living skills and providing emotional and practical support to young people.

Only seven people provided their views on how effective the service was in achieving these outcomes, with 29% responding very effective and 43% responding that the service was effective. A small number of respondents (14%) felt that the service was ineffective but no specific reasons were provided for this.

In examining how helpful the service is in assisting other services to achieve their service objectives for UASC 76% of the 14 respondents who answered this question stated that Campus was either helpful or very helpful and again a minority (7%) responded that Campus was unhelpful with no reasons given for this response.

Campus was felt by the majority of respondents to be a valuable resource for supporting young people and generally respondents felt that the service was responsive to young people's needs and, Campus staff had a good knowledge of the issues which affected UASC.

However there were a number of areas in relation to support provision on which respondents felt there could be improvements. These included: - a more developed referral process, an improvement in joint working with Social Work Services and higher levels of staffing to ensure an appropriate response to those young people with more complex needs.

The Review Team concluded that whilst the majority of stakeholders were positive about the type of support offered at Campus, there is a need to maximise the attendance, at reviews, of other relevant agencies who may have valuable contributions to make to young people's care plans.

5.5 Transitions Support

A key element of the service is to work with young people and other partner agencies to support young people during the asylum process and depending on the outcome of their asylum claim, to continue to support the young person in the transition from Campus to other more permanent forms of accommodation, or to prepare them for return to their country of origin.

The Service Review has confirmed that there are a number of existing pressures that inhibit young people moving on. However, these pressures are not limited to UASC, but are relevant to wider population of vulnerable young people in Glasgow: -

In addition to these, a number of specific issues were identified regarding UASC: -

Furthermore, the full impact of the New Asylum Model is not yet clear but could have significant impact on future models of housing and accommodation based support required to meet need.

Much of the above is evidenced by the direct experience of the young people who have moved on from the service since 1^st September 2005 and further enhanced by consultation responses from young people and Campus / AAT staff.

A total of 28 young people have been supported to move on to other forms of supported living with 11 young people moving on to NASS accommodation. A further 3 young people were detained or subject to removal, two of these through the New Asylum Model.

For the 18 young people who were granted refugee status however, there have been significant difficulties in accessing appropriate permanent accommodation. Statistics provided by the service that only 12 young people have moved into their own tenancies since the service commenced, with many of these young people being in receipt of Discretionary Leave to Remain.

Consultation with the AAT and Campus staff, as part of this review process, highlighted a number of reasons for this including lack of appropriate accommodation in young people's areas of choice and lack of support to progress homelessness referrals under Section 5 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001.

This issue was also picked up through the consultation with service users with one young person recommending an improved referral system to access housing options.

Recent negotiations have resulted in agreement between Social Work Services and Glasgow Housing Association to extend the scope of the Care Leavers Protocol to encompass UASC but it is too early at this stage to comment on whether this has been effective in improving the opportunities for move on accommodation for young people at Campus.

The Review Team recommends that the effectiveness of this protocol is jointly monitored to examine its effectiveness in practice.

6.0 QUALITY AND EFFECTIVENESS

The Service Review focussed on three key areas when examining the Quality and Effectiveness of the Service. These were: -

The following sections provide details of the areas examined, evidence provided and conclusion in relation to the service's achievements in these areas.

6.1 Standards and Performance

6.1.1 Contractual Arrangements

The contractual arrangements between Social Work Services and The Mungo Foundation were agreed on the basis of a Block Contract covering the period 1^st April 2006 to 31^st March 2008. This was subsequently extended to 31^st September 2008 in recognition of the extension of the Home Office Grant Award to facilitate the review process.

The Mungo Foundation is included on Glasgow City Council Social Work Services Restricted Standing List for the appropriate categories.

6.1.2 Service Improvement

At the point of establishing the service, advice was sought from the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (Care Commission) as to whether the service would require to be registered.

The Care Commission responded that it would not be necessary to register the service since there was clearly an educational element to the provision of the accommodation.

Since 1^st July 2007, the service has been subject to compliance with Glasgow City Council Social Work Services Contract Management Framework and as such there is regular monitoring of the service and, liaison between The Mungo Foundation and Social Work Services in relation to quality assurance and service improvement mechanisms.

As part of the Desktop Exercise, the project provided examples of service improvement that are line with the Mungo Foundation's Quality Assurance Framework and these were found to be acceptable.

The Review Team concluded that there was evidence of service monitoring and service improvement at both the strategic level and at service level which included, regular liaison between Campus and the relevant Link Commissioning Officer.

It is recommended however, that a formal internal quality assurance process specific to the Campus service be developed.

6.1.3 Complaints

The service returns provided for the Desk Top Exercise suggested that there had been no complaints about the service since the service was established. However, the Review Team noted that verbal complaints which cannot be resolved informally need to be made in writing before these are recorded, which may prove difficult for young people with limited English language skills. It was felt that all complaints should be formally recorded by staff, including informal complaints, so that any common trends could be identified and addressed.

Whilst it was noted that copies of the organisation's policy for encouraging and dealing with complaints is made available to young people, there was concern about the accessibility of this for young people as this is only available in English language version.

The Review Team concluded that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that the Complaints Policy is communicated effectively to young people and recommends that this be addressed as a matter of urgency.

6.1.4 Incident Reporting

During the Desk Top Exercise, the service reported a total of 30 incidents covering the period 27^th October 2005 to 24^th June 2008. These are summarised as follows: -

Twelve of the 30 incidents reported related to incidents that occurred either in area surrounding the project or, as a result of external influences e.g. young people visiting the service or residents being threatened by other young people in the local community.

Two of these incidents were recorded as threats to a staff member and these were attributed to young people who were not living in the project being verbally abusive and damaging property.

In some cases incidents of verbal and / or physical abuse were a result of young people from the project being targeted by local youths.

A number of the incidents which took place outside the project were attributed as having a racial motivation, as were a number of the incidents which took place between young people living within the service.

The service reported that where appropriate, police and medical assistance was called in response to incidents, care managers were informed, and staff worked to support residents and to monitor and address any subsequent issues which arose as a result of individual incidents.

Examination of the Quarterly Returns provided by the service as part of Social Work Services Contract Monitoring process shows that since monitoring of the service began on the 1^st of July 2007 only two incidents were formally reported by the service to Social Work Services.

The Review Team therefore recommends that the process for recording and reporting incidents be reviewed as a matter of urgency.

Although 82 % of young people responding to the consultation reported high levels of feelings of safety at Campus, there were also serious issues raised during the consultation that, whilst possibly isolated incidents, should be investigated and addressed where possible.

The most concerning of these, related to claims of verbal / physical abuse and feelings of danger whilst young people are out in the local area, claims which have been evidenced by the number of incidents reported by the service for this Review.

Furthermore, young people have also made claims of invasion of privacy and suggestions of theft within the building itself and again these issues have been highlighted by the service through incident reporting information provided for this Review.

During the course of the review, the service has been carrying out a Health and Safety audit of the premises and, the property owners, Magnus Properties have recently enhanced security measures in and around the service including, the introduction of additional CCTV monitoring, hourly patrols around the perimeter of the building during the night, provision of two-way radios for staff and personal alarms for night shift workers.

The service also reports a very good relationship with the local Community Police who have regular contact with staff and young people at the project and have provided talks and information to the young people on personal safety.

The Review Team recognise the emphasis placed by staff on ensuring young people are safe and their work to ensure mechanisms are in place to maximise the safety of young people whilst they are in the building or in the surrounding area.

However we would recommend that Campus, in partnership with the Community Police, include as part of the young person's induction to the service, information on ensuring personal safety and street awareness.

Joint working between the AAT and Campus staff was found to be effective overall and this was borne out through discussion with members of staff from both teams as part of the consultation process.

An Operational Agreement was developed and agreed between Social Work Services Homeless Young Persons Team and The Mungo Foundation which encompasses all areas of care and support planning from the initial point of arrival of the young person in the City. This Operational Agreement is included at Appendix 2 of this report.

Consultation with both groups of staff focussed on how effective this Agreement was in practice.

All of the staff were asked whether they were aware of the Operational Agreement and all 12 members of staff responded that they were.

Both staff teams identified particular areas of responsibility where tensions existed.

The AAT staff highlighted the difficulties they faced when supporting young people to access Welfare Benefits stating that, since Campus staff were on site with young people it would be more effective for Campus staff to assist young people in accessing benefits.

A number of the Campus respondents raised their concern about the role of Campus staff in contributing to the age assessment process stating that there was insufficient clarity about the role of Campus staff in such assessments and concern that participation in age assessments could diminish the relationship of trust that staff have built up with young people.

Overall, both groups of staff noted that the Agreement was generally effective and the general consensus was that both groups of staff comply with the Agreement as far as possible. However responses suggest that there is an understanding between the teams and, that there needs to be degree of flexibility in their approach to the implementation of the Agreement.

There was also the suggestion made by some respondents that different workers will adhere to the agreement to different extents, with both parties exercising a degree of “give and take” that seems to have become accepted over time and which some workers argue works reasonably well.

Some of the AAT staff indicated that Campus was “by default” the resource of choice for all young unaccompanied asylum seeking males presenting to them unless there were significant presenting issues at the duty assessment which precluded a referral to the service. This factor may contribute to the difficulties in applying the Operational Agreement.

The Review Team concluded that, in some areas, the practical application of the Agreement is unrealistic e.g. initial review by AAT after 72 hours and it does not address other areas with sufficient clarity e.g. respective roles and responsibilities in undertaking Age Assessments.

We therefore recommend a review of the Operational Agreement, to be carried out by Social Work Services and The Mungo Foundation.

6.1.7 Joint Working with Other Agencies

Evidence supports the fact that Campus has developed very good relationships with Education, Health and other Voluntary Sector colleagues in the locality and this was reinforced by the majority of stakeholders. In particular effective partnerships have been established with the local Health Centre, Careers Scotland, Anniesland College, Glasgow North College, the Bridges Project, the COMPASS service and the Courtyard.

There were however a number of gaps in joint working identified. These included: -

There was also a general feeling that more resources should be dedicated to the service to allow for staff to participate more in social and recreational activities with young people, particularly those who had just arrived in Glasgow and, that the service needed specific facilities around young people's language and cultural needs e.g. books / newspapers in a variety of languages and quiet space for contemplation and study.

The Review Team concluded that whilst in general, joint working is successful there is a need for more cohesive working arrangements between the service and statutory and voluntary organisations in the local area. The Review Team would therefore recommend the establishment of a small Steering Group, comprising key partner agencies from the local area with the purpose of addressing some of the gaps in joint working arrangements which have been identified through the review process.

6.2 Service User Consultation

Sample support plans and minutes of meetings with young people were provided by the service to inform the review process and were examined during the Desk Top Exercise.

There was evidence that interpreters were present at some, but not all, of these meetings, and it not clear from the information received whether this was a result of young people not requiring the services of an interpreter.

The service also reported that every young person is allocated a key worker to co-ordinate support planning, oversee the provision of support and to be a consistent point of contact for the young person and this was seen by both young people and staff to be of positive benefit to young people.

The minutes from Residents Meetings and Young People's Flat Meetings were examined by Review Team members, and whilst the minutes of Residents Meetings were found to be more focussed on staff providing information and instruction to young people, the minutes from Flat Meetings suggested that these meetings were focussed more on issues raised by young people.

There was evidence that the project is responsive to issues and suggestions raised by young people and, works in partnership with young people and other agencies to promote positive social interaction, build self-esteem, support for independent living and promote integration into the local community.

As such, the Review Team found that the support planning and review process demonstrates evidence of on-going service user involvement in determining the support service that young people received.

The Review Team concluded, based on the information received, that the service was most successful in consulting with young people when this was done on the basis of flat meetings and / or in individual key worker sessions with young people.

However we would recommend the development of a formal policy on Service User Consultation which is specific to the service, considers appropriate use of interpreters at meetings / key work sessions and, is made available in languages suitable for the service users.

The service has been represented on a number of inter-agency groups including, the UASC Strategy Group chaired by Social Work Services and, the UASC Practitioners Meeting.

However, whilst feedback from the consultation with the AAT and Campus Team and key stakeholders highlighted very positive working arrangements with a wide range of partner agencies, there is no policy specific to the service relating to Stakeholder Consultation. The Review Team recommends that such a policy be developed.

7.0 FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK

7.1 Funding

Funding for the Campus service is made up from two main streams, Home Office Grant (£240K) and Rental Income (subject to Housing Benefit eligibility). In addition Social Work Services (Children & Families) has since the inception of the service also contributed to the cost of the accommodation and day-to-day living expenses for young people until their eligibility for Welfare Benefits is established.

7.2 Cost of the Service

The main areas of expenditure for this service are the direct support to residents and operational management of the service (The Mungo Foundation), rental of the property (Magnus Properties UK Ltd), domestic rates, property repairs and financial support to residents (living expenses).

For the purposes of this report information for financial year 2007/08 has been used as this offers a picture of the service fully operational.

Notes:

Column A shows the cost of the service including contribution by SWS (C&F).

Column B shows the cost of the service excluding contribution by SWS (C&F).

*Income from Other Public Bodies represents a placement by another local authority.

*Occupancy level is the same as that used for HB income calculation and is consistent with that used by the Homelessness Partnership.

7.4 Income / Expenditure

In 2007 / 08 the level of Housing Benefit Rental Income was not sufficient to prevent the service from having an operational shortfall of £83k, which was offset by Social Work Services (Children & Families).

It is therefore clear that the current funding package of Home Office Grant and Housing Benefit Rental Income does not offer a stable financial platform for this service. In effect the true cost of the service is being underwritten by SWS (C&F).

The Reform Programme is likely to lead to a continued need for the Campus service. In order to allow Glasgow City Council Social Work Services to respond to this there will require to be additional Home Office funding commitments on a full-cost recovery basis taking account of the potential for peaks and dips in demand for the service and resulting implications for financial stability.

7.5 Financial Comparison with Other Services

The Campus service is unique in Glasgow as being the only service specifically designed to meet the needs of UASC aged 16 - 18 years in the City. It has not been possible to accurately benchmark the service against other accommodation-based support services in the City since there are no others which offer such a high number of places to young people with the specific needs of those young people placed at Campus.

In the main, accommodation-based support services in the City tend to offer higher degrees of support to vulnerable young people with more complex needs than the needs of those young people for whom the Campus service was developed.

However, a comparative exercise has been carried out, with three other accommodation based services which are comparable with Campus in terms of support needs being met, examining the following: number of places available, staffing ratios and cost per place per week.

This table clearly evidences that the Campus service offers value for money and considerable economies of scale. However, more importantly, the service reduces significantly the need for Social Work Services to place UASC in other less appropriate, more expensive resources.

8.0 PROVIDER CAPACITY

In reviewing Provider Capacity, the service review focussed on the appropriateness of staffing levels within the project and the provision of staff training.

The staffing complement of the service comprises of a Project Manager, Senior Project Worker, 5 x Project Workers and 2 Nightshift Workers and there is an element of relief staff cover available for staff vacancies. Overnight cover is provided by one Nightshift Worker on a waking basis.

All of the support staff are employed directly by The Mungo Foundation.

Members of the Review Team examined the rotas for the service and were concerned that there appeared to be a high concentration of staff during the hours of 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. on weekdays and a much reduced staffing complement at the weekend.

These issues were raised with the service provider who explained that weekday dayshifts required a higher concentration of staff as this was the busiest period for the service and that all general “office hours” business (e.g. supporting young people to appointments) needed to be completed in this time period. The service provider reported that the service was much quieter at weekends with many of the young people engaging in social and recreational activities. This appears to be at odds however, with earlier comments regarding the need for additional staff resources to support young people in these types of activities.

Social Work Services remain concerned however at the duration of the “Handover Period” during which staff exchange information as this appears to last for two hours, when as many as six members of staff can be on shift at the one time.

The Mungo Foundation is currently working towards the requirement of Scottish Social Services Council in relation to staff qualification and training and the service was able to demonstrate a wide range of training opportunities for staff which are provided from the service provider's central base.

However, other than attendance at UASC related conferences and seminars there had been no specific in-house training or external training accessed for staff around the needs of UASC. This was an area of development that staff within the service wished to see pursued.

The Review Team therefore recommends that the current rota is reviewed and that the provider should develop and be incorporated into both induction and ongoing staff training.

9.0 COMPLIANCE WITH SOCIAL WORK SERVICES 8 CORE SERVICE OBJECTIVES

The Service Review Team were keen to ensure opportunities for the service provider to participate actively in the process and in particular in the assessment of the quality and performance of the service in achieving Social Work Services 8 Core Service Objectives which require to be achieved by all purchased care and support services as follows: -

In order to achieve this, The Mungo Foundation were asked to complete the Provider's Self Assessment Tool to assist the organisation in evidencing continuous improvement and identifying and addressing areas for development within the provision of the Campus service. This was returned in the form of an Action Plan.

The organisation's self assessment indicates that the service is achieving, in the main, all of the core service objectives required by Social Work Services. However, the response highlighted a number of areas where further action would be required as follows: -

In considering whether staff participating in assessments and reviews are competent to do so, the service provider responded that whilst the service provider has an ongoing training calendar, there is as yet no specific provision for training on the needs of this particular service user group. The service provider also felt that there was a need for more clarity in relation to the role of the service in the age assessment process.

The service provider also highlighted difficulties in relation to the requirement that the needs of service users are assessed on a consistent and comprehensive basis prior to a service being offered explaining that the Campus service provides a facility for ongoing assessments and almost all of the residents have been admitted to the service as a result of duty assessment. The service provider responded that this practice has resulted in the service being required to respond to young people who have higher support needs as a result of the difficultly in accessing appropriate alternative resources.

b) Protection from Abuse

In considering the requirement to ensure that service users are made aware of specific policies e.g. procedures for reporting abuse, the policy and / or procedure on challenging behaviour and for making complaints, the service provider responded that all such information was currently provided in English language format and that consideration needed to be given to key policy and procedural documents being produced in a variety of different languages.

The provider also highlighted that until the point that all staff were CALM trained no physical intervention techniques would be deployed. As such, service users are not currently made aware of the policy on dealing with challenging behaviour, there is no clarity about the circumstances in which appropriate physical intervention may be necessary or about the form and level that this physical intervention may take and as such, there is no recording of instances where physical intervention has been necessary.

c) Fair Access, Diversity and Inclusion

Publicity and information about the service is available. However, the service provider states that this only currently available in English language format and consideration should be given to making this information available in a variety of languages.

Data on first languages spoken by young people admitted to the service since 1^st April 2007 showed that nine different first languages were used by young people - Somali, Pushtu, Kurdish Sorani, Farsi, Arabic, Bajuni, Urdu, Susui and Tigrean and consideration should be made to ensure information is accessible in the main first languages spoken by young people admitted to the service.

This will be addressed through current work being carried out by Social Work Services and The Mungo Foundation to produce key information (Project Brochure, relevant policies and procedures), in a variety of languages in CD format that will be provided to young people on admission to the service.

The service provider was also of the view that the eligibility criteria and application process for the service needs to be updated to take account of the fact that the original eligibility criteria no longer applies.

d) Flexible, Sensitive and Responsive Services

The service provider commented that the current accommodation can be restrictive in terms of service users wishing to have guests to stay and the limited space available within the individual flats, coupled with the fact that many of the young people have few personal belongings mean that service users are limited in their ability to personalise their accommodation.

e) Informing and Consulting with Service Users

In responding to the requirement that at the referral stage, potential service users are able to make informed choices. The service provider responded that this had only been partly achieved.

This response was provided as a result of the view that there were no other services available which were specifically developed to respond to the needs of UASC.

Whilst the service provider's practice is to ensure that service users are consulted (where appropriate) on all significant proposals, which affect their life or comfort, and their views are taken into account, this has to be considered in relation to the limitations placed on the young people by Immigration Legislation and the asylum process.

f) Effective Systems and Practice

In considering whether the purpose of the service and its intended outcomes are clear, the service provider responded that this had been partly achieved. The project was initially set up to provide support to UASC who presented with low - medium support needs and who were assessed as capable of independent living. The service provider reported that the changing needs of this service user group has meant that at times the service has had to adapt the provision of support and respond to a higher level of support need than the service is resourced for.

There has been general consensus from the provider and Social Work Services that the service has been proactively responsive to meeting the changing needs profile of young male asylum seekers arriving in Glasgow.

Many of the areas for improvement identified by the service provider through this Self Assessment echo those that have been raised through this review process and these have been included in the Service Review Action Plan.

10.0 CONCLUSIONS

The evaluation of the Campus service needs to be seen in the context of the changing needs profile of UASC arriving in Glasgow since early in 2005 and, the ongoing development of operational practice in responding to the needs of these children and young people.

The service has evolved, over time, in response to the developing understanding of the needs of UASC and, continues to be the only service purchased by the Local Authority that is specifically designed to meet the needs of UASC.

The service has successfully adapted to meet the changing needs of service users and it is clear that young people feel safe and valued within the service. Relationships between young people and staff are good and the service has clearly demonstrated effective partnership working, particularly with the Social Work Services AAT.

The service model remains strategically relevant and important to the SWS Children and Families agenda in relation to providing responsive accommodation and social care support to vulnerable young asylum seekers. The service provides a core element to support UASC arriving in the city and provides an effective alternative to other more expensive services e.g. residential care and supported accommodation services. The size of the service means that considerable economies of scale can be achieved, something that is not available to other service providers.

The Campus service remains integral to the successful delivery of support services to UASC and is adaptive enough to respond to any future changes in demand as a result of the impact of changes that may arise from the implementation of the New Asylum Model.

However, it is important to recognise that Campus is one service responding to the needs of a very specific group of young people and, whilst it has had considerable success in meeting the needs of young male UASC aged 16 - 18 years, it is clear that the service, in isolation, is not sufficient to respond to the wider needs of UASC living in Glasgow.

Whilst the implications, for Glasgow, of the Home Office UASC Reform are not fully apparent, it has long been recognised, in Glasgow, that there is a need for a range of services to meet the needs of UASC. These include: -

It is likely that the need for such services will only increase as a result of the Reform Programme and there is therefore a need for GCC SWS to develop a robust Commissioning Strategy, to respond to this. Such a development would require additional Home Office funding commitments on a full-cost recovery basis in order to ensure a sound financial framework for service development.

This has been incorporated in the Review Action Plan, which has been developed in response to the findings of this Review, and which will be subject to further discussion with the Home Office in regard to the future, ongoing delivery of services to UASC.

On-going monitoring, particularly in relation to service demand and turnover will be required, to ascertain whether concerns, expressed during the review, relating to the UASC Reform have an impact on the existing service model and the wider strategic direction of GCC Social Work Services in relation to responding the needs of UASC.

This is particularly important to ensure that all the services purchased by the Council deliver service quality and positive outcomes for service users.

The existing mechanisms in place for monitoring finance will continue to ensure that Campus continues to provide a service that is in line with the Council's objective in achieving best value in service delivery.

11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND SERVICE REVIEW ACTION PLAN

The Recommendations and Action Plan resulting from this Service Review are detailed below. For ease of reference these have been separated into Service-based Actions and Strategy-based Actions which will require further discussion between Social Work Services and the Home Office.

11.1 Service-based Action Plan

11.2 Strategy-based Action Plan

APPENDIX 1

Campus Service Review

CONSULATION WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS

ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES

1. Consultation with Residents -Analysis August 2008

Responses were received from 9 of the 11 residents that completed the questionnaire. Residents had been at Campus for between 4 months and 26 months, with the average stay of respondents of 12 months.

The table above shows that residents were very positive about the assistance they receive from staff with, in most cases, all 11 receiving the types of help suggested. The only two areas where they identified room for improvement were with getting to know Glasgow and getting an interpreter.

In addition to the pre-determined responses residents identified other areas where they had received assistance from staff at Campus. These are listed below:

In general, residents feel that the help from staff at Campus is either very good (55%) or good (36%).

Only one person suggested that help from staff was “average”.

5. Do you think the staff at Campus are there when you need their help? (n=11)

The chart opposite shows that the vast majority (10 of 11) of residents say that staff are there when they need them to be.

One young person did qualify their response by saying that whilst they were there, they were “not always willing to help or participate”. Another said that staff used to be there for them, but that over time this has ceased to be the case.

6. Would you like…? (n=6)

Residents were asked to specify if the time they were able to spend with staff was enough, or if they wanted more or less. Not all the copies of the questionnaire included the option to say “enough time” and this should be considered in the analysis.

However from the 6 who answered the question there was an equal split (3 each) of people who said they had enough time with staff and those who said they needed more.

Campus staff are regarded as being very helpful by 82% of young people who responded.

8. How helpful are Campus staff? (n=11)

Question 8 of the questionnaire asked residents if they thought staff at Campus were easy to talk to. All 11 young people said that they were.

Again, the majority of young people responded positively when asked if they feel safe staying at Campus.

A further question sought to explore what specifically contributed to feeling safe.

Eight people volunteered examples of why they feel safe at Campus and the responses centred on three key themes; 1-Staff, 2-Security, 3-Being surrounded by others.

Staff

Staff were mentioned most often by residents, who highlighted their availability to go to if help was needed and their ability to respond to the concerns of residents. Residents also mentioned the fact that staff are available 24 hours a day as a factor in feeling safe.

“If I have any problems I can go to staff for help”

“…staff respond to concerns”

Security

The security of the building was cited a key reason for feelings of safety. Residents mentioned the building being “safe” by virtue of people having to sign in and out, the secure entry system, and the fact that no strangers are allowed into the building. A major factor in the security of the building was attributed to the role of the staff who “always work to keep the project safe”.

“I feel safe in Campus because of the staff and because the building is safe”

Other people

Finally residents mentioned the fact that they feel safe because they are surrounded by other people. One young person specifically mentioned not being alone, whilst another elaborated on the benefit of being surrounded by others.

“…there are so many other young people living together and I can just shout on them if I have any problems”.

The two residents who said they didn't feel safe were also asked to elaborate. Their responses were aimed at staff, fellow residents and the local area. One respondent claimed that rooms are searched by staff routinely when young people are out of the building. Another comment was an accusation that residents are stealing laundry. Both of these suggestions have implications for the service in terms of securing personal privacy and possessions.

It was also suggested by one young person that they didn't always feel safe when walking in the neighbourhood where Campus is located.

10. Do you think that staying at Campus has helped you? (n=11)

Everyone said they felt Campus had helped them in one way or another. A summary of these is included below:

“It has helped me to integrate into the community and get used to life in Glasgow”

Two of the young people felt that Campus had helped them but were of the opinion now that they were ready to move on, with one saying that they were no longer getting anything from the service.

“I have been here too long and it's not helping me anymore”

This obviously highlights the need to ensure that move-on options are in place for young people who have achieved all they wanted from the service and are now ready to move to a more appropriate placement, and free up a space in Campus for someone who needs it more.

11. What do you like about Campus? (n=11)

All residents offered examples of things they like about Campus. The responses fell into three main categories; staff, friends and facilities.

Staff

Ten of the eleven residents cited staff as something they liked about Campus. They said staff are “friendly and helpful”, “always willing to help”, “supportive”, and that they “contact me if I am out to make sure I am ok”.

Friends

Several of the respondents said they had made friends at the project and highlighted the service as a good means to spend time socially with others. One mentioned that they particularly like when the service gets a visit from former residents who have come back to see them.

Facilities

Residents highlighted the facilities of the service, including the building itself. Several made reference to the television room and pool room, which were areas that enable them to spend time with other residents and to make friends.

“It is a very sociable place and has a television and pool room”

“I like Campus because it is like my own home…”

12. What do you not like about Campus? (n=11)

Four of the young people did not identify things about Campus they do not like. Of those who did pick out individual things the following were the key factors:

“People in the local community abuse residents and throw stones. The area can be very dangerous at times”.

Five young people said there was nothing they would change about Campus. Seven young people did identify changes that were obviously quite subjective, but are nonetheless still valid responses that should be taken account of so they are listed below.