Support for homeless ?teenagers must improve

While the spirit and success of the 2012 Olympics has enveloped this land of ours in a much-welcomed afterglow, August has also seen some stark injustices continue to bring shame on society. The case of the 16-year-old boy forced to live in a tent for nine months because of the failure of Kent and Dover councils to recognise him as a child in need and as homeless is shocking and extreme.

As a result of the “Southwark judgment” three years ago, local authorities are required to ensure homeless 16- and 17-year-olds are provided with accommodation and qualify as looked-after children, under Section 20 of the 1989 Children Act. They also have a duty to fund their housing and support costs and leaving care services once they turn 18. Even though a local youth centre manager warned Kent repeatedly about the boy’s circumstances, it refused to act.

To meet their duties, councils must have “joint protocols” setting out clear and practical arrangements to support homeless young people so they are not passed from pillar to post. This must include having a named contact in the housing and children’s services departments. But it is not enough for a protocol to merely exist; it must have awareness and understanding among all children’s social care staff and housing officers.

Fulfilling these demands against the backdrop of budget cuts is a challenge. The Section-20 duty should re-enforce councils’ focus on providing cost-effective homelessness prevention services such as family mediation. Impending changes to housing benefit coupled with the shortage of housing could result in homeless young people becoming further overlooked.

The case in Kent must provide a wake-up call that it is simply unacceptable for a homeless teenager to be waking up in a tent through sun, sleet and snow for months on end.


Home Office guilty of commissioner oversight

For another stark injustice, look no further than the case of former Youth Justice Board strategy director Bob Ashford. He has been forced to step down as a police and crime commissioner (PCC) candidate after the Home Office confirmed that youth convictions for imprisonable offences bar people from running. Aged 13 in 1966, Ashford says he was told to plead guilty after being discovered by a railway with a group of boys shooting cans with an air gun, despite never touching the gun himself (see bobashford.co.uk for details).

The restriction was introduced as an amendment to the police reform and social responsibility bill at committee stage. As Ashford puts it himself, barring candidates “because of offences committed by young people perpetuates the disadvantage inflicted upon all young people convicted of offences”. Viva, the so-called “rehabilitation revolution”.

The government has said it wants to attract a strong field of PCC candidates with experience outside politics. In barring people like Bob Ashford, it has chosen to use an air gun from 46 years ago to shoot itself in the foot.

ravi.chandiramani@markallengroup.com