Someone else’s problem: the concentration of unaccompanied children and lack of responsibility sharing in the UK Jo Wilding University of Brighton Conference is organised in the scope of the “In whose best interest? Exploring Unaccompanied Minors’ Rights Through the Lens of Migration and Asylum Procedures (MinAs)” research project, co-funded by the PPUAM 2013 of the European Union.

1.Mapping 2.Effects 3.Solutions?

Children Act 1989 Section 20 Unaccompanied children are looked after by the local authority where they first come to attention.

Why bother mapping? “Holding environment” Capacity to implement best interests Macro-level context for lived experiences

Number of unaccompanied children looked after by each local authority 2015 Number of unaccompanied childrenNumber of authorities

Number of unaccompanied children looked after by each local authority 2015 Number of local authorities

Number of unaccompanied children looked after by each local authority Number of unaccompanied childrenNumber of authorities (Kent and London)

The London Boroughs

Total numbers of UASC aged 17 or under in Kent County Council’s care May 2014 May 2015 July months October 5th 2015

Monthly UASC referrals to Kent County Council’s (KCC’s) social care Jan Feb.Mar.Apr.MayJun.Jul.Aug.Sept.In the first 6 days of October Total

Key issues from a best interests perspective: Foster placements / accommodation Education places Health care – physical and mental Formal support / social worker time Legal representatives’ capacity Informal support

Accommodation Aged 15 or under Aged 16 or 17 Foster care Children’s home Foster care Semi- independent accommodation Reception centre (short term)

The family, the whole environment, when you’re with a family you have a family when you come home, family around you to talk to, hot food to eat, suddenly you’re by yourself, you have to do everything by yourself, food, pay bills, many things by yourself. It would be better, absolutely, to stay with a family for longer. Stefan – moved from foster care at 16

Breakfast - eggs, lunch - eggs, dinner - eggs. No change. Robel, 15 (age deemed to be 17 by the authorities, living in semi-independent accommodation)

Education free and compulsory up to the age of 18 can include apprenticeships or other training for 16 to 18 local authority must offer a school place for all children regardless of immigration status

“We had a college… that created lots of places and was very inclusive of this cohort and that was obviously an attractive place for us to be placing these young people because we knew there was a good college there … but that district council became quite disturbed about their community cohesion and that college no longer does ESOL.” Senior manager, Kent 17

[A]side from our asylum seeking population there is very little indigenous experience in Kent of the sorts of health problems that present in this cohort. That would look very different in the London boroughs or some of our colleagues up in the north where they’ve got much greater mixed ethnic populations [than] we have got here in Kent. Senior manager Health

Psychological health care: Through Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) within National Health Service Through charities Under-resourced in all parts of the country

The few kids I’ve got from Kent, have got into some kind of trouble [for minor criminal offences], perhaps because of being kind of left. Lawyer 1 Formal support

Children did not know who their social worker was. At crisis point, children not being allocated a social worker. Children placed outside the area – limiting contact with social worker.

Legal representation

Legal aid contract:

Informal support Importance of the “significant adult” No right to family reunion Family tracing rare

Solutions? Children Act framework vs Disadvantages of concentration

Pan-London protocol Rota for sharing responsibility between London boroughs BUT Limited effect Croydon 412 ; Camden 10

Kent Safe Case Transfer pilot x 10 boys aged Transferred with consent to Greater Manchester Voluntary assumption of responsibility Successful but not continued

The Specialist Authorities model Home Office proposal specialist authorities “A more rational system” No extra funding  no bids for specialist status

France Concentrations in Paris, Lille and Marseilles Circular of days’ funding to assess Placement in allocated department Quota for each department to accept Thanks to Corentin Bailleul for information

BUT: Resistance because of inadequate funding “Compulsory” but not binding Reception suspended - quotas reached Long delays in assessment  private life formed Allocation regardless of child’s views Double assessment Thanks to Corentin Bailleul for information

Austria Bund operates reception centres Bund delegates to one of 9 Länder Allocation to Land according to distribution key Legal responsibility passes to allocated Land Thanks to Ayse Dursun for information

BUT: Tensions over funding Delays in offers of accommodation Delays in appointment of guardian

Language “burden” “claimed” “dispersal” “problem” “crisis” “protection” “care” “responsibility”

Key issues in responsibility sharing Funding Legal responsibility Political and public attitude Parallel with Europe’s “Dublin” system?

Thanks Professor Marie-Bénédicte Dembour Corentin Bailleul and Ayse Dursun for information about responsibility sharing in France and Austria Project Partners All interviewees, especially the children