In his speech today to the Youth Justice Board convention, Shadow Justice Minister Dan Jarvis says the remit of the Youth Justice Board should be extended to cover offenders up to 20-years-old. Mr Jarvis (pictured) has previously visited T2A Pathway projects in Rotherham and Barnsley. 

In the Q&A following a speech at the thinktank, CentreForum, yesterday, Justice Minister, Simon Hughes MP, said that the Liberal Democrats would do the same.

In his speech Dan Jarvis said:

We also need a specific approach for young people. There is currently no distinct plan for young adults – even though the peak age of offending is 19 and offenders in their early 20s are among the most prolific. 

Currently the youth justice system provides mentoring and support up until the age of 18, but this then falls off a cliff when a young person enters into the next age bracket. 

Sadiq Khan and I are committed to changing this. 

So if elected in six months’ time, the next Labour government will explore how we can expand the remit of the Youth Justice Board and Youth Offending Teams to cover 18, 19 and 20 year olds. 

We will look at ending the sudden break at the age of 18, and give young adults access to the same multi-agency support that has already proved so successful with younger age groups. 

The most serious crimes will always need a custodial sentence. But if we achieve just a fraction of the success our Youth Offending Teams have achieved in recent years, it could help lead to fewer criminal offences, smaller prison numbers, fewer victims of crime, greater public safety and savings for the public purse. 

It’s an idea I want to see succeed. 

It’s smart, pragmatic, evidence-based and builds on the foundations of already successful policies”

Dan Jarvis is the Labour MP for Barnsley Central and the Shadow Justice Minister with responsibility for Youth Justice

The Ministry of Justice has announced its preferred bidders for Transforming Rehabilitation (TR), including sixteen charities and voluntary groups, four probation staff mutuals and seven private companies.

Sodexo Justice Services in partnership with Nacro will be the preferred bidder for:

Northumbria
Cumbria and Lancashire
South Yorkshire
Bedfordshire, Northants, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire
Norfolk & Suffolk
Essex

Purple Futures, an Interserve-led partnership formed of: Interserve Plc, 3SC (social enterprise), Addaction (charity), P3 (charity) and Shelter (charity) is the preferred bidder for: Humberside, Lincolnshire & North Yorkshire West Yorkshire Merseyside Cheshire & Greater Manchester Hampshire & Isle of Wight The Reducing Reoffending Partnership (RRP – an equity joint venture) formed of: Ingeus UK (private organisation), St Giles Trust (charity), and Crime Reduction Initiatives (CRI) (charity) is the preferred bidder for:

Staffordshire & West midlands
Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland

Working Links – a public, private and voluntary company in strategic partnership with Innovation Wessex, a probation staff mutual is the preferred bidder for:

Wales
Bristol, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire
Dorset, Devon and Cornwall

MTC Novo, a joint venture involving MTC (Management Training Corporation), a private company, Novo – a consortium with a number of public, private and third sector shareholders including, but not limited to RISE – a probation staff Community Interest Company (CIC), A Band of Brothers (charity), The Manchester College (TMC) – a public sector education provider, Sanctuary Supported Living (SSL) – a registered social landlord, Thames Valley Partnership, Amey (a private landlord) is the preferred bidder for:

London Thames Valley

ARCC (Achieving Real Change in Communities CIC) a joint venture involving Changing Lives in Durham Tees Valley CIC, a probation staff CIC, Thirteen (formerly Fabrick Housing Group) a registered social landlord, The Wise Group (social enterprise), Safe in Tees Valley (charity), Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust (TEWV) (public), The Vardy Foundation (charity), Stockton Borough Council (public), Darlington Borough Council (public) is the preferred bidder for:

Durham Tees Valley

Geo Mercia Willowdene, a joint venture involving Mercia Community Action Limited, a probation staff mutual, Willowdene Rehabilitation Limited (social enterprise), The GEO Group UK Ltd (private) is the preferred bidder for:

Warwickshire and West Mercia

Seetec (private limited company) is the preferred bidder for:

Kent, Surrey and Sussex

Experts have called for increased awareness in the criminal justice system of how brain injuries are linked to offending. The British Psychological Society says the “hidden” nature of brain injuries and neurodisabilities means many offenders experience discriminatory treatment when entering the system.

MSPs at the Scottish Parliament’s Holyrood Justice Committee took evidence from a panel of doctors and academics on the issue.

Research has shown that the level of brain injuries among offenders in custody is much higher than in the general population.

Professor Tom McMillan, professor of clinical neuropsychology at Glasgow University, told MSPs that a study of three prisons in the Glasgow area showed 23 per cent of prisoners had suffered a head injury in their lives, with 50 per cent of these classified as severe.

A report by Professor Huw Williams, of the Centre for Clinical Neuropsychology Research at Exeter University, found that despite the higher prevalence among offenders, it was rare for criminal justice professionals to consider whether an offender may have a brain injury, or for appropriate rehabilitation services to be offered.

His report suggests the need for increased awareness of brain injury throughout the criminal justice process and in related areas such as health and education.

Dr Oliver Aldridge, a committee member of penal reform charity Howard League Scotland, said there was a “subset” of offenders who had experienced significant levels of head injury.

He said: “I think there is a pool of unmet need of people with very, very significant head injury that we could serve better if we could have an outreach and a service going into criminal justice facilities.”

Beyond Youth Custody’s research report, “Resettlement of girls and young women”, addresses a worrying gap in the knowledge about the effective resettlement of girls and young women. Reviewing research literature in a number of relevant areas, it cross-references evidence of what works in the resettlement of young people with what we know about the wider need of girls and young women. This iterative synthesis approach thus provides a gender-sensitive approach to inform policy and practice development in resettlement for this specific group.

Recent years has seen an increasing focus on the resettlement of young people after custody, with a number of initiatives designed to address stubbornly high reoffending rates. However, the specific needs of girls and young women have received little attention in policy and practice. This is worrying gap because research with adult female offenders consistently warns that what works with male offenders is unlikely to work with females.

The resettlement needs of girls and young women have been ignored partly because they make up a small proportion of the custodial population, and partly because they usually offend less frequently and seriously than young males.

Academics have also largely ignored the needs of this group in resettlement. This is reflective of relatively limited numbers of studies on women in the criminal justice system more generally, but with even less known about younger females, and less still around custody.

This report provides gender-sensitive perspective of the established gender-neutral principles of what works in resettlement with young people. The report first considers the contemporary policy context for the resettlement of girls and young women, specifically in relation to Transforming Youth Custody. Literature searches then focused on reasons behind female youth offending, reviews judicial responses to this group, details the characteristics of young females in custody, and reflects on lessons from interventions with older females. Finally, the report draws on any resettlement studies or interventions that have previously included some focus on girls or young women’s specific needs.

The full research report “Resettlement of girls and young women” is now available to read.

Prison inspectors have today reported major concerns with HMYOI Glen Parva in Leicestershire, with Nick Hardwick (Chief Inspector) noting that “This is a model of custody that does not work”.

He states in the foreword to the report that this is “one of a sequence of reports (Aylesbury, Brinsford, Feltham and Isis) which my inspectorate has produced that reveal serious concerns relating to young offender institutions (YOI) of this type.”

Frances Crook, Director of the Howard League for Penal Reform (a member of the T2A Alliance) called the findings more akin to a description from the novel ‘Lord of the Flies’. Among the findings of the prison, which holds nearly 700 18-21 year olds, were:

• Almost half of the young men held told us  they had felt unsafe in the establishment
• Recorded levels of assaults on other  prisoners and staff had risen by about a quarter over the last year and we were not assured that all  incidents were recorded.
• Evidence of prisoners charging ‘rent’ for cells with the threat of violence if this was not paid.
• An unacceptable attitude among some staff that this poor behaviour by detainees was  an inevitable and normal part of life in a prison holding young adults
• Some staff did not adequately  challenge poor behaviour, and their own behaviour and offensive language set a poor example an over-reliance on force and formal disciplinary measures. Levels of use of force, including full control and restraint, were high and even though some recording was poor
• The use of the segregation unit was also high and the regime was inadequate. The high use of segregation reflected an increase in serious incidents such as barricades, hostages and ‘incidents at height’.
• Many had committed their offences to get themselves placed in segregation where they would be away from the wings and safe.
• Prisoners at risk of suicide or self-harm had increased by 32% over the last year and was high. TheYOI itself had identified that many of the self-harm threats were a direct result of bullying. Two young men had killed themselves in 2013 and there had been two serious near misses in 2014.

T2A believes that the management of young adults in custody requires urgent reform, but does not agree with Ministry of Justice proposals of last year that the correct response would be to scrap distinct provision for young adults. Three quarters of deaths of 18-24 year olds occur in adult prisons, which suggests that simply mixing young adults within the general prison estate would exacerbate the problems that exist.

Rather, YOIs should be reconfigured to be well-resourced, smaller, dedicated institutions. Recently, following the successful reduction in numbers in the youth estate (from a peak of 4,000 children in custody 5 years ago to just over 1,000 now), it has also been suggested by a range of organisations and individuals that serious consideration should be given to the devolution of these institutions to the control of the Youth Justice Board and local authorities.

Read more about T2A’s research on the management of young adults in custody in the report ‘Young Adults in Custody: A Way Forward’ by Rob Allen.

Pete Judd, Probation Service Officer, for the National Probation Service Court and Offender Management Team, Portsmouth recently completed his work based learning project as part of the probation qualification framework. The project was based on his experiences as an offender manager (OM), working with two young adult offenders (YAOs) (aged 18-24) in supporting the process of desistance and decided to write this blog to give readers some insight into some of the challenges OMs face in supporting processes of desistance.

Bottoms and Shapland (2011, p.43) highlight the challenge of successful desistance amongst YAOs through consideration of the ‘age-crime curve’. Evidence suggests in England and Wales that between the age of 17-19 for males, and 14-18 for females, criminal convictions peak before there is a decline (sharper for males) (Farrall, 2002, p.5). It should be noted that not all individuals follow the same trajectory over their lifetime, although such a curve suggests that the criminal justice system (CJS) could be influential in helping or hindering the movement towards desistance for YAOs (Shapland, Bottoms and Muir, 2012, p.128) in different ways over the course of their lives. McNeill (2003, p.160) states that being desistance focused within probation practice requires an understanding of three key areas; maturational reform (levels of maturity), social bonds (personal history and current social circumstances) and narrative theory (subjective narratives around change, motivation, views and attitudes). Maturational reform is the explanation offered for having stopped offending in relation to age and level of maturity (McIvor, Murray and Jamieson, 2004, p.187). The concept of maturity is currently not assessed within probation practice, and the probation offender assessment tool OASys only has the partial means of assessing maturity in offenders. The assessment of YAOs is therefore largely based on professional judgement, which brings about issues of subjectivity and inconsistency (Prior et al., 2011, pp.30-31). In 2013, the Taking Account of Maturity: A Guide for Probation Practioners (T2A, 2013, p.3) was issued within my local probation trust and offered guidance on how maturity impacts at different stages of the criminal justice process. By understanding how maturity impacts on offending behaviour it is hoped that the service can respond more effectively in facilitating the design of individually tailored assessments and interventions. The current Risk Need and Responsivity (RNR) framework of offender assessment requires the sentence plan to be formulated to address the legal requirements of the order and to address risk. Ward and Brown (2004, p.245) argue that the RNR approach to treatment goals focuses on the negative, rather than promoting pro-social and personally more satisfying goals. Pete found that by giving YAOs positive future objectives helps motivate them to engage with the other sentence plan objectives and having future goals is one way of promoting positive futures with YAOs (T2A, 2012, p.6).

McNeill (2003, pp.156-157) also highlights the importance of personal histories and how current social circumstances can aid desistance. This is inherently difficult to achieve within current probation practice, due to targets in relation to the completion of initial assessments. Initial assessments for offenders assessed as medium or low risk of serious harm need to be completed in ‘sufficient time’ within the Practice Framework – National Standards for the Management of Offenders for England and Wales (NOMS, 2011, p.21). The term ‘sufficient time’ is open to interpretation, however the probation trust Pete works for introduced guidance stating that assessments needed to be completed within twenty working days (HPT, 2011). Pete has often found that the twenty day target is problematic as offenders often live disorderly lives which they struggle to make sense of (Maruna, 2001, p.7). This then makes it difficult to fully understand what may have led to particular behaviours which are important in understanding how an individual’s previous experiences have helped to shape later life decisions (Laub and Sampson, 2003, p.58).

An offender’s narrative around change, motivation, views and attitudes is important in the assessment phase (McNeill, 2003, pp.157-158). Motivation is pivotal to desistance (Farrall, 2002, p.99), as it is important in determining the structure and content of interventions. However, it is one element within OASys that is only briefly assessed (Lancaster and Lumb, 2006, p.286). To address this, motivation within probation practice is widely assessed using Prochaska and Di Clemente’s (1982) ‘Cycle of Change’. Being able to identify where an individual is on the cycle of change enables OMs to be able to use appropriate skills to take interventions forward (Fuller and Taylor, 2003, p.15). If an offender is assessed as being in the ‘pre-contemplation stage’ or “contemplation stage” of change they may be less likely to complete offending behaviour programmes. Work needs to be done to build a positive working relationship in order to deal with the more practical obstacles that were present and resolve ambivalence around his offending behaviour. By using a motivational approach and listening to the barriers to change, the offender may gain the confidence to change and move forward to the action stage of the cycle in time, with perseverance.

Once an offender has moved to the ‘action stage’ of the cycle, evidence from ‘What Works’ suggests that structured programmes based on cognitive behaviourism have a greater effect on reducing recidivism amongst YAOs (Losel, 2012, p.88) and help build ‘human capital’ amongst individuals. Pete often finds that cognitive behavioural programmes focus on the negatives aspects of an offender’s lives and McNeill (2009, p.34) highlights the importance of expressing optimism rather than focusing on the negatives. In order to achieve this in practice, Pete focuses on the positive aspects of skills practice from work undertaken such as self talk, time out and safe negotiating, in order to build the confidence of those he works with. For an individual who may have suffered rejection as a child, it is hoped that building confidence in using these skills would develop encouragement and optimism for the future and help reduce the risk of further offending. Throughout the course of the programme there was an improvement in insight into previous behaviour and a more optimistic outlook on a future self. Thinking behaviour and a desire to change may not be sufficient if social problems are overwhelming or excessive (LeBel, Burnett, Maruna and Bushway, 2008, p.154). It is vital that attention is given to improving employment opportunities and family formation to significantly impact on desistance process (Farrall, 2002, p.145).

Evidence within desistance research suggests that the mobilization of social capital (Burnett and McNeill, 2005, p.237), around ties to family, employment and education are significant in explaining change in criminal behaviour (Weaver and McNeill, 2007, p.5). Funding cuts to education training and employment (ETE) budgets have impacted on resources available within Pete’s local probation trust. Funding is available for offenders who are subject to unpaid work requirements because ETE contracts for this particular offender group have been contracted out to external companies. At this particular time Pete was aware of Pompey in the community (the charity arm of Portsmouth Football Club) operating ‘the respect programme’ that was aimed at young people and crime (Pilmoor, 2013). The initiative helped one of his case studies secure the required certificates to secure work in the demolition industry that had been a goal of his for a period of time, although Pete believes the way resources are allocated is problematic as this offers opportunities to certain offenders based the type sentence they have received rather than targeted at offenders who are motivated to address social difficulties. This situation highlighted to Pete that he needs to be more aware of different initiatives available to me in the local community, particularly as the future brings a host of services that operate and run in different ways.

Moving forward, the introduction of a maturity assessment tool, a relaxation in local policies in relation to timeliness targets, along with alterations to OASys, to focus more on motivation and strengths would assist OMs in creating desistance focussed assessments and collaborative sentence plans. This would then lead to more accurate, individually tailored interventions that focus more on what the YAO has to offer going forward rather than focussing on the negatives of the past.

(The article “Working with young adults in supporting processes of desistance” was originally published ‘Discovering Desistance: An ESRC Knowledge Exchange Project’ on July 2nd 2014, and is available here)

A rising tide of violence inside prisons across England and Wales has been revealed by official figures showing serious assaults soaring by 30%, three murders in the past 12 months and a 69% rise in suicides to the highest level for nine years.

According to Ministry of Justice figures, the number of self-inflicted deaths in prisons rose by 36 to 88 in the 12 months to the end of March – the highest level since 2005.

Prison governors have repeatedly warned that jails have been struggling to cope with a record population of more than 85,000 in increasingly crowded conditions while implementing budget cuts of up to 24% over the past three years.

The latest performance tables show that conditions inside 28 jails are now rated as being of official concern, with one – Brinsford youth jail at Featherstone in Staffordshire – rated as being of “serious concern”. This compares with only 12 jails being rated as being of concern last year, and a further three with the worst “serious concern” rating.

The prison ratings contrast sharply with those for the performance of the 35 probation trusts across England and Wales, which were all rated “good or exceptional” in their last year of operation. They were abolished last month and 70% of their workload is to transfer to community rehabilitation companies.

The detailed figures show that serious assaults inside jails have risen by 30% from 1,277 to 1,661, and all assaults on staff rose 15%, from 2,787 to 3,201. There were three homicides behind bars in the 12 months to March compared with two the year before.

The increasingly violent atmosphere has been accompanied by a reduction in the number of prisoners completing programmes to tackle their criminality. The number of sex offender treatment programmes were down from 2,757 to 2,576 despite a sharp rise of more than 700 in the number of sex offenders imprisoned. Similarly, the number of prisoners completing drug rehabilitation courses was also slightly down.

Political parties have said the increase in deaths in custody is being taken very seriously. The T2A recently submitted evidence to the Harris Review into deaths of young adults in NOMS custody. You can read the T2A response here.

(This news item was originally posted on the Guardian on 31/07/14. The article is available here)

The Howard League for Penal Reform welcomes the opportunity to engage in Lord Harris’ review. The review is a unique opportunity for expert scrutiny of systemic failings in the penal system that have culminated in the tragic deaths of so many young adults in custody.

This inquiry is the only opportunity to examine the wider context surrounding young adults in prison. Inquests and inquiries have hitherto only considered their treatment in prison that immediately led to death but no one has asked the critical question about whether they should have been in prison in the first place. From the inquest and inquiry into the murder of Zahid Mubarek to the death of Greg Revell a couple of weeks ago, the question about the remand and sentencing decisions and practices of the courts need to be questioned as a contributory factor that led directly murder and suicide. Far too many young men are remanded and sentenced to prison unnecessarily and unless an independent inquiry looks at the route into custody as well as the treatment whilst inside, the problem will not be solved and lives will continue to be lost.

The Howard League for Penal Reform believes that there are too many young adults in prison who should not be there at all. The crime rate continues to fall. While the child custody population has fallen by two-thirds since 2008, there has only been a minimal fall in the number of young adults in prison. It is critical that we build on the successes for children across the system by ensuring that a different approach is taken for young adults from the first point of contact with the police to sentencing.

Summary of submission

Many young adults face avoidable problems in prison that may increase the likelihood of suicide. Despite claims from the Ministry of Justice as to the need for prisoners to make use of their time, most young adults are cooped up for excessive periods of time each day with nothing to do. The inadequate provision of meaningful or, indeed, any activity at all for this group is exacerbated by the hopelessness caused by the new incentives and privileges regime. The scheme, introduced in November 2013, makes it impossible for most prisoners to be rewarded for good behaviour or motivation. Others are paralysed by violence, racism, homophobia and insufficient interventions to meet their needs or allow them to progress in prison.

The Howard League for Penal Reform has identified a number of warning signs that we believe should trigger anxious scrutiny of a young person’s well being. When young people with mental health problems, learning difficulties, histories of abuse and victimization are sent to prison the authorities should not use segregation but should make sure that young people benefit from monitoring and support for their own safety. The caseload of our legal team shows that too many vulnerable teenagers are subjected to adjudications and physical interventions in prison. When the state takes a young person into its care, it must adhere to the highest standards to protect and safeguard them and to enable them to flourish.

Finally, we believe that even where young people’s needs and concerns are known, the current system is inadequate. Disciplinary processes are used inappropriately to deal with issues of profound concern. Measures to monitor risk of self-harm are not sensitive or tailored to the needs of individuals and are not meaningful. Safeguarding procedures for young adults are virtually non-existent.

You can read the full submission here

The Prison Reform Trust (PRT) is an independent UK charity working to create a just, humane and
effective prison system. We do this by inquiring into the workings of the system; informing
prisoners, staff and the wider public; and by influencing Parliament, government and officials
towards reform.

The Prison Reform Trust’s main objectives are:

• Reducing unnecessary imprisonment and promoting community solutions to crime
• Improving treatment and conditions for prisoners and their families

PRT welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to this review and have chosen to respond only to those questions on which we have some expertise but also submit our response to the Ministry of Justice consultation Transforming management of young adults of custody as supplementary evidence to the Review team. As a member of the Transition to Adulthood Alliance (T2A) convened by the Barrow Cadbury Trust, the Prison Reform Trust is pleased to support T2As submission to this Review.

Overarching comments

Whilst PRT appreciate that the remit of this Review has been set externally, PRT wish to
reiterate that the exclusion of children from its parameters presents a missed opportunity,
not least because many of the young people aged 18-24 who have died in prison will spend
time in custody as children. PRT urge the Review team to ensure that the impact of transition
from youth to adult custodial estate is considered as part of it work.

PRT strongly recommend that the ambit of the Review is sufficiently wide to consider the
journey into custody taken by children and young people who have died. A focus on prison
alone will result in only a partial understanding of what happened to them and what needs to
change. As Fatally flawed’s analysis of the deaths of 98 children and young people who died
between 2003 and 2010 showed, they were some of the most disadvantaged in society and
had had significant interaction with public services and community agencies before their entry
to prison.

It is in everyone’s interests to learn the lessons from the deaths of children and young people in prison and prevent such tragedies wherever possible in the future

You can read the full PRT response here

A requirement for local funding authorities to support young people living with their foster carer until the age of 21 requires adequate funding to make it a success. Amanda Cumberland, from TACT, wrote about the new Staying Put duty in the Guardian. The Staying Put duty is a requirement for local authorities to support arrangements where young people continue to live with their foster carer up to the age of 21 and has been lauded as the most significant reform for children in care for a generation.

The scheme offers young people a more natural transition to adulthood and independence. It provides the kind of support that any reasonable parent would provide for their children. When the state makes a conscious decision to intervene in the life of a child it has an obligation to do everything possible to help them into successful adulthood.

For too long, young people leaving care faced an abrupt transition to independence that has been described as instant adulthood. The consequences are clear in the outcomes for care leavers. There is a lot of evidence that young people leaving care are more likely to be Neet (not in education, employment or training), to become young parents, to experience homelessness and mental health problems, and to have contact with the criminal justice system.

The age at which children leave care, the speed of transition and maintaining secure attachments all help to give young people a better chance of good adult outcomes. Staying Put helps to ensure that young people experience a transition to adulthood similar to their peers, within a supportive family environment.

However, there are a number of significant challenges to implementing these reforms. It is unclear whether £40m funding, spread over three years and to every local authority in England, will be enough to ensure that authorities can properly support every arrangement.

The costs to local authorities will depend on the number of young people who choose to stay put, how long they stay for and the level of financial support offered to the carer. Local authorities must pay carers an allowance to cover the costs of the young person continuing to live with them. But unlike foster care, there are no national standards about the minimum allowance that carers should receive, and they are unlikely to receive any fee element in recognition of the expertise they bring to supporting the young adult in moving to independence.

The good practice guidance launched on Tuesday notes that this loss of income is one of the biggest obstacles to foster carers being able to offer Staying Put, and encourages local authorities to ensure no young person misses out just because their carer cannot afford it.

As Staying Put rolls out across England, there is a need to gather robust evidence about the real costs, barriers and obstacles. Without adequate funding based on a comprehensive understanding of the costs there are disincentives to encouraging more young people to take advantage of the scheme.

The nature and extent of independent fostering agencies’ obligations in relation to Staying Put is also unclear. Local authority commissioning increasingly requires agencies to commit to offering the scheme. This is a positive step, and some local authorities plan to work in partnership with independent agencies throughout the arrangement.

However, many local authorities say they plan to make Staying Put arrangements directly with the carer and young person, without involving the agency that has supported them throughout the fostering placement. Foster carers and young people therefore face losing consistency in the support they have previously received unless independent agencies fund this through their surplus or charitable income – an issue many are grappling with.

Amid so much uncertainty, one thing is clear: local authorities and independent agencies must work constructively together to ensure that every young person who wants to stay put gets the chance, and that carers get the support they need.

Amanda Cumberland is policy and parliamentary adviser at TACT. See more at www.tact.org.uk

Source- Cumberland, A (2014) ‘Will every young person get the chance to Stay Put?’, The Guardian, 16 July [Online]. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2014/jul/16/young-people-care-staying-put