THE KILBRANDON REPORT
Residential Measures, and the Juvenile Panels' Powers to Order Residential Treatment
167. In the preceding chapters we have discussed the range of powers which we recommend should be available to the juvenile panels to order supervision, care and training within the community. We now consider the provision which should be made for residential measures involving the child's removal from the home and parental control, whether for short or longer periods. There has hitherto been a tendency to distinguish such measures fairly sharply from those involving supervision within the community. While this distinction may be a very real one from the point of view of its effects both on the parent and the child, viewed objectively as part of the training measures adapted to the individual child's needs it becomes less apparent. The residential measures in question amount to no more than a period of intensive and specialised "intreatment" for what is usually a limited period. Throughout the period of residential training there should, it seems to us, be the closest contact with the staff of the social education department concerned, who will have reported on the child before the period of residential training was decided upon, and under whose supervision the child may already have been at an earlier stage. These officers should in our view throughout maintain contact with the child's home in preparation for his eventual return. In that way the period of residential training would be seen simply as a continuation of an existing process, to be followed naturally by a return to the same supervising agency on the child's release into the community. The existing arrangements, owing to the variety and division of statutory functions over the whole field of treatment of children, and the separate services created as a result, seem to us to militate unnecessarily against that continuity of treatment.
168. The difficulties arising under existing arrangements can perhaps best be illustrated by practical example. A fair number of the witnesses who appeared before us commented on the subject of approved schools. It was, for example, said that children under 12 should never be sent to approved schools; that delinquents and "care or protection" cases should never be in the same school; that too many children are sent to approved schools unnecessarily; that approved schools should be reserved for those above general school-leaving age; and that, more generally, too many cases unsuitable for approved schools are being sent there. More generally, the situation revealed in our discussions can, as the witnesses agreed, be described as follows :
(a) there appears to be an insufficient range and variety of schools within the present approved school system;
(b) there is a shortage of hospital accommodation for children suffering from mental defect;
(c) there is a need for residential schools for children suffering from serious maladjustment or from educable mental handicap-and approved schools as at present established can be expected to cater for only a limited number of such cases;
(d) there are inadequacies within the local authority child care field in that in some cases committal to approved school, though recognised as far from ideal, has to be resorted to as inevitable in the absence of a wider range of residential facilities within the sphere of children's homes provided by or available to the local authority;
(e) there is a need for short-term residential training facilities (the witnesses here usually linking their proposals with suggestions as to the need for junior detention centres and the inadequacy of remand home detention as a method of treatment).
169. While no quantitative evidence is readily available on these matters, the views expressed reflect the practical experience of a wide variety of professional witnesses in the education, child care, medical and approved school fields. The fact that there appears to be a general awareness of these problems in such circles, many of which could at least in theory be remedied by the exercise of existing statutory powers of local authorities (under one statutory arm or another) seems to us to reflect (a) the effects of lack of a unifying principle within the existing services concerned with education and child welfare; (b) a tendency in some quarters to regard children coming before the courts-at any rate delinquents-as a class apart; and (c) problems (financial and other) affected by the size and number of local authorities.
170. Some of the difficulties mentioned relate to local authority children's homes provided for children received into care under the Children Act, 1948. Reception into care in these cases is normally carried out by informal process, and the majority of the children have not appeared before the juvenile courts. They are, of course, received into public care either because they are homeless or because of disturbed home conditions. In the majority of cases involving long-term care, it is possible to place many of the children with foster parents or for adoption. Children received into public care in this way are, however, likely to show in greater or lesser degree some measure of emotional disturbance, and for this and other reasons a substantial number are cared for in children's homes. The extent of maladjustment or emotional disturbance shows a wide variation from case to case, and where present in its more serious forms, the presence of even a limited number of such children in a children's home can undoubtedly create serious practical problems. At present it may in extreme cases even result-, in the absence of other more suitable provision, in steps being taken for the child's committal to an approved school, with resultant difficulties in turn in the schools.
171. We understand that several local authorities and voluntary bodies at present maintain children's homes which in practice are recognised as to some extent making more specialised provision for maladjusted and seriously disturbed children in care. The evidence before us, however, suggested that the facilities available were limited to certain areas, and that even in those homes the staffing standards sometimes fell short of what was desirable for this specialist work. We do not wish to imply criticism of voluntary- bodies or local authorities in exercising their child care responsibilities. It seems to us that the shortage of specialist provision (in so far as there is one) is at least in part attributable to the present multiplicity of authorities, which may encourage each to make its own provision, resulting in a number of small "multi -purpose" establishments, from which specially difficult cases tend to be rejected as unsuitable and refractory, and may thus proceed to approved schools. A concentration of responsibility at education authority level, as we are recommending in a later chapter, would offer opportunities, in many areas, for a re-appraisal of the functions of a number of existing children's homes within each area, with greater opportunity for reorganisation and a greater degree of specialisation in each.
THE WIDER PROBLEM
172. The problem confronting child care authorities in providing for children in their care suffering from maladjustment or mental handicap-as, for that matter, the problems arising where children similarly suffering are brought before the juvenile courts at present on the grounds of juvenile delinquency cannot, it seems to us, be satisfactorily resolved unless seen in the wider context of the general educational provision for all such children, whatever the circumstances in which their needs first come to public notice.
173. For children of school-age the duty of ascertaining physical or mental handicap such as to require special educational treatment at present rests with education authorities, and the relevant regulations define the various categories as including (among others)
(a) maladjusted pupils, that is to say, pupils who suffer from emotional instability or psychological disturbance; and
(b) mentally handicapped pupils, that is to say, pupils who have little natural ability.
174. While in the past, ascertainment of the number of such children in Scotland has been rendered difficult in the absence of clearly defined standards, we understand that two working parties, representative of educational and medical interests, have been set up by the Scottish Education Department to give guidance on ascertainment for both groups. The Working Party on standards of mental handicap has already reported, * and their Report has, we are informed, been sent to education authorities for their guidance. As a result, improvement in standards of ascertainment may be expected. The great majority of such children attend day special schools, and those of still lower ability receive training in occupational centres. Those who are completely unresponsive to education or training, or who exhibit serious behaviour problems, are referred to local health authorities and may be placed in mental hospitals.
175. While no doubt much remains to be done in that field, the evidence before us suggested that even more serious shortcomings were to be found in relation to provision for maladjusted children. Maladjustment is, of course, not an exact term and may vary in degree. In many cases the children may appropriately attend ordinary day schools, their teachers and parents receiving guidance and advice from the child guidance service of the education authority. In other cases severe maladjustment, particularly where coupled with adverse home circumstances, may make attendance at a residential school desirable, and here the evidence before us suggested that there was a serious shortage of provision. Such limited provision as exists is made, with a few notable exceptions, by voluntary agencies.
176. The evidence before us also suggested that there is at present a serious gap in existing arrangements for children suffering from serious maladjustment, especially where the child also suffers from mental handicap. In an appreciable number of cases, delinquency is simply a manifestation of maladjustment or emotional disturbance, often associated with impaired intelligence, and in these circumstances it is not surprising that difficulties as to placings should arise. On the one hand, there is for practical purposes no existing provision for such cases in the residential homes and schools already mentioned; on the hospital side, there are at present only three psychiatric in-patient children's units operating in Scotland. In other hospitals there are obvious difficulties in coping with more than a limited number of such cases in view of their effect on other less disturbed children. We understand that plans are in hand to provide additional hospital accommodation for children suffering from mental defect. We hope that these will be pressed ahead vigorously, and that they will take due account of the needs of such children who are also suffering from serious emotional disturbance.
177. Further, quite apart from the problems of defective or mentally handicapped children, a serious problem arises in junior secondary schools in the treatment of maladjusted children. Maladjustment, often arising from family and environmental factors, frequently reveals itself in an apparent failing away of school attainment standards, apparent apathy and sometimes truancy; all of these are in turn not infrequently merely the incipient features of delinquency. Within the range of residential schools, there appears to us to be a real need for short-term establishments which would in that sense be "adjustment schools".
178. The findings of the Working Party on Maladjustment may, we hope, be expected to induce a fresh impetus in this field, and may in due course lead to improved residential school provision. For our part, we can only say this. If, as we have indicated, the problem of juvenile delinquency can with greatest hope of success be treated on the basis of an educational and preventive principle, the importance of early ascertainment of impaired intelligence and maladjustment, and appropriate special educational provision to meet such needs, is plain. We do not suggest that more than a limited proportion of juvenile delinquency calls for treatment on that basis. Action in these directions would, we consider, nevertheless be likely to make an appreciable contribution to the problem, and would go far in many cases to prevent more serious delinquency in later years. Better provision in the directions suggested would also, in our view, help to solve many of the problems, to which we have referred, arising in the child care and approved school fields. Practically all the measures which we have mentioned entail increased educational provision of various kinds; as we have indicated, ascertainment is at present the responsibility of the education authorities. For that reason, as well as others which we discuss later, it seems to us that the problem of residential provision for all classes of children requiring special measures of education, care and training, can be assessed in proper balance and perspective only if handled by a single authority, namely, the education authority, to whom in consequence the present child care functions of local authorities should be transferred. Approved schools are already within the field of educational provision, and with such adjustments as we discuss below, would in future, under our recommendations, simply take their place as part of the total range of residential schools offering special educational provision.
APPROVED SCHOOLS-ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE WIDER PROBLEM
179. Approved schools, unlike special schools or for that matter psychiatric hospitals, at present exist to meet the needs of children committed to their care by juvenile courts for educational and training measures. On this account they have no doubt tended to be singled out in the public mind as distinct, entirely separate, and in some sense punitive establishments, an impression possibly furthered by the separate arrangements which in nearly all cases govern their financing and administration. Such an impression, however, neither accords with the statutory position nor with the actual facts. The law already recognises approved schools as being basically special residential schools to which juvenile offenders and juveniles in need of "care or protection" alike may be committed. In actual fact, while the majority of children sent to approved schools do so following the commission of delinquent acts, a number are committed on "care or protection" proceedings (including proceedings for truancy). In the experience of those most closely concerned with these children, all, regardless of their present legal classification, are found to be in greater or lesser degree disturbed children. Further, implicit in an order for residential training of this kind is normally a need for sustained and more prolonged training process, both in terms of social training and formal educational instruction, such children in most cases being those whose history shows a fairly lengthy record of disturbed family and environmental conditions. In many cases the children concerned (or their relatives) have already been at various times in the hands of social agencies of various kinds-to whose efforts they have for whatever reason failed to respond. Equally, in some cases children in approved schools appear to be there either because no more suitable forms of residential training exist, or because of the lack of adequate machinery for early detection of maladjustment and handicap. There is therefore the closest inter-relation ship between approved schools and the other forms of residential training already discussed. Many of the difficulties facing approved schools are simply a reflection either of earlier difficulties which have remained unresolved, or of inadequacies of provision in other directions.
180. There are at present twenty-four Scottish approved schools, twenty-two under voluntary management and two managed by Glasgow Education Authority. We understand that two additional schools, for boys in the 14-12 to 16 age range, are about to be opened under Church of Scotland and Roman Catholic auspices respectively. The approved schools are classified according to the sex, religion, and age of the pupils, and are further classified as junior, intermediate and senior schools for pupils of different ages.
181. The evidence which we received suggested that while the great majority of committals were properly made, there is a minority, including those involving children suffering from serious maladjustment or mental handicap (to which we have already referred) almost all of whom might have been expected to, be assigned to other forms of residential training had the necessary facilities been available. We were also told that it was not unknown for partially deaf or blind children, epileptics, physically handicapped delinquents and pregnant girls to be committed. The fact that such cases arise, even though the total may be numerically small and in some cases the degree of disability not such as to render the committals valueless, seems to us to illustrate the need for early diagnosis or ascertainment and for improved arrangements for assessment of juvenile offenders before any decision as to residential training of any kind is taken. The extended provision for special educational facilities for children suffering from various forms of handicap, which we have already urged, will, we hope, make approved school placings of this kind increasingly rare.
182. Equally, a number of the children sent to approved schools at present are committed on ground of persistent truancy. The schools can, we think, help many of these children and we should not expect them in future to be wholly excluded. Nevertheless, in the light of our recommendation for the development of one or more short-term residential schools under education authority auspices designed to provide a short "adjustment" course of training primarily for pupils of junior secondary school age, some reduction of "truancy" committals to approved schools might be expected. If "adjustment" schools of the kind were in being, we would hope that most of the children sent there for special educational provision would be so sent at a stage sufficiently early to avoid any need for their appearance before the juvenile panels. Not every case could be detected at such a stage, however, and situations could still arise in which appearance before the panel resulted, and in which the child could equally benefit from more prolonged residential school training. We therefore intend that the panels' powers to order residential training should extend to any special residential school provided now or in future by education authorities or recognised voluntary agencies, including those at present classed as approved schools.
183. It was represented to us that the present approved school system in Scotland, even assuming that the various problems to which we have already referred were overcome, offered an insufficient variety of regime, and that in many schools the age-spread was much too wide. We accept that in view of the relatively small total number of schools in Scotland and given the present classification by age, sex, and religion, the scope for further specialisation must at any time be severely limited. We also appreciate that, within the existing framework, each school has to some extent its own distinctive characteristics and tradition built up over the years, and that even within the existing classifications there is a measure of diversity, the regime in some schools placing more emphasis on the disciplinary aspect than in others whose characteristics may be more nearly akin to that of a children's home. Provision has more recently been made for two special categories of boys-at Rossie Farm School and Loaningdale School, Biggar. Since early 1962 a section of Rossie Farm School has been used to deal with up to 25 boys of all denominations, age 13 and over, (already committed by the courts) who present persistent problems and are not amenable to the normal discipline of the other schools, or who are persistent absconders. The boys are subject to the normal school regime but the building is more secure, and constant supervision and close review are possible. Loaningdale School (opened in January 1963) is dealing with Protestant boys, age 13 and over, who are all reasonably intelligent and who seem likely to benefit from intensive social instruction, and may thus be expected to qualify more rapidly than is usual for return into the community. The arrangements at Loaningdale will no doubt be subject to further development in the light of experience.
184. We have already noted the very wide age-range which each of the existing approved schools has to cover. Ideally, it might be thought that the aim should be to secure a redistribution of functions within the existing schools so as to provide separately for three age groups-those under 11, those in the I 1- 14 age group and those of over 14. We accept that the wide variation in date of committal makes this impracticable, and that in many cases it would be very undesirable to transfer a child, committed at, say, the age of 13 to another school simply because he had attained the age of 14. Many approved school pupils come from a disturbed home environment and find in the schools for the first time a sense of security hitherto lacking in their lives. Changes of school within relatively short periods might well in many cases go far to undo the beneficial results already achieved. We do, however, consider that particularly within the larger schools there is scope for development of age-grouping by means of the "house" system. We realise that within the approved school system in more recent years there has been increasing emphasis on the provision of social as distinct from purely formal education, and that several schools are already providing "houses" and social work staff. We welcome this development, which we should like to see extended and accelerated.
185. The term "approved school" has in process of time come to have unfortunate connotations. Whatever term is used, the schools can never wholly avoid being singled out, at any rate by those closely connected with their clientele, as in some sense punitive establishments, and it would be unrealistic to assume that the stigma existing in the public mind will readily disappear. Nevertheless, under our proposals we think it appropriate that the term ~4 approved school" should cease to be used for official purposes and that in so far as a generic name is needed for the group, they should simply be described as "residential schools". Within the frame-work which we have described, the present approved schools would then become simply part of the range of residential schools catering for the wide variety of children whose needs, for whatever reason, cannot be adequately met within the normal educational provision, and all of whom can properly be said to be in need of special education and training of a kind which can be supplied only in a residential school.
DURATION OF RESIDENTIAL MEASURES AND CONTINUING SUPERVISION
186. Under our proposals we contemplate that, in general, orders by the panels for placing in a residential school would be of indeterminate duration-the panel in each case directing a review after such period as it considered appropriate. Under these arrangements, the present legal powers of the school managers acting in loco parentis would be abolished. Children in such schools would remain within the jurisdiction of the panels, the managers acting in practice as temporary "foster parents" to the same extent as children's homes at present in the case of children placed there by a local authority. The schools would then be responsible as at present for all day-to-day matters of care and training, subject to the general oversight of the panel (through the director of social education). The termination of residential training would be by order of the panel, and would in practice arise on a recommendation by the managers and the director of social education, who would already be familiar with the child's history and background; and who up to that point would have been maintaining contact with the child and his family throughout, and would in many cases have been engaged in casework in the home during the period of the child's removal. Return to the community would be coupled with a period of supervision by a social worker of the social education department, again subject to the panel's directions. "After-care" as such would disappear. The situation would simply be that a period of more intensive residential training was followed by a period of care, supervision and guidance on return to community life. Occasions might arise where there could be a conflict of view on the question of a child's return home as between the social education department (in the light of their knowledge of the home) and the managers (in the light of the child's progress in school). Such disputes would normally be resolved in discussion between the two, but exceptionally in face of disagreement the matter would fall to be resolved by the panel.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES
187. The evidence before us has led us to the conclusion that the need for residential training facilities can be met only by a comprehensive approach by a single agency exercising statutory responsibility both for children's homes and residential schools of all kinds provided within the public field. On the one hand there is an urgent need for the provision of special educational facilities (residential and non-residential) for those suffering from mental and physical handicap or from maladjustment, factors which equally present serious problems at present in children's homes. Within the wider unified organisation which we are recommending, it may in some cases be possible, as a contribution towards the necessary facilities, to introduce a greater degree of specialisation in certain existing children's homes. Additional residential provision will, however, undoubtedly be required and should, we consider, be provided by education authorities under their existing powers, either singly or in combination on a regional basis. Such provision should, for the reasons discussed in paragraphs 177 and 182, include in particular facilities for short-term residential education for pupils of junior secondary school age.
188. The evidence also suggested that there is a need for separate residential school provision for younger boys (i.e., under the age of 11). The number of approved school pupils presently within this age-group would in itself seem to support this view. It might well be found, assuming the various other types of provision which we have already recommended are developed by education authorities, that the needs of this age-group are already substantially met within that provision. In so far as special provision for this age-group is at present or may continue in future to be needed, the matter seems to us in any event to be one for appropriate education authority provision, rather than by provision of any new and separate residential school within the present approved school framework.
189. In all these fields voluntary agencies have hitherto played a vital part and, as we have indicated in paragraph 175, they are at the present time virtually the sole providers of residential schools for maladjusted children. We would by no means wish to see any reduction in voluntary effort in this sphere. The lack of provision is, however, such that the major part must clearly fall to education authorities.
190. We received little criticism of the present arrangements governing the schools' management, which (apart from the two Glasgow schools) rests with committees of voluntary managers. We do not suggest any basic change in these arrangements. We have, of course, already indicated (paragraph 186) that our proposals imply an alteration in the legal responsibility for children committed to them for residential training by the juvenile panels, continuing oversight in these cases to be vested in the panels and to be exercised through the social education department.
JUNIOR DETENTION CENTRES
191. Our proposals envisage development of a wide range of special residential provision by education authorities, including shorter-term residential schools for boys of 13 to under 16. The age range covered is broadly the same as that for which junior detention centres have sometimes been proposed. No junior detention centre has yet been set up in Scotland, but in our view both types of institution, the shorter-term school and the junior detention centre, are intended to cater for the needs of broadly the same type of pupil, namely, the boy of average intelligence whose record does not show signs of deep-seated criminality or disturbance, and who is likely to respond to a fairly limited period of sustained education and training within a disciplined environment. In our view, juvenile offenders of this age-group in Scotland could within the general framework of our recommendations more appropriately be dealt within the short-term residential school provision of the kind which we have already discussed. In that event we do not consider that there would be any need to institute junior detention centres. The form of training appropriate for boys of this age range (13 to under 16) can, we think, best be carried out within the discipline of a residential school, and under our proposals we consider it appropriate that such schools should be administered within the general educational system and not as part of the State penal system, which we assume would be the case were a junior detention centre to be introduced.
OTHER SHORT-TERM DETENTION
192. We discuss existing remand home facilities in a later Chapter, but it is appropriate at this stage, in considering the range of powers of the juvenile panels, to indicate that our proposals imply the abolition of detention in a remand home as a method of treatment. In reaching this conclusion we have taken account of the views of experienced witnesses, the general tenor of which was to cast serious doubt on the efficacy of this form of detention as a method of treatment. Remand home detention, which may at present be applied to juvenile offenders under the age of 14 for periods of up to 28 days, seems to us to be essentially a punitive form of treatment, the punishment being by deprivation of liberty. Under present circumstances, juvenile courts may also order remand home detention for juvenile offenders between the ages of 14 and 17. As we have already indicated, in so far as there is a need for shorter-term residential training for this older age-group, we consider that it can be more effectively met by committal to a short-term residential school of the kind which we have recommended. As regards the younger age-group, in our view where residential treatment is really required for younger children, i.e., those under 14, to be effective it requires a period of several months, not weeks. The general view which emerged in the discussions before us was that remand home detention as at present understood appeared to be almost always ineffective, and that, so far as younger children were concerned, the idea of punitive detention, even if "scaled down" to 28 days or less, had little to commend it. We do not contemplate that by any means all of the children at present ordered to undergo remand home detention would in future require residential training for a lengthy period, and many of these children may not, we think, need residential training at all. In so far as the underlying purpose of such committals is at present that of punishment by deprivation, such cases could more appropriately in our view be dealt with by other non-residential measures within the range of powers which we are recommending for the juvenile panels.
193. Even if it were considered that the idea of punitive detention by removal of younger children from home for relatively short periods might exceptionally be justified, it has, we think, to be recognised that the provision of such facilities would create serious practical problems. Remand home detention as at present operated takes place in premises whose primary function is that of safe keeping and assessment of the needs of children held there pending decision as to the treatment measures to be applied. Such facilities as at present exist have, with certain exceptions, hitherto been quite inadequate, and the homes' function as assessment centres seems to us to be quite incompatible with the entirely different role of places of detention as a punitive measure. It is essential to our proposals that the first of these functions should be given full and proper recognition, and in such circumstances it is clear that if the idea of punitive detention for younger children were retained, entirely separate provision for this form of treatment would have to be made. On the information before us, the total number of younger children in Scotland for whom on any reasonable criterion such provision could ever be likely to be regarded as appropriate would, we consider, be such as to justify only one such establishment. While it is possible under present arrangements to commit children for punitive detention in remand home premises (however unsuitable they may be) within relatively easy access to their own homes, this would be impracticable in future. For our part we could not contemplate the alternative, which is that children under 14 would in future be accommodated in a single national detention home-of necessity in many cases far removed from the inmates' home areas. Accordingly, in the light both of the general considerations as well as the practical difficulties already mentioned, we recommend that remand home detention as a method of treatment should be abolished.
COMPULSORY MEASURES UNDER THE MENTAL HEALTH (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1960
194. Under present provisions the compulsory hospital detention (or reception into guardianship under the local health authority) of persons suffering from serious mental disorder is carried out under statutory procedures involving a Sheriff's order under Part IV of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960. Separate procedure is provided under Part V of the Act for action in relation to such persons subject to criminal proceedings in the Sheriff Court or in the High Court of Justiciary. At present the juvenile courts have no power to make such orders and, where it appears to them that any child brought before them (whether in criminal or "care or protection" proceedings) may be suffering from mental disorder, the case must be remitted to the Sheriff Court.
195. The principle of compulsory measures by reason of mental disorder being subject to judicial order is of long standing, and is of course essentially intended as a safeguard for the liberty of the subject. In present-day conditions, situations in which compulsory measures of the kind are likely to be essential in the case of children under 16 are likely to be comparatively few. In any event, since the question depends essentially on medical evidence on standards laid down by law, we consider it inappropriate that the juvenile panels should be empowered to make such orders. If they were so empowered, their orders would in any event require to be subject to a right of appeal to the Sheriff, and it seems appropriate that all compulsory measures in this field should continue to be authorised by the Sheriff. Under our proposals, where any question of the kind arises, it would be for the reporter to the panel to decide whether or not to refer the case to the appropriate medical authorities with a view to action under Part IV of the Act. The great majority of cases would, we contemplate, be dealt with in this way without referral to the panel. Exceptionally, there would continue to be a few cases in which it was considered appropriate, both in the interests of the child's treatment and for the protection of others, that he should be made subject to hospital measures involving special security. Such cases would be few among juvenile offenders under the age of 16, and would be most likely to arise in situations involving homicidal acts or acts of serious physical violence. Under our proposals we consider that such cases would continue to be dealt with under the procedure provided for in Part V of the 1960 Act in that they would be referred by the reporter at the outset to the procurator fiscal. In cases falling short of that, the choice of procedure, where this was in any way in doubt, would be a matter for arrangement between the reporter to the panel and the procurator fiscal.
196. It may be convenient at this stage to summarise our recommendations as to the powers of the juvenile panels as discussed earlier in this Chapter, as extending to the following:
(1) decision to take no action;
(2) admonition (with or without a supervision order);
(3) attendance centre training;
(4) finding of caution on the parents (normally with a supervision order on the child);
(5) assumption of supervisory jurisdiction over the child
(a) the child living at home; or
(b) where the situation so requires, including the additional requirement that he should be received into public care (under the day-to-day charge of a public or recognised voluntary agency); and thus including where necessary residence in a children's home or residential school.
"Residential school" in this context should be taken to include all schools within the existing approved school system and every residential school offering special educational facilities provided by an education authority or a recognised voluntary body. The foregoing relates to the powers which we recommend should be conferred on the juvenile panels by statute, and has to be read in the light of our comments as to the variety of other steps which might well be taken by the panels in agreement with the parents, with or without a formal order by the panels.
* "Degrees of Mental Handicap": Report of the Working Party on Standards of Ascertainment for Scottish Schoolchildren, 1961.