We spoke to a number of young people, as we always do for meetings such as this, and I would be more than happy to get them in front of the committee. They would be very keen to come, but that is a side issue.
I listened to the conversation about vouchers and goods and what happens to them. There is an issue about care-experienced young people. I looked at the evidence of the vulnerabilities of people who had applied to the fund in the past financial year. It said that 1 per cent were care leavers. It also said that 26 per cent were homeless, 9 per cent were offenders, 54 per cent had mental health problems and 14 per cent had addictions. We know that 20 to 30 per cent of the homeless population are care leavers. At any time, up to 80 per cent of young offenders in Polmont are care leavers. We know that more than half the young people who leave care at 16 will have a significant mental health problem. Therefore, the fact that we have only been able to identify that 1 per cent of those who applied were care leavers means that we did not properly identify the care leavers and the care-experienced people. That is a significant problem. Although people have different issues to contend with, to a degree their behaviour traits are a consequence of being part of the care system.
Kevin Stewart talked about care-experienced people, and it is good that Parliament has sought to do quite a lot through the Education and Culture Committee, the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 and this type of initiative: scrutinising how the Scottish welfare funds are impacting care-experienced people. We need to make sure that the bill marries up with guidance that is currently being written on parts 9, 10 and 11 of the 2014 act, which is on corporate parenting duties, continuing care and aftercare. Young people can now stay in care until they are 21, and can get significant support until they are 26. Young people may well have severe needs when they leave care, and have a bunch of issues about what care meant to them. There is no point in having a parallel system for the Scottish welfare funds that does not marry up with the support for continuing care and aftercare that will come through the great legislation that was passed at the beginning of this year.
Care-experienced people have two basic requirements that we need to recognise. They need, or lack, a stable, loving and constructive relationship that can help guide them through life. When we give them a crisis grant or a community care grant to set up a flat, we should ask how that is related to their care identity, such as by asking whether they have had a flat already, why that accommodation broke down and what support has been given to them. The people who administer the grants—local authorities—are the corporate parent. When the corporate parent gets the phone call for the crisis grant, it should not reject the application, but should—as Mark Ballard from Barnardo’s said—treat that as a red flag that makes it say, “Let’s look at giving you support, because you’re not going to be able to go your mam’s house to get your dinner tonight, or be able to get your washing done or sleep there.” Who—someone mentioned local authorities communicating with each other—is making sure that the person is getting support, and that they have a relationship that is going to hold them? If they do not have those, they are extremely vulnerable.
In one case, a young lad—who, in general, had low self-esteem—talked about going through the process. He found out after a bit of investigation, after the authority had rung him back and rejected his application, that it had been on his Facebook page, which he had not updated for some time. He was told that what was seen as grounds for his application being rejected was historical information on his Facebook page.
Our general appeal is that the problem be seen not as being about the 1 per cent, but as a significant headache for us because we are corporate parents. We know that the care-leaver population, which is only 1.5 per cent of our whole population, is significantly overrepresented in all the problems that have been mentioned and in using welfare funds. It is a real demonstration of what we are getting wrong in Scotland that we cannot even identify them. They feel so stigmatised that they will not say that they are care experienced when they are on the phone with an adviser because they believe—as it has always felt to them—that to do so will not be beneficial to their application.
I hope that that has answered your question.