Text size: a | a | a

How we gathered information for this report

We analysed the information we held about all adults under 25 who were on welfare guardianship in November 2008 and who had been so for at least one year prior to that.

From this initial work we found that:

there were 319 people who were aged 25 or under when their guardianship order was made. 89% had a diagnosis of learning disability. (One third of those 50 young adults whose cases we looked at in this exercise were classified as having a mild to moderate level of learning disability.)

  • 79% had private guardians.
  • 72% of orders were granted for an indefinite period. While this essentially is the same as the average of indefinite orders for all adults on welfare guardianship. (Older people with dementia account for nearly 60% of all guardianship cases.) Indefinite orders for those under 25 could be regarded as a much greater intrusion, in respect of their civil liberties,because there is no automatic judicial review of orders granted.
  • Most orders granted include an array of powers covering all areas of activity/decision making relating to the adult's welfare. This is more the case than with orders for those between 25 and 65 and is more similar to what is observed in respect of adults on guardianship because of dementia.
  • Adults under 25 were more likely to have powers granted on their behalf in nine of the twelve categories of powers granted which we record than was the case with those over 25.
  • The median age at which guardianship started was 18 years. In contrast, local authority guardianship cases were, in the majority, granted for less than 5 years and the median age for the start of the order is 20 years.

We took a representative sample of 50 guardianship cases, where the person was under 25 years old when the order was granted. The sample comprised 39 private guardianship cases and 11 local authority orders. The sampling process was designed to include a range of local authorities and to reflect the relative number of guardianship orders in existence. Nineteen of Scotland's 32 local authorities were represented in the study.

The sample was also designed to ensure that it included a range of cases, taking account of the following features:

  • how long ago the order had commenced (in the range 1-5 years);
  • the length of time for which the order was granted;
  • whether a private or local authority guardian was appointed;
  • whether the person was diagnosed as having solely a learning disability or not;
  • the age of the person when guardianship was granted;
  • the incidence of guardianship in the local authority concerned.

Private guardians of each individual were interviewed by telephone using a structured questionnaire. Supervising officers and the local authority officer responsible for carrying out the functions and duties of guardian in cases where the chief social work officer had been appointed guardian (the responsible officer) were also interviewed. We asked supervising officers and responsible officers were asked to forward notes of their contacts and visits to us in advance of the interview for the period 1 December 2007 to 30

November 2008. A total of 47 mental health officer (MHO) reports which  accompanied the original guardianship application were scrutinised. Assessment criteria for MHO reports that accompanied the applications were used to assess the quality of completed reports. Managers of mental health services completed a questionnaire relating to systems in place for management and support of workers undertaking supervisory responsibilities.

LINK to methodology appendices TO BE ADDED