The future of secure care and the single point of contact (SPOC) for victims in the Children's Hearings System

We have outlined several potential options that would require further exploration to assess their viability, cost, resource implications and broader legal, operational and strategic implications. These are not exhaustive, and the consultation therefore seeks views on any additional models that could offer long‑term sustainability.

Option 1: National approach to funding secure care

Under this option, funding responsibility for secure care could transfer from individual local authorities to Scottish Government (or a national body acting on its behalf). Secure care could be funded as a national service, with secure placements commissioned or funded centrally. Consideration would need to be given to costs and how this would impact local and national government budgets.

Potential benefits:

• Increased financial stability and sustainability – a national funding model could provide more predictable and stable funding for secure providers, supporting long-term planning, workforce retention and service quality, reducing reliance on fluctuating occupancy levels.
• Equity of access across Scotland – nationalisation could reduce variance between local authorities, ensuring decisions about secure care are driven by need.
• Strategic capacity and workforce planning – central oversight could enable better alignment between demand, capacity, alternatives and workforce development at a national level.
• Clear recognition of secure care as a national resource – national funding would require secure care to be available, regardless of where a child lives, and that no single local authority can plan for this alone.

Potential challenges:

• Potential loss of flexibility and autonomy for secure providers and local authorities.
• Complex governance and accountability – nationalisation would require clear arrangements for decision-making, oversight, and accountability, including the role of local authorities and the Children’s Hearings System
• Transition and implementation – moving to a national model would involve significant legal, financial and operational change

Option 2: National commissioning with local placement responsibility

Under this model, secure care could be commissioned nationally, but funding would continue to be authorised and managed by local authorities.

Potential benefits:

• Greater consistency in costs, contracts and expectations – national commissioning could reduce variation in fees and contract terms.
• Improved sustainability for providers without fully removing local decision-making.
• Ability to embed national quality requirements through contracts.

Potential challenges:

• While more potentially more stable that the current model, secure providers may still experience financial uncertainty if demand fluctuates significantly.
• Requires strong co-ordination between national commissioners and local children’s services

Option 3: Hybrid funding model

Under a hybrid approach, the Scottish Government could provide a proportionate level of block funding to secure care providers (e.g. a certain amount of beds) with local authorities contributing variable costs linked to individual placements.

Guaranteed annual budgets for secure care providers, could be based on planned capacity and delivery expectations. This could mean the Scottish Government commits to fund all of, or a defined minimum number of, secure beds, and local authorities pay the actual costs based on presenting placement demand.

The Scottish Government maintained a commitment to pay for up to 16 beds (4 in each secure centre in Scotland) to maintain capacity and provide a level of financial security to secure providers. This option could effectively build on that commitment.

Potential benefits:

• Improves secure provider stability while maintaining local accountability.
• Reduces cost volatility.
• Supports capacity restoration even during periods of low occupancy.

Potential challenges:

• Dual funding may increase reporting and financial management requirements.
• May not fully address fundamental sustainability and equity issues.
• Limited scope for long-term strategic planning.

Option 4: Retention of current model with targeted reforms

This option would retain local authority-led funding – meaning local authorities retain full responsibility for funding decisions within their current legal responsibilities - but would introduce reforms, such as:

• Standardised national costs with extended contract durations, improved mechanisms for up-rating agreed annual fee increases.
• Agreed provision, either within the negotiated bed rate, or on a free-standing basis, full provision for the agreed capital maintenance or fundamental modernisation of each campus within the overall secure estate.
• Incremental improvements with limited disruption.
• Enhanced national oversight and data transparency.

Potential challenges: