Psychiatry and the Remand Home (Part 1)
| Date | 01 July 1949 |
| Published date | 01 July 1949 |
| Author | P.D. Scott |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455054900502205 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
286
]
PSYCHIATRY
AND
THE
REMAND
HOME
(Part
1.*)
P.
D.
SCOTT,
M.A.,
M.D.,
D.P.M.
Exactly
53
years
ago
the
Metropolitan
Asylums’
Board
was
authorised
to
provide
Remand
Homes
for
the
London
Area.
Thus
London’s
Remand
Homes
differed
from
those
in
other
parts
of
the
country
in
not
being
run
by
the
police,
and
from
Remand
Homes
of
other
countries
(notably
America)
in
not
evolving
from
charitable
institutions.
The
next
move
was
in
November
1900
when
three
distinguished
magistrates
declared
that
they
would
be
happy
to
discuss
with
the
Managers
of
the
Board
&dquo; Any
scheme
for
the
reception
and
relief,
elsewhere
than
at
an
ordinary
workhouse,
of
children
ordered ...
to
be
taken,
under
the
Industrial
Schools’
Act,
to
a
workhouse.&dquo;
Three
Remand
Homes
were
opened
on
January
1,
19~.:~2
the
day
upon
which
the
Youthful
Offenders’
Act
1901
came
into
force.
After
many
changes
there
is
now
only
one
which
houses
both
boys
and
girls,
situated
conveni-
ently
behind
Stamford
House
Juvenile
Court,
converted
in
1936
at
a
total
cost
of ~ 45,000.
We
are
so
accustomed
to
the
great
reforms
which
the
two
Children’s
Acts
of
1908
and
1933
have,
brought
about,
that
it
is
difficult
to
imagine
what
the
Homes
must
have
been
like
in
the
very
early
days.
At
any
rate,
a
distin-
gushed
visitor
from
Budapest
is
reported
in
1909
to
have
been
charmed
with
the
organisation
and
management.
Other
opinions
were
not
so
flattering.
Thus
the
L.C.C.
soon
after
they
took
over
the
management
of
the
Homes
(then
styled &dquo;places
of
detention
&dquo;)
reported
in
1911
that
&dquo; the
conditions
under
which
these
places
have
been
carried
on
have
not
been
regarded
as
satisfactory
and
have
necessitated
exterisive
changes.&dquo;
The
1935
Home
Once
Children’s
Branch
Report,
refer-
ring
to
remand
homes
in
general
states &dquo;
with
few,
exceptions
there
,is
no
regular
medical
examination.&dquo;
But
in
the
London
Homes,
at
least
as
far
back
as
1912,
a
part-time
medical
practitioner
was
paid £ 30
a
year
to
look
after
the
general
health
of
the
children
and
supply
necessary
certificates.
It
appears
to
have
been
mainly
with
the
object
of
recognising
the
mentally
defective
that
in
1913,
for
the
first
time,
the
service
of
a
psychologist,
then
Mr.
Cyril
Burt,
became
available.
That
his high
standards
went
far
beyond
this
aim
and
that
they
have
not
been
maintained,
is
now
clear
enough.
Following
Mr.
Burt
came
a
series
of
medical
officers,
later
with
psychiatric
training.
Latterly,
additional
workers
have
been
appointed
to
form
a
team
so
that
we
now
have
two
physicians,
male
and
female
(the
latter
with
experience
of
venereal
and
gyn2ecolo-
gical
disease),
a
psychiatrist,
two
educational
psycholo-
gists
and
a
psychiatric
social
worker.
I
would
like
to
stress
that
we
depend
greatly
on
the
helpful
reports
of
the
remand
home
supervising
and
teaching
staffs
and
most
of
all
upon
the
invaluable
assistance
of
the
proba-
tion
offices
who,
in
nearly
all
cases,
submit
reports
embodying
information
which
could
not
be
acquired
from
any
other
source.
The
exporimpnt
of
employing
a’
psychiatric
social
worker
has
been
a
great
success;
her
duty
is
mainly
the
interviewing
of
parents;
she
main-
The
opinions
expressed
in
this
paper
are
not
necessarily
those
of
the
L.C.Ç,
in
whose
Remand
Home
I
work.
tains
close
contact
with
the
probation
offices
and
never
makes
a
home
visit
without
their
compliance.
In
fact
the
greatest
part
of
her
work
is
within
the
remand
home.
In
practice
we
find
that
this
causes
no
crossing
or
duplica-
tion
of
the
probation
ofhcer’s
investigation;
the
p.s.w.
report
is
complementary
to,
and
in
no
way
an
attempt
to
replace
that
of
the
probation
officer.
Indeed
we
are
all
fully
aware
that
the
probation
officer,
who
knows
the
district,
perhaps
even
the
tenement
block,
who
may
have
dealt
with
the
family
for
many
years,
who
has
seen
the
child
and
its
parents
at
home,
in
their
natural
setting,
and
in
court,
and
who
has
an
intimate
knowledge
of
the
possible
disposals
as
they
will
affect
this
child,
is
quite
indispensable.
The
extent
to
which
Magistrates
of
the
Metropolitan
Juvenile
Courts
have
requested &dquo;
special
reports,&dquo;
has
steadily
increased.
In
1936
it
was
11.2
per
cent.
of
all
children
remanded
in
custody,
now
it
is
56.7
per
cent.
Enough
to
keep
us
extremely
busy.
The
Diagnostic
Examination
The
reliable
report
is
based
on
the
painstaking,
some-
times
even
tedious,
collection
of
data
from
different
sources,
piecing
it
together
with
our
own
observations
and
thus
forming
a
picture
not
only
of
the
child
as
he
now
is,
but
also
of
his
family,
school
and
neighbourhood
life,
of
the
constitutional
and
environmental
background.
There
is
no
short
cut.
We
have
no
&dquo; crystal
ball&dquo;
of
&dquo;truth
drug&dquo;,
we
do
not
agree
that
the
really
clever
doctor
knows
as
soon
as
the
patient
walks
into
the
room
what
the
trouble
is.
The
examination
has
five
main
parts.
(1)
Routine
physical
examination,
and
special
physical
examinations
when
indicated
e.g.,
a
chest
X-ray,
tests
for
venereal
disease
or
an
electro-encephalogram
where
an
organic
or
epileptic
brain
disturbance
is
suspected.
Physical
factors
such
as
the
extent
of
puberty
have
important
bearings
on
delinquency.
(2)
Psychological
testing,
which,
besides
giving
an
estimation
of
the
intelligence
quotient
can
give
helpful
indications
as
to
educational
attainment
or
the
sort
of
occupation
best
suited
to
the
individual.
The
child’s
particular
reaction
to
certain
test
items
may
be
unex-
pected
and
revealing,
and
may
suggest
a
starting
point
for
further
enquiry.
(3)
Observation
of
behaviour
during
remand.
Here
the
size
of
the
remand
home
will
be
important.
There
is
something
about
the
number
30
which
has
a
significance
in
group
management.
The
number
a,ppears
in
army
units,
scout
troops
and
many
other
groups,
it
seems
to
represent
the
span
of
one
person’s
attention
in
terms
of
human
observation
and
control.
Anything
more
than
30
is
apt
to
become
more
than
can
be
observed
at
once.
The
Superintendent
of
a
large
remand
home,
particu-
larly
if
it
contains
both
sexes,
has
a
very
difhcult
task.
Children
of
different
sorts
and
ages
are
in
his
care.
It
is
very
rarely
that
a,
young
person
is
found
(under
secn.
33,
2,)
so
&dquo;
unruly
&dquo;
or
&dquo;
depraved
&dquo;
as
to
be
unfit
for
the
remand
home.
There
is
always
a
proportion
of
aggres-
sive
and
anti-social
children,
some
perhaps
under
punish-
To continue reading
Request your trial