Beyond the Doors ? Whats happening with the Secure School.

 

 

Up to £6 million is needed to fix 184 faulty doors at the Oasis Restore Secure School (ORSS) which closed last month, MPs have been told. Replying to queries from the Justice Committee, new Youth Justice Minister Jake Richards wrote that concerns were first raised about “internal door functionality” in February, when vandalism exposed weaknesses in the locking systems and fabric of some doors. This increased risks to the safety of children and staff at the school in Kent.  

There were ten children at ORSS when the closure was announced, eight children were moved into different establishments whilst two were released having served their sentence or the end of their period on remand. The furthest distance a child moved was more than 200 miles to Parc Young Offender Institution in South Wales.

Responsibility for the fiasco lies with the Ministry of Justice which is accountable for the school’s infrastructure. An Independent Review is looking at the decision-making which led to the inadequate specification for the original doors.

Richards says a proportion of the costs of replacing them will be recovered from a budget surplus arising from the temporary closure of the school- but up to a million pounds a month will be spent to retain staff and essential services there.

It’s not clear when the school will reopen although the MoJ's new Permanent Secretary, Jo Farrar, has now told the Public Accounts Committee she hoped it will be in March next year. Specialist architects have identified the available replacement options for the doors with site visits from suppliers underway to develop detailed specifications. 

Neither is it clear how far problems at Oasis Restore may go beyond building failures.  

According to Richards:

“Caring for children with complex needs in a secure setting is extremely challenging and the secure school model was new and innovative. Whilst it is inevitable that there would be learning to take, the issues experienced with the site in recent months are not an acceptable outcome for children or staff. For these reasons, the Department is working at pace to learn from these issues and rectify them as quickly as possible”.

In the meantime, secure school staff are undertaking training, placements at other sites and other “improvement work” in response to issues raised in recent Ofsted inspection reports.

By coincidence, on Friday the House of Lords is debating the Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill which would reduce the minimum notice period for termination of a secure schools funding agreement from seven to two years. Although it’s a Private Members bill, it has government support. Unless things improve at Oasis Restore, the government may need to use its provisions.

Young Adults in Custody- Yet Another Challenge for Prisons

  

Failings in secure institutions for children are all too familiar, but a report out today paints an equally disturbing picture of life in a prison where many of those serving long sentences are transferred when they turn 18.  

Among the findings of the local watchdog during the course of the year to April, HMP Swinfen Hall saw  

·         “no go” areas for staff too scared to challenge young men in their care

·         uncontrolled meal queues leaving some prisoners with insufficient or no food

·         serious assaults in unlocked cells and unsupervised association rooms and

·         PAVA incapacitant spray deployed more than twice a week    

The Independent Monitoring Board describes the Staffordshire jail as fundamentally unsafe with violence becoming more serious during the year with stabbings and assaults via kicks and stamps to the head. A ban on razors has led to an increase in more dangerous weapons being used. It’s shocking but perhaps not surprising that one young man had isolated himself in his cell for more than three years.

The prison receives young adult men from all over the country, most under 21 with complex needs and presenting high risk of harm. It’s a very challenging cohort but it looks like the prison is simply not equipped to cope with them.  There have been some welcome efforts to identify and support neurodiverse individuals, but every aspect of the prison’s overall effectiveness was undermined by the limited regime on offer.

The main reason is that staffing levels are “pared down to the minimum”, day and night, made worse by staff absence and unfilled vacancies. So staff who are there struggle to manage the basics.

A review of a very serious incident revealed that staff involved did not have all the resources needed to prevent injury in the case of a serious in cell fire. Food trolleys were filthy, waste food was left unbagged all around the prison, faulty kitchen equipment remained out of action for months. Staff culture is such that the chance of prisoners getting any positive feedback or thanks is nigh-on impossible.

It's a dismal read, miles from the direction of travel I set out for places like Swinfen Hall 12 years ago in Young Adults in Custody The Way Forward. The report for the Transition to Adulthood alliance recommended that young adult prisons should be remodelled as Secure Colleges with an integrated programme of education and training at their core, a normalised regime and the possibilities of progression to open conditions.

It’s a model which has been successful in Germany and elsewhere. It requires first and foremost a recognition of the distinctive needs of young adults and a genuine commitment to meet them. I wonder whether there’s the political will for the first let alone the second.  

 

(A bit) More on the Secure School

 

We learned last month that the Oasis Restore Secure School was to close temporarily following a monitoring visit by Ofsted which raised concerns about safety and the quality of the buildings- in particular a large number of broken doors. The report of Ofsted’s visit which took place at the end of July has now been published. Does it tell us more than we already know?

On timing, the report reveals that while new placements were to be halted immediately, the temporary closure would be “in or around September 2025”. So it’s not altogether clear whether there are still children there. The period of closure is to allow for the environment to be fully assessed, for new security doors to be delivered and installed, and for other essential works to take place. There’s no indication of how long this might take.

On the problems themselves, the report confirms that several “security doors” were badly damaged, compromising the safety of children and staff. Other aspects of the safety and security of the School were also compromised “due to the installation of items that do not have the required resilience for a secure environment”.  The items are not specified. The report mentions other weaknesses- very high temperatures in the education block and poorly maintained outside spaces.

The report’s focus on infrastructure failings makes it hard to assess whether there’s more to this story than badly designed doors and how well Oasis have been managing the School.  Ofsted report an increased use of single separation, when a child is locked up alone in their room. It’s a measure which has a negative impact on children and should only be used when necessaryto prevent injury or serious damage to property.

There is also a reference in the report to “serious safety and security issues” in two areas of the School which managers undertook to remedy urgently - but no detail is provided.

On the whole, the report is more critical of the Ministry of Justice than of Oasis, making it clear that the MoJ is responsible for the building, “including expediting repairs and ordering necessary items, but it has failed to ensure that the replacement items needed are available and installed within a reasonable time frame”.  The more fundamental question is why such repairs are needed so soon after £40 million was spent getting the place ready.

Although the Public Accounts Committee might take this up in their current inquiry into the MoJ, I’d like to see the Justice Committee hold a one off session with officials and Oasis to get to the bottom of what went wrong.

More on Fire Risks in Prisons

 

Last night I finished watching the excellent if harrowing BBC series on the 1988 Piper Alpha disaster- a tragic and catastrophic case study of what can happen if safety concerns are not properly identified and addressed.

Today I read that there’s still a “significant fire risk” to the women who reside in 15 houses at Styal prison according to the local watchdog.  In their annual report for 2024-5, the Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) says that despite some work to improve fire safety, the Crown Premises Fire Safety Inspectorate (CPFSI) has issued two enforcement notices after identifying areas of concern, particularly with regard to asbestos in boiler rooms, and compartmentalisation of the houses, leaving no natural fire breaks. The fire risks at Styal have been reported for at least four years. 

A “Mini Fire Safety Improvement project” is underway to provide wired, automated detection in 27 cells to support the Governor in managing fire starters. This is much needed given that there were 26 cell fires at the prison last year up from six in the previous year.

But much more work is obviously needed. The IMB ask the Prison Service in their report what additional resource will be made available to mitigate the serious fire safety concerns they’ve highlighted.  

What’s happening at Styal looks a microcosm of what’s happening across the prison estate- a troubling increase in prison fires, some welcome remedial fire safety work going on but not at the required scale or speed.

Styal also illustrates weaknesses in inspection processes. In 2022-3 the IMB  reported that the houses there were  now fully compliant with fire safety regulations. That seems to have been wrong and misleading.

They now report that CPFSI issued two notices last year but not whether they have been complied with. The Styal notices don’t appear at all in  the register on the CPFSI website which significantly understates the number of notices issued in respect of prisons.

Shortcomings in safety inspections was one of the findings of Lord Cullen’s inquiry into the Piper Alpha disaster. What would he make of the arrangements for prisons?

Prison Fire Safety Delay ?

 

21,000 currently occupied prison places -almost one in four- do not meet fire safety standards, MPs have been told. In a letter sent in July but published today, Prisons Chief Phil Copple told the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) that despite an extensive remedial programme, around 6,000 prison places may not meet the required standards by the end of 2027. This is the deadline agreed with Fire Safety Inspectors for all cells to be fire safety compliant. The prison service has a red line commitment not to use non-compliant cells after that date. 

Until now. Copple also told MPs that “we continue to review our plans to minimise the number of cells that will not be compliant by the 2027 deadline and review the correct procedures for managing non-compliant cells after this date”.  This sounds like civil service speak for postponing the deadline.

In another letter, Copple explained that 77 Ministry of Justice Projects were delayed when construction firm ISG went into administration last year. Some of these have involved fire safety work in prisons. Given that replacement contractors do not seem to have been found for all the ISG work, it’s quite possible that the 6,000 figure may rise.

The PAC is following up recent scrutiny with the MoJ so should definitely ask whether the 2027 deadline has formally been revised and whether the Crown Premises Fire Safety Inspectorate is content with the revision.

Capacity Assessment

 

If the Independent Review of Prison Capacity was designed to remind the public how badly the last government managed the penal system, it’s probably succeeded. Will it help the current and future governments do much better? I’m not so sure.

Like Gauke’s review of sentencing and Leveson’s on the courts, Dame Anne Owers final report  in the trilogy is stronger on diagnosing the problems than prescribing remedies. An independent advisory body for the system, a ten year strategy to develop probation and an evaluation of the prison service may help- or just deliver more talking heads.

Much more promising are the proposals for local multi-disciplinary management of offenders, modelled on youth justice; and improved addiction, health, housing, and employment services.

But they’ll need money. I’d like to have seen a recommendation that these approaches could be resourced from some of the billions earmarked for prison expansion on the basis that they will reduce the requirement for it. Could the time be ripe to revive the idea of Justice Reinvestment ? Alongside some new prison places we surely need more hostels and halfway houses, secure hospital beds and residential drug treatment- institutional measures that can act as effective alternatives to custody.   

There are two other concrete recommendations I’d also have liked to see. First that the Sentencing Council plays an enhanced role in balancing supply and demand for prison places.

The Council reports each year on how changing sentencing practice impacts on prison, probation and youth justice services; and on how “non-sentencing factors” such as the numbers in court, and release and recall decisions affect the resources needed to implement sentences. This has been a watchdog that never barked if ever there was one. It should be urged to use its vocal chords and even be given some teeth. It gets no mention in the Capacity Review.   

Second, the Review could propose more to limit the use of custodial remand. Oddly Anne Owers says those remanded to prison were looked at by the Gauke Sentencing Review. They weren’t.  Leveson looked at remand a bit and may return to it in the second part of his review on Court Efficiency. His first report says he was looking forward to what the Capacity Review had to say on the topic. He may be disappointed.

While Anne Owers rightly notes “the very lengthy periods…prisoners are now spending on remand has had an extremely detrimental impact on them (as well as on prisons)”, there is no recommendation about how to address the problem.  There is a suggestion that more alternatives could be considered but something more specific is needed- a tightening of the Bail Act and guidelines for Magistrates and Judges for example. The whole subject has fallen between the gaps of the three reviews.

A trilogy originally referred to three related tragedies. Whether the mismanagement of criminal justice in recent years amounts to a tragedy I don’t know, but it certainly needs urgent action to put right.

I’d thought the post- Gauke Sentencing Bill would have been published before the Summer Recess but although most of its recommendations have been accepted, I hear that getting Ministers to make detailed decisions isn’t easy. The Bill’s now expected next month.  The response to Leveson’s first review will be in the autumn but there is no timetable given for a response to the Capacity Review.  

While the prison place emergency the government faced last year may have eased, there is no excuse in delaying the delivery of a more effective and sustainable system.

 

Groundhog Week for Youth Custody

 

It’s Groundhog Week for  youth custody, as the Justice Secretary is told today to take urgent action to improve Oakhill Secure Training Centre (STC) where inspectors have found serious and systemic failures putting children there at risk of harm. On Monday, inspectors reported that only a third of children at Werrington Young Offender Institution felt cared for by staff with most spending too long locked up and not getting enough education.  

The Oakhill failings are particularly troubling, the latest in a long line of crises to engulf STCs over the last 30 years- and the second time Oakhill itself has been subject to an Urgent Notification. Four years ago it “barely met minimum standards of human decency” and despite some short lived improvements it’s back in a shocking state- unsanitary conditions, unresponsive healthcare, inappropriate use of separation and restraint and safeguarding in disarray.

Perhaps the most worrying part of the Ofsted Chief Inspector’s letter to Shabana Mahmood is the revelation that the Director of the G4S run centre and one of the deputy directors were formally suspended from their duties earlier this month and the other deputy director was recently fired.

30 other staff have been suspended in the last eight months, most because of concerns about “conduct with children”.  All of the 18 investigations completed have led to “various managerial actions including dismissals”. Some staff facing serious allegations have been allowed to continue to work with children. Staff convey a culture of fear, mistrust and reprisal, with some saying they have been left feeling unsafe while working alone on a unit.

Ministers should be worried too that the Youth Custody Service (YCS) -responsible for contractual management of private sector sites- has failed “to identify and/or take sufficient action to help safeguard children and to ensure that children receive good quality care”.  After the first Urgent Notification, in 2022 YCS assessed that despite limited improvements in G4S’s management of Oakhill STC, “there remained a risk that these improvements may not prove sustainable”. YCS should therefore have been much more on the case since then.

So what is to be done? It’s almost nine years since the then government agreed that Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) and STCs should be replaced in the longer term by smaller secure schools situated in the regions that they serve. Since then one Secure School finally got off the ground last year. It’s progress has been disappointing- an inspection coincidentally out today finds it needs improvement to be good.

Oasis Restore is not yet delivering good help and care for children and young people- and it’s of concern that the effectiveness of leaders and managers there is rated as inadequate. However, “there are no serious or widespread failures that result in children’s welfare not being safeguarded or promoted”, unlike at Oakhill.  Such failures tend to be even less common in Secure Childrens Homes, whose capacity in my view should have been expanded instead of creating the Secure School. But we are where we are. That doesn’t mean we have to stay here forever.

The Oakhill contract runs until 2029 and would probably cost too much to end early. But that could and should be the target date for the government to remove children from YOI’s and STC’s using Secure Children’s Homes and Secure Schools instead.