Rainsbrook Secure Training Centre: What Next?

 

The Justice Secretary’s decision last week effectively to close Rainsbrook Secure Training Centre marks another low in the recent history of youth custody. Robert Buckland was left with little choice when Ofsted told him that the STC is unsafe for children and staff and had in some respects deteriorated since the end of last year when inspectors condemned a bleak and spartan regime, which despite assurances had not been adequately addressed.

Buckland made clear to the Justice Committee in March that he did not like being played for a fool and this time has taken decisive action. The American company running Rainsbrook  strongly refute Ofsted’s latest findings  and plan to vigorously challenge them but it is not clear how. They might try to seek a second opinion- then provider G4S controversially did this after a critical report in 2015- but it looks too late for that .   

Important questions remain.

First, where will the 33 children currently placed at Rainsbrook be placed?  They have all presumably been deemed too vulnerable to be put into Prison Service Young Offender Institutions . There is only one other STC in operation – Oakhill  run by G4S which at the end of last year was found “to require improvement to be good”.  This year Oakhill has experienced high levels of violence with senior managers "in danger of losing control across the centre". There are not likely to be sufficient places in Secure Children’s Homes to accommodate the children from Rainsbrook.

MPs should ask the Justice Secretary to report on exactly what safe, alternative accommodation has been found for them by the Youth Custody Service (YCS) . The law allows the Secretary of State to designate suitable non secure accommodation in which a Detention and Training Order can be served, and his officials should be advising him to explore this option rather than resort to YOI places.

Second, is Buckland open to giving MTC yet another chance?  He says that negotiations are ongoing on the future of the contract, but it looks like trust has all but broken down. A new MTC managing director - a respected former prison service manager- gave undertakings at the Justice Committee in March but Ofsted’s findings cast serious doubts about their value. Inspectors for example report that the STC director and senior leadership team “are not visible to staff and children, failing to provide them with guidance and reassurance”.  This was one of the main concerns raised earlier in the year which the new management promised to fix.  That they have not done so makes it hard to see how MTC can continue.

Moreover, given the repeated shortcomings over several years, it is still puzzling why the contract with MTC was extended early in 2020 for an extra two years- taking it up to May 2023. The Justice Committee are due an explanation from the MoJ by the end of June for what the MPs consider to be a serious error of judgment. Even if the matter  is overtaken by events, they should pursue it. Not only is there a question about ministers’ involvement in the decision but also about the role of the Head of the YCS, who it turns out used to work for MTC.

Third, what will happen if the contract is terminated?  Buckland says options may include bringing the STC back under public sector control or repurposing the site for alternative use. It has become increasingly clear that the STC model looks broken- two of the four Centres have already closed and the future ostensibly lies in the development of Secure Schools. The first of these – Oasis Restore- is due to open next year on the site at Medway in Kent which housed the first STC. Could Rainsbrook – the second STC- be turned into the second Secure School?

Alternatively, the site may be used as prison accommodation for adult or young adult prisoners. Medway has been used in this way during the pandemic pending its conversion to the Secure School. The government’s plans for 18,000 new prison places includes 400 from “estate conversions” so this cannot be ruled out.

A few years ago while on a visit to North Carolina, I spent an afternoon at the Art Gallery where a neighbouring sculpture park and trail  had been created on the former site of the Polk Youth Prison for juvenile offenders . One of the installations was made from the institution’s bricks. Could that be another option for Rainsbrook ?

 

Time after Time

 

There’s hope among reformers that harrowing BBC drama Time could trigger a much-needed rational debate about Britain’s prisons. If nothing else, a mostly accurate dramatisation of life inside makes the case for larger numbers of better trained prison staff, more humane day to day procedures and a major expansion of mental health care .

There could be a revival of interest in Restorative Justice – discussed on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on 14 June and much more questionably, in rehabilitation programmes which expose young people at risk to the realities of prison and enable them to talk to serving prisoners. In the form of “Scared Straight”, these have proved counterproductive for young people, and the jury is out on the impact on offenders of being trained  to run intervention programmes with young people. (I understand none of these activities currently take place inside prisons in England and Wales) .         

But what about the elephant in the room- the increasing periods of time prisoners serve in prison? Is there any prospect that a debate arising from the series could slow down the seemingly inexorable rise in length of custodial sentences for serious offences and the growing proportion of those sentences which are served behind bars?  The average custodial sentence for all offences has increased by almost 40% in length over the last ten years.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill now in Parliament will give effect to the Conservative manifesto pledge to “introduce tougher sentencing for the worst offenders and end automatic halfway release from prison for serious crimes”. But the Johnson government had taken steps even before the 2019 election to require the most serious offenders to serve a greater proportion of their sentence in custody in order, as they saw it, both to improve public protection and victims’ confidence in the administration of justice.

What was the evidence on which they based this change in policy? After all, the existing system of release at the halfway point for determinate custodial sentences had been endorsed by a comprehensive review and public consultation in 2010-11, “because it can enable effective resettlement and public protection”.  

Nine years on, a month after taking office Johnson purported to hold another sentencing review. But this time, there was no research and evidence paper, and no meaningful consultation. The MoJ claimed that “given the time constraints it has not been possible to undertake any formal public engagement, but we have conducted telephone interviews with some key stakeholders to give them the opportunity to give their views.” 13 organisations were contacted- neither judges nor the Sentencing Council were among them (and the Prison Inspectorate who were on the list told me they hadn’t in fact taken part). 

Nor was any report of the so-called review published. My efforts to require its publication reached the end of the road this month when a judge ruled that publication would present  a significant risk of undermining the confidential space needed by the MOJ to discuss and formulate policy in this controversial area. The judge took the view that “although it is interesting to know whether the policy adopted by the government is supported by stakeholders consulted, it does not seem to us that there is a great public interest in disclosing the policy document for that reason. It is very likely that in any event the policy formulation process leading to a White Paper and legislation will make it clear the path the government has taken and to which stakeholders it has listened (or not)”.

The judge is half right. It is clear who hasn’t been listened to- organisations which have pointed out that the change could lead to more crowded, violent and unstable prisons, more self -harm and  higher risks of re-offending- impacts the government has itself recognised as  “non-monetised costs”  (after they decided to go ahead anyway) .

But who has been listened to? Presumably, those who favour harsher punishment for its own sake and for its electoral appeal . Justice Minister Alex Chalk told Parliament last month that if people are to have confidence in the criminal justice system, they must "serve a sentence that reflects the indignation, anger and upset that we feel as a society on their behalf".

Contrast this approach with that of 2011, when to increase public confidence, the Government promised “to work with the Sentencing Council and victims’ groups to improve overall understanding of the sentencing framework and the construction of individual sentences”. 

Sadly, very little seems to have been done on that front and we are now faced with a second wave of penal populism. And for prisoners, a great deal more time as a result.

 

Rehabilitative Culture War

 

Last month inspectors reported on a prison where “a variety of well-embedded arrangements aimed at keeping residents and staff safe were in place”. Good news, except perhaps for Prisons Minister Alex Chalk who so dislikes the term “residents” he is seeking to prevent prison staff using it to describe or refer to people in prison.

Chalk has more important things to worry about than opening up an unnecessary front in the culture wars. But he reportedly believes the increasing use of alternative language is sending mixed messages about how the state and wider society perceives serious criminals. Apparently “we should be speaking plainly and not pretending that these people are angels residing in a cell out of choice”.

While far from being the most important problem in prisons, language can be important. I recall seeing a notice from a Governor a couple of years back reminding staff not to talk about “feeding” at mealtimes or “bending up” when applying restraint. Would Chalk prefer a return to this sort of plain speaking?

There has been an overdue recognition of the importance of treating people in prison with respect and dignity, giving them a voice and showing and encouraging trust. Why? Not least because more positive perceptions of so-called procedural justice by prisoners predict lower levels of misconduct, better emotional well-being and mental health outcomes and lower rates of future reoffending.

Of course, the dreadful conditions and experiences faced by many prisoners can make the term resident look peculiarly ironic and ill fitting. But requiring the application of a generic label of prisoner could allow Mr Chalk and his colleagues to ignore those awful realities, or worse justify them under the dismal doctrine of less eligibility. He would do well to remember that people are sentenced to prison as a punishment, not for a punishment.  

In an important statement launched this week, the United Nations is rightly promoting "a rehabilitative approach to prison management that fosters the willingness and ability of prisoners to lead law-abiding and self-supporting lives upon release, and that is embedded in a decent, safe and healthy prison environment and the positive engagement of officers with prisoners".

As part of such an approach, surely governors and staff should be able to continue to use terminology which communicates most productively with prisoners and their families, something which has been particularly important during the pandemic. If the language contributes towards a more rehabilitative ethos so much the better.  Referring to people in prison as residents won’t solve all of the problems in the system but neither will it do any harm.

The Secure Estate for Children- Dates and Updates.

 

The Government’s response to February’s Justice Committee report on Children and Young People in Custody seems to raise fresh doubts that the first secure school will open in September next year. Before Oasis Charitable Trust can start their  self styled "revolution of love", the site at Medway – formerly a Secure Training Centre (STC) and subsequently used to hold adult prisoners during the height of the pandemic -needs extensive refurbishment to upgrade its facilities to “provide a homely child centred environment that meets children’s home regulations”. Subject to securing necessary approvals, the government intend to commence renovations only at the end of this year.

The MoJ say they “continue to work towards an opening date at the end of 2022 and will keep the Committee updated on progress” but I would not bet against slippage to 2023. That could make it seven years since Charlie Taylor first recommended Secure Schools in his 2016 Youth Justice Review. The government says, “in such a complex regulatory and operating environment, it is important to take the time to get it right”. They are certainly doing that.

As for the long- term ambition to replace all Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) and STCs with secure schools, the admission that this “will take some time to be realized” is a serious understatement. There is no guaranteed funding for schools beyond so-called Oasis Restore at Medway. The MoJ “will keep the Committee updated when we are able to say more about the timetable for further steps towards our vision”. MPs won't be holding their breath.

Interestingly, the MoJ say they continue to work closely with the Secure Children Home sector “in anticipation of the next round of commissioning, and we are committed to making the most of our SCH provision”. After years of reductions in the number of SCH beds, could this signal a revival of their role in youth justice?

For the short and medium term, the Government response lists a range of potentially useful initiatives underway to improve the operation of the current estate; by raising the skills of staff, improving mental health provision, reducing use of force and self-harm; and developing better resettlement plans. Pain inducing techniques were supposed to be removed from the syllabus of approved restraint at the end of last year, but this is now planned “by the summer.” As for segregation, a policy framework is due to be published by August with immediate implementation, although data on its use will be published only from the next financial year.  A further update on David Lammy’s recommendations on reducing racial disparity will be published “in due course”.

The response also says that the Youth Custody Service has strengthened its partnership with the NHS to identify the small number of children who present a complex mix of characteristics and “whose needs are more suitably met outside of youth custody.” In truth, this is not a small number, given the limited ability of YOIs and STCs to provide a safe and therapeutic environment.  

In a separate inquiry the Justice Committee last month lambasted the failure by private company MTC to deliver even basic standards of care to vulnerable children at Rainsbrook STC.  It is not entirely reassuring to find out from the Committee that when giving evidence to them,  the Executive Director of the Youth Custody Service (YCS) who is responsible for the secure estate, failed to declare that she used to work for MTC in a senior position.  The Committee were concerned  in their report that early in 2020, the MoJ granted the maximum possible two-year extension to the contract with MTC, taking the end date to May 2023. It is not clear what role the Executive Director of the YCS played in that decision, but it is to be hoped that if necessary, relevant interests were declared.

On A Wing And A Prayer ?

 

MPs on the Justice Committee heard shocking evidence this week about failures at Rainsbrook Secure Training Centre. Bad enough that children were locked in their rooms for all but half an hour a day; even worse that the practice continued after MTC- who run the Centre -had assured the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) that changes had been made.  “I do not think they were lying; I think it was utter incompetence," MPs heard from one of the inspectors.

Given the chequered history of STCs since the first opened at Medway in 1998, ministers should be looking closely at plans for the new generation of secure schools eventually intended to replace them. Details have emerged about the first of these schools to be run by the Oasis Charitable Trust which is due to open next year- more than six years after the schools were proposed in Charlie Taylor’s Youth Justice review.

Back in July 2019, when Oasis won the tender to operate the school, the MoJ promised to publish their application within two months. They are only now proposing to make it available on request. The main document is here, following a FoI request, although Oasis have apparently continued to develop and refine their operating model since being awarded the contract, so things may look different by next September.

The bid goes into considerable detail about how “Oasis Restore” will run the school which will be based on the Medway site.  As a Christian organisation, the culture is one “where everyone is treated with respect and love”, with an emphasis wholly on rehabilitation and restoration rather than retribution.  There is much to be said for the belief that “every young person is capable of change and of making more positive choices about their life and their future” and for the need to give “opportunity, space, time and support to deal with the implications of trauma and distress from earlier life experiences”.

The language looks partly right too: for Oasis, it’s ‘students’ not ‘offenders’, ‘homes’ not ‘wings’, ‘bedtime’ not ‘lockup’, ‘residential coaches’ not ‘wardens’- (although wardens hasn’t been used on this side of the Atlantic for many years). I don’t think ‘courses’ not ‘sentences’ really works, however.  It’s certainly refreshing to read that behind many young people who fall foul of the law is a creative, entrepreneurial, or artistic talent that has been misdirected. 

But as the bid acknowledges, “normalising a custodial environment and creating therapeutic care with young people has not yet been achieved in the UK.”  Some of the proposals - such as a Hub Market Place where a café, barbers, theatre and gym, will eventually be open to the public look overly ambitious.  But as the bid accepts, “to date none of the Oasis component charities…. have been involved in leading secure provision. We have much to learn.”  

Part of the learning comes from other types of facilities mentioned in the bid - understandably from secure children’s homes (SCHs) in the UK and Spain, more surprisingly perhaps from “the adult estate in Nordic countries”.

There will be two main staffing roles - coaches and security officers- alongside case workers and family support workers. Oasis will also develop a spiritual health care team that supports young people of all faiths and beliefs, as well as those who do not have a particular religious belief but who would like someone to talk with.

But even applying the learning, Oasis recognise that the responsibility of managing the extremely complex and often very difficult behaviours of young people – “within a context that sets out clear boundaries at the same time as offering constant love and unending hope” – is challenging and demanding on both systems and staff.  Will they be up to it?

The planned living arrangements look promising with physical activity to start the day, staff eating meals with students and volunteers coming in to socialise from time to time. It remains to be seen whether the £5 million allocated to refurbish Medway will succeed in creating a "therapeutic, calm, rehabilitative atmosphere in each of the houses", let alone a "beautiful physical environment for both staff and students". And how much of the social and cultural capital entitlement - such as visits to art galleries and museums - will prove possible in practice?

The education offer otherwise looks predictably strong- Oasis run 52 schools- with a core curriculum around numeracy and literacy, supplemented by vocational pathways delivered in partnership with existing charity and corporate sector partners.  Five hours sport a week is welcome though offering boxing may raise eyebrows – so too the plan that single sex sport will be used only when the physical strength, stamina or physique puts either gender at a disadvantage or makes them vulnerable.

I’m not sure why the Academy’s remit “would not include the design of specialist, individual psychological and behavioural interventions”. After all, management of behaviour is perhaps the biggest challenge of all in custodial units. 

The primary “behaviour system” will be based on a token economy with each student receiving a pay cheque on a Friday reflecting how they have behaved. This can be cashed in for Oasis Dollars which can be used to buy privileges, enrichment time and in the Hub Market Place.

The school will not shy away from punishing poor behaviour although it will use de-escalation and restorative justice to address it where possible. Where punitive action is needed, staff will remove privileges or Oasis Dollars. In cases where a young person needs to be removed from a classroom or house for their own safety, they will be taken to the Reflection Room with a coach. They will not be left alone. The bid envisages staff using reasonable force to intervene with a pupil to prevent them hurting themselves or others, damaging property that leads to the injury of others or causing disorder that disrupts learning. These circumstances will surely have to be more closely defined.

Given the inappropriateness of Young Offender Institutions and STCs, there is part of me that wishes this initiative well. But it looks too much like a risky experiment.  Secure Childrens Homes already offer a proven model – it’s they which should be being scaled up.   Oasis say they appreciate “that the challenges and opportunities inherent in creating a new kind of provision are unknown”. In fact, as MPs heard, they are all too well known.

 

Counting the Days

Two must read reports this week giving voice to the bleak experiences of men, women and children locked up in prisons during the pandemic. Powerful interviews by HM Inspectorate of Prisons evidence the decline in prisoners’ emotional, psychological, and physical well-being due to more than nine months spent by most in conditions that the Prison Reform Trust say match solitary confinement.  The reports are an important counterweight to an emerging narrative suggesting the “performance of the prison system compares favourably with that of other institutions in the UK and other prison systems internationally.”   

There are recommendations, particularly from PRT about what staff can do to mitigate some of the negative impacts of restrictions-  by taking an interest in the needs of each person as an individual, giving people time to talk through the effects of the quarantine regime, and helping people fill their time meaningfully. The Inspectorate want to see action “to maintain the few positives derived from the pandemic, such as video calling, and to make sure that prisons are prepared to restore activity as soon as it is safe”.  Neither report mentions the idea of compensating prisoners by reducing the length of time they spend in custody.

The Chair of the Sentencing Council was unable to tell the Justice Committee last week what impact COVID was having on sentencing but was confident that every sentencer in the country “ is well aware” of its effects within prisons and on community sentences. Given the Council’s aim of improving consistency, it was perhaps surprising that Lord Justice Holroyde should tell MPs “it is for each sentencer in each individual case to decide what weight to give that factor”. Encouragingly, he felt that the pandemic may be a very powerful factor against a custodial sentence in cases on the cusp of prison. But for people facing long terms, “it is of less significance because it is, in the end, expected to be something that will pass, even if it is going on longer than expected”.

Given the additional hardships facing prisoners of all kinds, there is a strong case for reductions in jail terms served across the board, including for existing prisoners. In the Australian state of Victoria, eligible prisoners have had their prison terms commuted by one day for every day of significant restrictions they have faced.  So called “Emergency Management Days” -a longstanding way of maintaining order and safety in prisons- have been applied to almost 5,000 prisoners out of a population of 7,000.

Such a response would be well received by prisoners here – an example of so-called procedural justice which could increase the extent to which they view people in authority as legitimate and worthy of respect. It could help reduce – a little at least- the sense of hopelessness and helplessness which inspectors saw becoming engrained among the prisoners they interviewed. 

No doubt, it would be less well received by right wing  press and politicians , who have opposed the Victorian  initiative. Here, it would probably require legislation.  

But given what Chief Inspector Charlie Taylor describes as the unprecedented scale of restrictions on prisoners’ lives, a sentence reduction scheme along these lines would be well justified. As one of the prisoners told Taylor’s team about his experience inside, “there’s no progression, it’s just counting the days.” He and others should have fewer of them to count.

Young Adults on Remand

 

Criminal courts should take account of age and lack of maturity when imposing sentences on people between the ages of 18-25. Guidelines say that young adults should be treated less severely when their level of psychological development makes them less responsible for a crime or increases the impact of punishment on them. 

But what about the decisions courts make prior to sentence- in particular whether a defendant should be remanded in custody awaiting trial? Should age and maturity be relevant factors here?

A new report I’ve written for the Transition to Adulthood (T2A) argues that more should be done to keep young adults out of pre-trial detention. For one thing a spell in prison on remand can be just as damaging as a prison sentence- sometimes more so. Earlier this month inspectors sharply criticised the treatment of young adults in prison and, separately, argued that increased time spent on remand as a result of court delays will inevitably add to the anxieties and frustrations of individual prisoners of all ages. “A growing, and increasingly-frustrated remand population has the potential to have a serious adverse effect on the stability of prisons”.  The remand population as a whole grew by 24% during 2020.  

It’s also the case that defendants should only be remanded to custody if they are likely to receive a prison sentence in the event of conviction. As sentencing guidelines make prison terms less likely for under 25s than over 25s, maturity should be taken into account at the remand stage too. But it seldom is.

As the Sentencing Council has recognised, many young people who offend either stop committing crime, or begin a process of stopping, in their late teens and early twenties. Therefore, a young adult’s previous convictions may not be indicative of a tendency for further offending. This is an important consideration for courts to take into account when considering risk.

Young Adults on Remand finds that -until the pandemic at least- the last ten years have seen a welcome fall in the use of custodial remands. But there is scope for both the CPS and judiciary to incorporate a greater recognition of maturity factors in relevant guidance on remand decision- making for practitioners. Courts in particular should adapt their ways of working to ensure a fairer and more distinct approach to young adults at the remand stage.

Magistrates who routinely deal with children in the youth court may place a higher weight on maturity on the occasions when they sit in the adult court. But youth magistrates (about 15% of JPs) may not always be able to persuade their adult court colleagues of its significance. The view that “he’s 18, he’s old enough to know what he’s doing” is still heard.  

Pre-trial arrangements are very different for under 18s and today’s report argues that the welcome policy of further restricting the use of custodial remands for children should be extended to young adults. In the shorter term, there is a case too for removing young adults, as well as children, from the remit of the emergency law extending custody time limits during the pandemic.    

If custodial remands are to be reduced, sufficient services will be needed to support and supervise young adults on bail, whether from the probation service, local government, NHS or voluntary organisations. And bail information schemes need to ensure that courts are made aware of non-custodial options in individual cases.

The local authority may have continuing responsibilities for young adults who have been in their care and may be able to contribute support which could help secure bail. The report suggests that transferring budgetary responsibility for young adult defendants to a more local level – as is the case for under 18s- could stimulate better provision of community-based measures, including suitable accommodation. Current bail hostel arrangements are inadequate.  

The report also recommends that more is done to monitor bail and remand decision- making in respect of young adults to inform efforts both to reduce custodial remands overall and tackle any disproportionate use for black and minority ethnic defendants.  

Thanks in large part to the determined and longstanding work of the Barrow Cadbury Trust, recent years have seen a growing consensus that young adults aged 18-25 require a distinct and tailored approach from the justice system. Making the necessary changes to law, policy and practice has been a slow and chequered process. Remands are an area where the pressures of the pandemic could help to accelerate progressive change.