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.
