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.