Crisis in Youth Custody?

 

The task of finding alternative placements for the 33 children held at the unsafe Rainsbrook Secure Training Centre (STC) looks more challenging given today’s inspection report about the only other STC,  G4S run Oakhill in Milton Keynes.  

The Oakhill  inspection, prompted by two serious, violent incidents in which several staff suffered significant injuries, found that for a short period in the spring  “senior managers were in danger of losing control across the centre”. Inspectors were told that one of the factors leading to the instability was the arrival of a small number of children originally allocated to Rainsbrook after admissions there were halted.

Although by the time of the inspection at the end of last month, children at Oakhill were experiencing a calm, structured daily routine, because “uncertainties remain in the centre’s capacity to achieve a sustainable reduction in violence”, it would seem risky to move more than a very small number of  Rainsbrook residents there now.  Inspectors report that a high number of staff have left, many without notice after completing their induction programme and “a significant number have been dismissed”. The recruitment of new staff has not replenished the shortfall, which has been compounded by high sickness levels.  

There should be some options instead to move the Rainsbrook children to secure childrens homes, by far the best institutions in the closed estate for under 18s. At 31 March 2021, the Ministry of Justice were contracting  107 places in seven homes but only 55 children were placed in them by the Youth Custody Service (YCS). It is puzzling why the use of SCHs has fallen – 80 children were placed in them by the YCS a year earlier. 

The ultimate decision whether to admit a child rests with the SCH provider who must comply with Children Act regulations requiring them to accept only children whose needs they can meet alongside children already placed within the home. A recent study has found that “in practice, they will resist taking too many children with the same needs or risks, including those with sexually harmful behaviour.”  But most of those who have been at Rainsbrook should be moved to an SCH.

 If the YCS cannot reach agreement with secure childrens homes about all of the Rainsbrook children, they may look at transferring them to one of the five Young Offender Institutions, four of which are run by the prison service and one by G4S. Given that  “STCs hold children who are deemed to be too vulnerable to be put into YOIs”, it would be hard to square such moves with “the aim of promoting children’s safety and ensuring decisions are made with children’s best interests as a primary consideration” as placement guidance requires. But at the end of the day, such decisions are made  “against a view of the available accommodation”.  

At least as far as Detention and Training Orders are concerned , placements could conceivably be made not only in STCs, SCH’s and YOIs, but “such other accommodation or descriptions of accommodation as the Secretary of State may specify by regulations”.  Maybe it is time to explore these.

Ironically, this mess arises in the context of some good news. At the end of April 2021, the number of children under 18 in custody was 493, the lowest since records began. This is a decrease of 23 compared with the previous month and 171 fewer than in April 2020.  Despite this welcome and sustained  fall in numbers - there were nearly 3,000 children locked up 15 years ago- the failure to invest the savings in expanding and developing secure childrens homes together with the glacial progress of the new Secure School has exposed a fundamentally broken system.

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.