From Kent to Kenya - The Changing Shape of Youth Custody

 

Earlier this year, as part of an evaluation project in Kenya, I visited Shikusa Borstal Institution, home to more than 150 boys aged 15-21. Its eight dormitories, each led by a house master or mistress, the School Captain, prefects and assistants replicate closely the model of an English boarding school.  

While Borstal training as a sentence was abolished in England and Wales in 1982, the approach is still going strong in a number of former British colonies and even here several former borstals are in use as youth and adult prisons.

Meanwhile, less than two miles down the road from the Kent village which gave Borstals their name in 1902, the first of a new generation of custodial facilities finally opened its doors in August this year. Oasis Restore, the first Secure School is promising a revolution in youth justice, by placing therapeutic, integrated education, health, and care at the heart of the secure estate.

What will its influence be on the shape of youth custody?

In the short term, it’s already giving the Youth Custody Service an additional and welcome option to place some children deprived of their liberty outside an increasingly unsuitable prison system. Latest data shows 366 children and young people in prison run Young Offender Institutions (YOI) at the end of October- the smallest ever number.  That should fall further as the Secure School ramps up its capacity. According to the Oasis Restore accounts published last month, the full capacity of 49 children and 223 staff should be in place by September 2025.

How’s the School going? It’s difficult to know for sure as there has not yet been any independent inspection and no data published for example about the extent to which Oasis has exercised its right to pick and choose its residents.

Prior to opening the school published a set of policies, including on physical interventions which have proved one of the most problematic issues in the secure estate. The Oasis approach is commendably honest about the risks to staff and children in using physical restraint. But of course it remains to be seen whether staff adhere to the policies.    

Thankfully the school does not seem to have experienced the turbulence and disorder which marked the first few months of Medway Secure Training Centre when it opened on the same site back in 1998- and to an alarming extent characterises life in YOI’s today.

An otherwise highly optimistic Times article admitted that the school has not been able to avoid violence and self-harm entirely, “although the levels have been far lower than in a conventional YOI”.

But is this the right comparator? A recent inspection rated a Secure Childrens Home (SCH) as outstanding with children making “remarkable progress”. Children said that they feel very safe living at the home and have a trusted adult who they can speak to. On the rare occasion that there is an incident of bullying, the staff are quick to address this in a way that is non blaming to the child.

Quite why we needed a new model of secure care when we already have one that by and large works well has always escaped me. Wouldn’t expanding the SCH sector have been a better bet?

So I have my doubts as to whether Secure Schools will have the longevity or reach of borstals. And in the immediate future there must be some concern that the Principal who set up the school has left only three months after it opened.

On the other hand, the Oasis Restore accounts suggest that the Secure School’s land and buildings have been transferred to them on a 125 year lease. They may well be in for the long haul in Kent – but will they change the overall  shape of youth custody? 

Much too early to tell.