“I ran a motor bike group for half a dozen lads (15-17yr olds) who had been given Supervision Orders for TDA. We had no funding but managed, with the help of two volunteer bikers, to get a couple of old bikes… It was some months before the bikes could be ridden but everybody worked hard together to get the bikes into good condition and then we persuaded the local police to give the boys riding instruction. It was a great success and we had no subsequent problems with these boys. They had something positive to do and they worked with adults who showed them some concern. However I had many comments from outside the service by people who believed that they needed punishment and not treats.”
Last week I wrote “Boarding Schools with Bars”; a reaction to the announced plans for a secure school for young offenders. For my part, I disagree with the idea of a secure college. I feel that Clegg has simply decided to rearrange the system with little imagination and maximum disruption. The young offender is portrayed as a criminal to be confined, and not at all as a child; in fact, that terminology is eluded. Nevertheless my opinion is of little worth in the grand scheme of things so, delving deeper this week, I sought to establish how the reform reflected the attitudes of those involved in Youth Justice.
The government’s strategy for “Developing the Secure Estate for Children and Young People” was originally published in October 2011. Just over a year later, in 2013, this progressed in the green paper, “Transforming Youth Custody: putting education at the heart of detention” which identified plans for secure colleges.
Both papers received hundreds of responses from various bodies across England and Wales. The following are amongst them: the Centre for Mental Health, HMI Prisons, Lord Ramsbotham, the Mayor of London, Norfolk Youth Offending Team, the Secure Accommodation Network, HMYOI Warren Hill, and the Howard League for Penal Reform.
Not all of the above disagreed entirely with the government’s pilot scheme. Yet crucially each of them had concerns about the secure estate, which they recognised as requiring greater investment. Most advocate a solution of alternatives to incarceration.
Mental Health
Mental health is a universal problem within the secure estate. The green paper acknowledges that many children in custody face mental health complications, learning difficulties and histories of abuse and neglect. Despite this, disturbingly, the Howard League notes that the consultation paper then “goes on to make proposals almost as if discounting these” focusing instead primarily on education. Education is important, on that the majority agree, but a previous lack of it is a reflection of the broader welfare challenges that young offenders face.
The general consensus is that current attitudes to mental health in custody are poor. Specialist units can only do so much with small numbers of young offenders and are limited by a lack of resources. According to the Centre for Mental Health, children in custody are more than 18 times more likely to commit suicide than those of the same age in the community. Alongside, a report by HMI Prisons in 2011 stated that just under a third of boys and a fifth of girls had felt unsafe in prison at some point.
In the average YOI solutions to these high levels of personal insecurity are reflexive; not preventative. As a result the maximum levels of distress are incurred for all involved. There is no obvious evidence that in creating a secure college, any of these practices will be adapted to cater for mental health needs more sensitively.
Females in Detention
In 2006 the Youth Justice Board published a paper on the health needs of young women in custody. Concerns about the accessibility of services for sexual health and self-harm were voiced. Basic provision for youngsters going through puberty, pregnancy or mental health issues related to body confidence and the like are vital.
It is disappointing to note that the urgency with which the YJB wanted health care implemented has been so noticeably ignored in plans to “radically” overhaul the entire estate. Many of the responses recognise that there is a lack of support given to the “different and specific needs” of young women in detention (HMI Prisons). The Mayor of London criticises the lack of description in the consultation papers as to how gender equalities will be addressed.
Collaboration
Unsurprisingly, the Secure Accommodation Network was concerned with the government’s poor portrayal of the three separate secure establishments. As secure homes have statistically stood out as the most effective, it is no wonder they are defensive. Plans for the secure colleges would completely redirect a budget that they desperately need, and reduce beds for young offenders. That lack of enthusiasm for plans is juxtaposed by HMYOI Warren Hill’s response. Warren Hill expresses relatively high praise for the pilot scheme, which could see an improvement to their existing programme.
This highlights the massive communication problem between different establishments and bodies within the youth justice system. Some are privatised, some are not; all of them are independently working towards individual goals. Within reason this is acceptable; for instance Norfolk YOT has to cater for a radically different demographic than Central London. However more locally, such as within the separate boroughs of the capital, different goals conflict.
In order to further youth justice in and outside confinement; there must be “regional coordination” for accountability and the avoidance of unnecessary delay. Due to the isolation of this secure college unit, no plans to integrate the services have been highlighted.
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation is always the goal. Under 21 year olds, more than any prisoner, deserve a second chance. Unfortunately, this relies on the efforts of many different bodies, friends and family; none of which can be guaranteed.
There is a collaborative concern at the lack of contact that children have with their families on the outside. Often, placing the juvenile in a YOI can have a devastating effect on their family ties. It is vital that connections are maintained to ensure the youngster has some sort of supportive base on the outside.
It has already been established that there is not enough funding to guarantee shelter or support once a youngster has left. If support is greater on the outside, then hopefully, it should rarely been taken away by the confines of a YOI. There needs to be a bigger investment towards keeping young offenders out of YOIs or secure institutions, to avoid the massive void that often comes after incarceration. Again, the secure college redirects the budget away from this and into education solely.
Conclusion
“Of all the interventions for children who offend, custody is the most damaging and least effective.”
As the title quote illustrates, much good can be done outside the confines of a secure institution. It is however, the sad truth that we would have to fight against a general public that has a destructive desire to penalise young people disproportionately harshly. Where Europe sees children committing crimes as a welfare issue, Britain sees it as nothing more than evidence of inherently evil, pint-sized adults.
“Our system is engineered to respond primarily through punishment” (Howard League 2013). This is illogical. If the dissenting public needs proof that incarceration is failing youths, their disruptive rioting over the Thompson and Venables trial is more than satisfactory evidence. All the extra prison time, so hounded after, failed to scrape the surface of repentance or rehabilitation. Instead the risk to public safety (the excuse given for increasing their tariff) was if anything increased. As the Secure Accommodation Network insists, young offenders should be seen as “children first”.
We may criticise the reform vehemently, but we cannot provide an alternative that evokes as much support until the general public changes their mind-set.
Get children out of custody.
How hard does it have to be?
I think (with an educated guess)... 