Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
13 Dec 2007 : Column 909Wcontinued
These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large-scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
Mr. Hurd: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what evaluation he has made of the effectiveness of prison based cognitive behavioural treatment programmes on reconviction rates. [173537]
Mr. Hanson: There is considerable international evidence to support the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural treatment programmes in reducing reoffending. These research findings are based on systematic reviews which draw together all the available, high quality evidence in the field. Two of the more recent reviews were published within the last two years (Wilson et al., 2005; Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2006).
UK research examining the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural programmes in prisons is limited and has produced mixed results (Friendship et al, 2002; Falshaw et al, 2003; Cann et al, 2003). These findings may be due to implementation failure or the research designs used which makes it difficult to attribute the outcomes directly to the impact of the intervention (Debidin, M. and Lovbakke, J, 2004). However, a qualitative study conducted in the UK in 2004 examined the programme experience of prisoners completing cognitive skills training (Clarke et al, 2004). Both prisoners and staff reported short-term benefits for prisoners such as improved prisoner behaviour; increased self-confidence; enhanced literacy skills and better interpersonal skills. Completion of cognitive skills also helped to prepare prisoners for other offending behaviour programmes.
The current RDS NOMS programme also includes further research on the effectiveness of other cognitive behavioural programmes based on rigorous research designs.
Dr. Vis: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many times handcuffs have been used on (a) boys and (b) girls in each secure training centre since January 2006. [173444]
Mr. Hanson: The following table shows the use of handcuffs in secure training centres during the period January 2006 to October 2007 (the latest month for which figures are available). The figures were provided by the Youth Justice Board.
Male | Female | |
(1 )Rainsbrook and Medway do not use handcuffs. |
Dr. Vis: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether food served in young offender institutions and secure training centres complies with the nutritional standards delivered in schools; and what arrangements are in place to monitor compliance with such standards. [173435]
Mr. Hanson: The Department for Children, Schools and Families does not treat educational facilities in secure establishments as schools and as such school standards do not apply within either young offender institutions or secure training centres.
However, secure training centres and young offender institutions are contractually required by the Youth Justice Board and the Prison Service to provide a varied and healthy menu which complies with relevant food safety legislation. Standards are assessed through regular independent inspections. They are also assessed internally on a daily basis by senior management in young offender institutions and qualified catering staff in secure training centres. The Youth Justice Board monitors meal plans in secure training centres over a period of time to assess nutritional standards and can request that reasonable changes are made to the meals provided.
Dr. Vis: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what injuries were incurred by boys held in (a) Parc, (b) Lancaster Farms, (c) Warren Hill, (d) Thorn Cross and (e) Stoke Heath Young Offender Institutions during control and restraint in each month in (i) 2006 and (ii) 2007. [173479]
Mr. Hanson: The information for Lancaster Farms, Warren Hill, Stoke Heath and Par is set out in the following table. No young people were injured during control and restraint at Thorn Cross during this period.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |