Memorandum submitted by The Howard League
for Penal Reform
1. INTRODUCTION
1. The Howard League for Penal Reform is the
oldest penal reform charity in the world. In 1947 we became one
of the first non-governmental organisations to be granted consultative
status with the United Nations. In April 2010 the UN published
our statement on inspections of places of detention to the United
Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, with
regard to the optional protocol to the Convention against torture
and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
(See Appendix 1)[14]
2. In 2002 we set up a legal department to represent
children and young people in the penal system, following a successful
judicial review against the home office that forced it to recognise
that the Children Act 1989 protects children in prison. The Howard
League for Penal Reform legal team has represented hundreds of
children and has a track record of successes in forcing improvements
to conditions for children in custody.
3. The Howard League for Penal Reform (2006)
published an independent inquiry, conducted by Lord Carlile of
Berriew QC into the use of physical restraint, solitary confinement
and forcible strip searching in prisons, secure training centres
and local authority secure children's homes. The inquiry concluded
that the treatment of children in custody would, in any other
setting, be considered abusive and trigger a child protection
investigation.
4. Our response to this inquiry is based on our
work with children in custody and our comments are limited to
Ofsted inspections of secure training centres (STCs).
2(i) CHILDREN IN
DETENTION
On 10 September 2010, there were 2,193 children in
custody. This included 164 children in secure children's homes,
266 children in secure training centres and 1,763 children in
young offender institutions. The three different custodial institutions
holding children are subject to different inspection regimes and
different criteria are used to assess their performance. Ofsted
has responsibility for inspecting secure children's homes and
secure training centres.
2(ii) SECURE CHILDREN'S
HOMES (SCHS)
Secure children's homes are run by local authority
social services departments, overseen by the department of health
and the department for education. They hold children sentenced
to custody by the courts and also those placed there for welfare
reasons under the Children Act 1989. Regarding children who have
been sentenced to custody, secure children's homes generally hold
younger children aged 12 to 14 and girls up to the age of 16.
They also hold boys aged 15 to 16 who have been assessed as vulnerable
by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) The YJB has contracts with 10
secure children's homes to provide places for 191 children.
Ofsted inspections are conducted in accordance with
the Care Standards Act 2000 and judgements in reports are made
in relation to the outcomes for children set out in the Children
Act 2004. The criteria are the same as those used to inspect non-secure
children's homes.
2(iii) SECURE TRAINING
CENTRES (STCS)
STCs were designed, financed and built by private
companies originally to hold children aged 12 to 15, but subsequently
children up to 17 years old. There are currently four STCs which
are contracted by the Youth Justice Board to hold children in
secure custody. They are Medway STC in Kent, Rainsbrook in Rugby,
Hassockfield in Durham and Oakhill in Milton Keynes.
Ofsted inspections are conducted in accordance with
the statutory rules inspections of STCs made under section 47
of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and in line
with section 37(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which states
that the principle aim of the youth justice system is to prevent
offending by children.
2(iv) YOUNG OFFENDER
INSTITUTIONS (YOIS)
YOIs are prisons run by the prison service to hold
boys aged 15 to 17 and girls aged 17. Prisons hold the majority
of children in custody.
YOIs are inspected by Her Majesty's Inspector of
Prisons (HMIP). HMIP inspects performance of YOIs against the
model of a healthy prison, as first defined by the World Health
Organisation. The four criteria of a healthy prison are
| Safety: | prisoners, even the most vulnerable are held safely
|
| Respect: | prisoners are treated with respect for their human dignity
|
| Purposeful activity: | prisoners are able, and expected, to engage in activity that is likely to benefit them
|
| Resettlement: | prisoners are prepared for their release into the community and helped to reduce the likelihood of reoffending
|
HMIP (2009) has clearly defined criteria for assessing the treatment
and conditions for children held in prison custody, as defined
in Expectations. The criteria reflect the distinct needs
of children.
3. WHAT SHOULD
BE THE
PURPOSE OF
INSPECTION?
3(i) The principle purpose of inspection should be to ensure the
safety and wellbeing of children in custody is promoted. Inspections
should focus upon the treatment of children in custody to ensure
that international children's rights standards, such as the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, are complied with.
They should ensure that safety is maintained in order to promote
positive outcomes for children detained and for the public.
3(ii) The framework for inspections should be based on children's
rights legislation including the Children Act 1989, the Children
Act 2004 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child. Inspections should be child-focused and take account of
the Every Child Matters framework. Children should be seen
as children first and foremost. The experiences of children should
be central to all inspection reports.
3(iii) Inspections should identify and encourage good practice
and press for improvements, both at the level of the institution
and the service as a whole. Inspections should ensure that children
receive a high quality service and that it meets their needs.
3(iv) Inspections must expose bad practice. In order to do this,
inspections cannot be cursory or superficial. Secure training
centres detain some of the most vulnerable children in the country
and it is vital that conditions for these children are subject
to the most rigorous independent scrutiny.
3(v) The views of children should be integral to the inspection
process. These should be collated through confidential focus groups,
interviews and questionnaires. The views of families and children
who have recently left custody should also be sought.
4. THE PERFORMANCE
OF OFSTED
IN CARRYING
OUT ITS
WORK
4(i) Ofsted has failed to safeguard and promote the well-being
of children in secure training centres. The Howard League for
Penal Reform has grave concerns about the safety of children held
in STCs and believes they have been subject to violence, danger,
fear and possibly abuse. Ofsted has failed to acknowledge this
and prevent it.
4(ii) The use of force on children held in STCs is widespread.
Figures from the YJB show that between April 2008 and March 2009,
restraint was used 1,792 times on children held in STCs (Hansard,
2010). We are concerned that restraint is being used disproportionately
on black and ethnic minority children and on girls. 37% of the
restraints were carried out on girls who comprise just 20% of
the population of STCs. 27% of restraints were carried out on
black and ethnic minority children.
4(iii) Despite widespread criticism on the use of pain compliant
methods of restraint from Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, the parliamentary
joint committee on human rights, the United Nations committee
on the rights of the child and the commissioner for human rights
in the Council of Europe among others, Ofsted inspections have
been blithely uncritical of the use of force in STCs.
4(iv) Ofsted's failure to acknowledge and identify the widespread
and inappropriate use of restraint has left children unprotected.
The inspection regime for STCs has failed to provide assurance
that children in these institutions are being cared for safely.
4(v) Restraint was used 127 times on children in Medway STC in
the first three months of 2009, an average of 42 times a month
(Hansard, 2010a), yet the Ofsted inspection of Medway STC in September
2009 stated that,
"There are well established procedures in place to ensure
that the use of these measures is minimal, appropriate and proportionate,
and they are only used as a last resort."
4(vi) There is little evidence that Ofsted consulted children
confidentially regarding the use of restraint, nor that inspectors
independently verified the information provided by the management,
for example, by reviewing CCTV footage of restraint incidents.
4(vii) Children are sustaining injuries following the use of restraint
in STCs. Between April 2007 and March 2009, 101 children at Medway
STC sustained injuries during restraint which required medical
treatment. These injuries include cuts, scratches, nosebleeds,
bruising and sprains (Hansard, 2010a). Our legal team frequently
receives complaints from children in secure training centres about
restraint.
4(viii) Two children have died while being held in an STC. In
both instances restraint was a key factor. Gareth Myatt died in
Rainsbrook STC whilst being restrained by staff in April 2004.
He was 15 years old. Adam Rickwood took his own life after he
had been restrained by staff at Hassockfield STC in August 2004.
He was 14 years old and the youngest child to die in penal custody
in the last 25 years.
4(ix) The Howard League for Penal Reform (2009) has raised specific
concerns about the performance of Ofsted in carrying out inspections
of the privately run and managed secure training centres (STCs).
On 21 December, we wrote to Christine Gilbert, Chief executive
of Ofsted, expressing concern about an unannounced Ofsted inspection
of Medway STC, which took place in September 2009. (See appendix
2[15]).
4(x) Children do not appear to be consulted by inspectors. The
consultation of children should be central to the inspection of
secure training centres and inspectors should adopt best practice
from HMIP, such as the use of confidential surveys to obtain the
views of children who are locked up. Children in custody are less
likely to speak openly about their treatment and conditions for
fear of reprisals and therefore should be interviewed in a confidential
environment away from other staff. Inspectors should take proactive
steps to assist children with comprehending and expressing their
opinions where needed.
4(xi) Inspectors do not always corroborate data provided by the
facility through direct or indirect observations such as CCTV.
Inspectors should always ensure they independently verify all
information provided by facilities.
4(xii) Finally, we are concerned that inspectors are not importing
and applying the good practise that exists in other settings when
inspecting secure training centres. For example, improvements
in the provision of school meals have not been applied when assessing
the nutritional value of meals in STCs.
5. THE CONSISTENCY
AND QUALITY
OF INSPECTION
TEAMS IN
THE OFSTED
INSPECTION PROCESS
5(i) We are concerned that inspection teams have established a
different way of judging provision for children in STCs, compared
to their assessment of provision in children's homes. A consistent
approach should be adopted when inspecting services for children,
regardless of the institution. Inspections should use good practice
and established criteria used to judge provision for and the treatment
of children in everyday settings and inspect custody against the
standards set in the community. The quality of services in STCs,
such as healthcare and education, should be equal to the quality
of services provided to children in the community and inspectors
should not compromise on standards. Indeed, we would argue that
special care should be in place to protect children in locked
institutions as the history of abuse of such children is notorious.
5(ii) We are concerned that inspectors are applying the premise
that the children in STCs are young offenders first and children
second. Inspections omit any mention of the Children Act 1989
or the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Children
in custody are children first and foremost. Inspectors should
not accept the unequal treatment of children who are locked up.
5(iii) We are concerned that the methodology of the Ofsted
inspections is opaque. Good practice, as delineated by HMIP, includes
detailed description of the processes used so that the inspectors
can be held to account.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
6(i) The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,
the Every Child Matters framework and the UN Optional Protocol
for the Prevention of Torture should be at the heart of the inspection
framework.
6(ii) Ofsted should apply, at the very minimum, the same principles
and processes as HMIP when inspecting children in custody. HMIP
has developed a model of good practice in inspection since it
was created in 1982 and there is much that Ofsted can learn when
it comes to protecting people in custody and promoting their welfare.
1. HMIP undertakes inspections according to its own methodology
and published assessment criteria and standards, termed expectations.
These expectations are grounded in human rights principles and
are the basis for robust, independent and evidence-based assessment
of conditions in prisons and the treatment of prisoners. The inspection
process is open and accountable.
2. HMIP has developed and set out the detailed criteria used
to inspect and appraise prisons. The criteria cover everything
from the moment a prisoner leaves court till the moment he or
she steps out of prison.
3. Inspections are based on the observations of inspectors,
the documents available in the prison, the views of staff and
through other sources, including CCTV footage.
4. Inspections are carried out by inspectors with prison,
probation, social work, healthcare and substance abuse skills
and experience, alongside specialist education and training inspectors.
5. Central to the findings of inspections are the confidential
surveys and interviews of a randomly selected group of prisoners.
Listening and consulting with prisoners is integral to the inspection
process.
6. HMIP undertakes thematic reviews in order to tackle large
systemic problems in places of detention. These have improved
practices in places of detention and influenced and developed
HMIP's own inspection criteria, and therefore the process of inspection
6(iii) We reluctantly conclude that Ofsted should retain responsibility
for inspecting STCs. It is the inspectorate which is charged with
being child-focused and has responsibility for inspecting providers
of social care for children, including children's homes, residential
special schools, boarding schools and secure children's homes.
6(iv) However, a complete overhaul of the system and personnel
should take place. There should be a separate department within
Ofsted, with responsibility for children in residential accommodation,
including children's homes, residential schools and secure accommodation.
Children who are placed in residential care, particularly those
who are there against their will, need special protection to ensure
their welfare is promoted and protected.
6(v) Staff who conduct inspections of custodial facilities should
have specialist knowledge of a range of issues which are specific
to children in secure custody, such as the use of control and
restraint, discipline procedures and youth justice legislation.
6(vi) Inspection teams must have regard for, and understanding
of, the vulnerable nature of children detained in custody. Outcomes
should be aligned to the needs of this group, and services provided
should be judged against a needs-based analysis. The welfare of
the child should be the paramount consideration for inspectors.
6(vii) Inspectors should have regard of the national overview
of secure training centres and assess and make recommendations
based on this, rather than being concerned entirely with the operations
within one STC.
6(viii) Ofsted, in its current format, is failing to protect the
welfare of children in STCs. Should this continue, then responsibility
for STCs should pass to another agency.
October 2010
REFERENCES
Hansard (2010), HC Deb, 27 July 2010, col 925W.
Hansard (2010a) HC written answers, 14 Sept 2010, Cols 983-984W.
Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons (2009) Expectations: criteria
for assessing the treatment and conditions for children and young
people held in prison custody. London. HMIP.
The Howard League for Penal Reform (2006), The Lord Carlile of
Berriew QC: an independent inquiry into the use of physical restraint,
solitary confinement and forcible strip searching of children
in prisons, secure training centres and local authority secure
children's homes. London. The Howard League for Penal Reform.
The Howard League for Penal Reform (2009), letter to Ofsted chief
executive in response to the inspection report of Medway Secure
Training Centre, 21 December 2009, available at
http://www.howardleague.org/fileadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Press_2010/Ofsted_Letter_Dec_09.pdf
14
Not published on the Committee's website. Back
15
Not published on the Committee's website. Back
| 
