What is it? The report, Independent Review of Restraint in Juvenile Settings, is an overview of the current use of restraint across the youth secure estate in England and Wales.
Why was it done? In July 2007 the government ordered an independent review into the use of restraint in young offender institutions (YOIs), secure children's homes (SCHs) and secure training centres (STCs).
It followed the inquests of 14-year-old Adam Rickwood and 15-year-old Gareth Myatt, who died after being restrained in custody.
The independent chairs of the review, Peter Smallridge and Andrew Williamson, looked at current policy and practice of restraint across the youth secure estate.
What did the report find? The chairs found that there were 10 different methods of restraint used across the secure estate, with eight methods being used within SCHs alone.
The circumstances where a child can be legally restrained vary but restraint is used in every unit in all sectors. STCs and SCHs have a higher use per child than YOIs.
But the levels of restraint are falling. The most recent unpublished Youth Justice Board (YJB) figures show that between October and December 2007 the number of cases of restraint fell from 711 to 551. There were six children who needed hospital treatment after being restrained in 2007.
The report stated that there is a case for painful techniques if they are properly managed. It found that "significant" lessons could be learned if young people with high levels of restraint were tracked as they moved through the secure estate.
There was no agreement on how long children should be restrained and no attempt to evaluate the risks attached to all restraint techniques. A separate report by the National Children's Bureau on restraint in secure children's homes, published at the same time, found that the commercially competitive nature of most of the training providers makes it more difficult to select an appropriate method of restraint.
What were the main recommendations? Smallridge and Williamson made 58 recommendations in their report. They said a central research base on the medical safety of restraint should be set up, and that only accredited restraint techniques and trainers be permitted in the secure estate.
It also suggested batons should not be given routinely to staff in the secure estate, despite the Prison Officers' Association calls for them.
The Prison Service should devise a more effective system of restraint for STCs, using the latest medical advice and non-painful holds.
Every YOI, STC and SCH should have to report against a restraint reduction strategy.
What did the government say? The government has accepted most of the recommendations and has asked Smallridge and Williamson to monitor changes and report back to government during each of the first two years after implementation.
What will change? The government has announced a £4.9m overhaul of the use of restraint, following the publication of the report.
This includes banning the double basket hold, which involves holding someone with their arms crossed behind their back, and the nose distraction technique, which is a sharp jab under a child's nose.
The National Offender Management Service will be asked to devise a single system of restraint for STCs and YOIs, and an accreditation body will be set up to approve all restraint techniques across all three settings.
A restraint management board chaired by ministers will provide regulation. Ofsted and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons are also looking at how they can work more closely in inspecting prisons.
EXPERT OPINION
Lord Carlile of Berriew conducted a review of restraint in custody for the Howard League for Penal Reform in 2006
"The report is disappointing because it fails to address the main concerns and starts in the wrong place. It should have begun with a view to significantly diminishing the number of physical interventions that take place on young people in custody.
The chairs pay lip service to reducing the numbers but in reality their approach will just maintain the status quo.
They recognise that their recommendations are not compatible with the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child and to start with that seems to be a real failure to address the underlying questions.
I would have liked to see the review touch on the conclusions of the report I did with the Howard League. That started with the point that most interventions aren't needed and that a much broader way of dealing with the young people is needed. This one asks all the wrong questions and I would have looked for far more radical approaches.
Not the improvements we need
I wasn't surprised that secure children's homes and secure training centres use restraint the most per child. The bottom line is that we're still going to be faced with lots of incidents of physical interventions every year, of which probably around 70 or 80 per cent, in my view, could be avoided.
I welcome the government responding to the report and putting forward additional resources to have some improvement, as it is an area that has been starved of resources for too long. However, they're not going to have the kind of improvements we need on the basis of this limited analysis. The government's response is proportionate, as it doesn't have that much to respond to. Politicians who are interested in restraint will not be content with this report."
