ChildRIGHT: Strategy for reform of the secure estate

Over the past few months, the Youth Justice Board (YJB) and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) have been consulting on their new strategy for the secure estate of children and young people in England and Wales.

The "secure estate" is the body of different institutions that serve as prisons for children and young people who have committed criminal offences. Broadly, there are three types of institution where children are imprisoned in England and Wales. The most common are young offender institutions (YOIs), for children and young people aged between 15 and 17. YOIs are run by the prison service or private companies on an adult prison model. A smaller number of children, aged 12 to 17 and assessed as having more complex needs, are placed in secure training centres run by private companies. Secure children's homes are for the youngest (from 10 to 17 years old) and most vulnerable children and are run by local authorities.

The new strategy sets out the priorities, principles and plans for reconfiguration of the secure estate over the next three years. What is encouraging is the government's commitment to improving outcomes for children and young people in custody, and to doing so in a way that ensures that the safety and wellbeing of young people are protected. What is worrying are the plans to decommission custodial places, particularly in secure training centres and secure children's homes, to reflect the reduction in the number of children being sentenced or remanded to custody.

Decommissioning places

England and Wales currently imprison more young people than most other countries in Europe, and the number of children in custody ought to be substantially reduced. The age of criminal responsibility remains well below international norms at only 10 years. Children as young as 12 can be sentenced to custody even in cases where they have not committed a violent offence. It is heartening that the demand for secure places for young offenders is falling, which is evidence that the youth justice system may be improving. Nevertheless, the proposal in the strategy to decommission places within the secure estate for children and young people does give cause for concern.

This is largely because, in order to reflect decreasing demand for places for 10- to 14-year-olds (and to save costs) the strategy indicates that the decommissioning of places is likely to be proportionally higher in the secure training centre and secure children's home sector than in the young offender institution sector. And yet, the regime, conditions and treatment of children in the majority of young offender institutions are wholly inappropriate for dealing with complex needs and vulnerabilities of the majority of children in conflict with the law. Practices such as routine strip searching, the use of physical restraint and single segregation of children, commonplace in YOIs, are likely to have a negative impact on the wellbeing of children in custody and increase rates of reoffending.

International law requires that children deprived of their liberty are treated in a manner consistent with their dignity and sense of self-worth. It is our view that secure children's homes, and a number of the enhanced specialised units, are the only institutions that satisfy these standards, and as such are the only acceptable custodial arrangements available to children in England and Wales.

While the YJB and MoJ are proposing to decommission places in secure children's homes, it is positive that they have also expressed an intention to expand the provision of smaller, enhanced, specialised units modelled on good practice examples such as the Keppel Unit at Wetherby. The intention is to better meet the needs of a number of young offenders with especially complex needs. Regrettably, however, there seems to be an underlying assumption that children with complex needs form a small minority of the overall population of children in custody. A large body of research profiling children in custody in England and Wales has demonstrated that a majority of children and young people in custody are highly vulnerable, suffering from a range of inter-related problems. Enhanced units, with high staff-to-child ratios, a culture of positivity among staff regarding working with complex young people, and a high level of specialised health input, are well designed for meeting children's needs. This standard of care, however, should be the minimum available for all children in custody, rather than for a minority assessed as especially vulnerable.

Principles of the secure estate

In general, the principles outlined in the strategy are very reassuring, in that they express a commitment to promoting children's rights and improving life chances for children in conflict with the law. Nevertheless, the strategy would benefit from the inclusion of more specific provisions that detail plans for the configuration of the estate. For example, there is no specific target in the strategy for staff-to-child ratios, and no information regarding the intended geographical spread of the estate and how placement of children close to their homes will be managed.

Finally, it is unsettling that the government regards one of the four principles of youth custody to be "punishing offenders". According to international human rights law, youth justice systems should be based on principles of rehabilitation, reintegration and protection of the best interests of the child. Focusing on rehabilitation rather than punishment can help to promote the child's sense of worth and ability to become a constructive member of society and can help reduce reoffending.

Custody for children should always be regarded as a last resort. Preventing child offending and reoffending is the most effective way of reducing the costs of the secure estate. As identified in the strategy, this means facilitating access to welfare services and purposeful educational programmes and activities. It also means ensuring that children in custody have a voice. The Committee on the Rights of the Child has noted "that the voices of children in the juvenile justice system are increasingly becoming a powerful force for improvements and reform, and for the fulfilment of their rights".