Agenda item

This report advises Members of the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the current state of the custodial estate for children in Medway. At the moment the estate consists solely of one children’s prison, HMP Young Offender Institution Cookham Wood in Rochester. However, the Government’s plan is that a second custodial establishment, a secure school run by Oasis Restore, will open in February 2024 on the site of the old Medway Secure Training Centre close to Cookham Wood. Members should note that this plan is subject to Treasury approval in February 2023 and may therefore be affected by any central government budget decisions before that date.

This report summarises the national context of custody for children, updates members of the committee on the most recent inspection of Cookham Wood, provides an accompanying report from the Youth Custody Service on Cookham Wood, and from Oasis Restore on their plans for the Secure School, and summarises the main work of the Safeguarding Children Partnership in respect of the secure estate.

Discussion:

The Independent Scrutineer for Secure Estates and the Principal Director of Oasis Restore introduced the report which advised the Committee on the current state of the custodial estate for young people in Medway and added the following:

A point was made in the report regarding the failure by the youth custody service to publish information about safeguarding reviews when things went wrong in their establishments and following lobbying, Government reversed this decision two weeks ago and details of safeguarding would now be published going forward. This was a positive step in the right direction.

In relation to Oasis Restore, the Secure School would be the fourth option for children to be placed though youth custody. Other options remained, such as secure children’s homes, youth offending institutes (YOI) and secure training centres would remain in place. The Oasis Restore Secure School would not fall under the same arrangements as His Majesty’s Prisons (HMP) YOI but accountability arrangements would fall under the inspection of Ofsted (for secure children’s homes), Ofsted (in relation to Education) as well as the Care Quality Commission (CQC) for its health arrangements. The Secure School would look after 49 children across 3 homes with 12 flats ranging between two and six bedrooms. Senior Leadership posts (Directors) had been recruited to, with a recruitment campaign due to commence for approximately 200 staff next year.

Members then raised a number of comments and questions which included:

Apprenticeships - it was asked if the young people would be given the opportunity for apprenticeship training and the Principal Director of Oasis Restore said that there were vocational pathways in place that would form part of the curriculum and part of the transition arrangements had a real focus on Education, Training and of Employment.

Accountability - it was commented that Cookham Wood YOI, following its most recent analysis, it was apparent that the situation had deteriorated and there was a real concern about the lives on the young people impacted by the core circumstances that resulted in them being detained. This was a national problem and not limited to Medway. It was vital that an independent mechanism be put in place to hold the prison service to account. The Independent Scrutineer informed the Committee that there was a process in place where the Chief Inspector of Prisons could, if a level of deterioration was reached, for urgent notification to the Secretary of State for Justice be made to request for specified improvements to be made. It had never been used in relation to children’s prisons but had, at least once, in respect of secure training centres and this would be the ultimate sanction on poor performance.

In the past, the Director of Children’s Services had called together a meeting of all responsible Local Authorities to discuss the care of children in a previous secure centre and this produced an action plan that was needed at the time.

It was further suggested that the Governor and Head of Safeguarding be requested to attend a future meeting to provide accountability of the care of the young people in the institution.

Oasis Restore as a school rather than an institution - in response to a question of how Oasis Restore would create an atmosphere of a school and not an institution, the Officer said that the building design was not that of an institution. The Secure School would operate the school hours from the hours of 9am to 3pm with enrichment in the evenings between 6pm and 9pm.

They would employ teachers as well as higher learning teaching assistants to form part of the workforce and deliver their work through a therapeutic community with the objectives and culture more in line with a school.

Use of restraint – concern was raised regarding the use of pain induced restraints in YOI and the Independent Scrutineer said that the correct government approved term was ‘pain distraction’ which was to be used as a last resort. This method should only be used in situations whereby a young person was trying to harm themselves, others or staff. The use of the ‘pain distraction’ method was not used lightly and whilst it would be ideal to eliminate its use, it was still required in certain circumstances. The techniques used had been reviewed by an independent medical panel and approved as being acceptable. Institutions were required to record usage which was then scrutinised as part of safeguarding audit.

Oasis restore were working with safety providers and would not be using ‘pain induced restraints’.

Young peoples’ journey following release from detention – in response to a question on what happened to young people upon release from Cookham Wood, the Independent Scrutineer said that it was difficult to provide a definite answer as young people placed there came from various Local Authorities in England and Wales. Most children upon leaving the institution would say they were determined to change their lives, but many faced continued pressures upon release which could result back in reoffending.

Oasis Restore were working with the Association with Directors of Children’s Services, the association of YOT Managers and others in relation to setting a new benchmark for transition (resettlement) planning.

Recruitment – it was asked how Oasis Restore would recruit the specialist skilled staff that was required for this challenging and difficult work, amidst a social care crisis that was being experienced in Medway as well as nationally. The officer acknowledged that this was the next and most challenging stage of the journey and was looking at various recruitment campaigns on the best approach. There had been a very positive response to the adverts to date and Oasis had also seen an increase in the number of people registering interest for future roles.

Safeguarding and Transitions – it was asked how young people would be safeguarded in the establishment and when out in the community. The Principal Director of Oasis Restore said that the Head of Safeguarding and Transition would be tasked with development of resettlement pathways through work with other organisations across the country although they were not funded for this piece of work. It was acknowledged that the system did not prepare early enough for the transition of young people and as a result, detailed discussions were taking place to explore ways of effective transition arrangements for young people in youth custody back into the community.

It was further asked what arrangements were made for young people that would not transition to the community but to another part of the justice system and what support was in place to understand their experiences and adequately manage their expectations. The officers said that young people placed at Oasis Restore came through various routes including the court system and work would be done to align with the placement service to gain a better understanding of the process. There was increased awareness of the different challenges in working with young people that would transition into care or moving to adult secure estate with the biggest challenge not necessarily with young people serving life sentences but more those on remand who did not know how long their sentences would be and it would be vital to manage their expectation. Education would be a crucial tool in upskilling of young people transitioning to adult pathways to enable them to work in an adult estate.

Families – holding families together was important and it was questioned what provision was in place to support families. The officer said that families were at the heart of delivery. The family contact rooms were designed in a family focused way to make them resemble a home and the reception designed to look like a school reception. Family functional therapy/systemic family therapy was being designed as part of the offer and work was underway to explore different ways to support families.

Board of Trustees – in response to a question on whether the Board of Trustees had been appointed, the officer said that appointments had now been made and the website would be updated to reflect this. It was further asked if a Medway representative was on the Board and the officer said no but this suggestion would be taken back to the Board for consideration.

G4S – it was pointed out that the report showed that G4S was the only provider performing well and it was asked what they were doing differently. The Independent Scrutineer said that G4S had a poor track record when they were in secure training centres but for the past 10 years, Park, which was a small unit within an adult prison in South Wales run by G4S, had been seen by inspectors as the best performing YOI in the country.  This could be due to the fact that it was the smallest of all YOIs with under 40 children and had always been the case. This was an added benefit in terms of striking personal relationships, and had a better track record in retention of staff which was a big challenge with such a difficult job.

The Assistant Director of Children’s Social Care added that her service looked forward to collaborative working as the programme progressed but voiced her concern that the challenge of recruitment would pull into the pool Medway Social Care resources which was already under significant recruitment pressure.  It was also important for dialogue to take place on the impact of young people that may relocate into Medway as part of their transition.

Oasis Restore were already aware of these impacts and met with the CEO and Corporate Management Team 12 months ago to look and consider these arrangements.

The Chairman thanked invited guests for their engagement and participation with the Committee.

Decision:

a)    The Committee noted the report.

b)    The Committee recommended to Oasis Restore that consideration be given to the appointment of a Medway representative on the Board of Governors.