Agenda item

A presentation is being provided to the Committee which relates to the newly established Oasis Restore Secure School.

Discussion:

The Founder of Oasis Charity Trust and the Chief Operating Officer of Oasis Restore gave a presentation which provided an update on progress since the school opened.

The Committee was informed that:

• This was the first establishment of its kind in the country. An opportunity for change and difference within the youth custodial estate.
• The law was changed to allow for a nonprofit charity to run this provision for young offenders.
• The secure school did not just operate on trauma informed practice as its practices were also based on a healing concept.
• The school was a dual registered children’s home and academy trust, regulated and inspected by Ofsted.
• The placing authority was the youth custody service, and the courts decided who would be placed at the secure school. Discussions were held prior to placement to determine if the school would be able to adequately care for the young person.
• The school would care for young people aged between 12-18, with capacity of up to 46 at any one time, both boys and girls.
• There were approximately 144 staff which included 16 qualified teachers and an in-house mental health service.
• In the last year, 82.9% of offenders were reconvicted within 12 months of finishing a custodial sentence.

Members then raised several questions and comments:

It was commented that this was a revolutionary change to the youth offending/justice system. It was questioned what security was in place given that keys where not used in the school. How effectiveness would be measured and the associated cost of £250k per young person.

The Committee was informed that a decision had been made to use fobs in all areas instead of keys due to sensory problems the jangling of keys could evoke, however, the extent of security at the school should not be underestimated. There were approximately 900 security cameras in and around the premises. The cost of £250k was not per young person and it would cost the same to run the establishment if there was one young person or whether at full capacity of 46. The school was highly regulated and was being measured by everyone, including the Ministry of Justice, Ofsted, its own Governing Body, and was under scrutiny by all services across the country.

Socialisation - in response to a question on how socialisation and friendships would be safely managed, how the one girl that was currently placed there navigated her stay and if males and females would be separated in the school. The Committee was informed that presently there was an average of 500 young people in youth custody across the country, and a very small percentage of that figure were female. As well as addressing issues with male offending it was important to gain better understanding and insight on female offenders. The young female in the secure school had integrated well, she was in a flat on her own, with the choice to socialise and integrate with everyone during the day. The plan for the school was for males and females to have separate sleeping quarters with the ability to socialise during the day where it had been established that mixing worked well.

Conflict - it was further asked how issues of conflict would be managed, and the Committee was informed that there had been small incidences of conflict which were managed through a daily debrief, with reflective sessions and information shared at the handover of staff. There was confidence and willingness by staff to step in and address any issues but there was still a need for further learning on awareness, identification and prevention of conflict.

Workforce - members were encouraged that significant progress was being made and it was commented that staff retention, ongoing development and stability in the workforce would be key to achievement of outcomes. The Committee was informed that the leadership were cognizant of retention of staff. They were being realistic and anticipated a spike in leavers when the school was operating at full level and realisation of the reality of the role as this could be very triggering work. Support had been built into the model to support staff throughout with their roles, as well as with personal issues and development. There was a strong commitment to personal development of staff and the teaching staff had fed back that they were gaining more work satisfaction than they would if they were in a mainstream school setting.

Punishment - it was commented that the ethos of the school was one that was not based on punishment, and this could be very controversial, with many people having strong opinions on this. It was asked if consideration had been given to how the victims of crime may feel about the lack of punishment and how it was proposed that poor behaviour would be managed. The Committee was informed that this model was not about excusing the crime committed, poor behaviour and decisions but focus was on understanding of behaviours. The young people were made to face and realise the impact of their actions on the lives of victims and their families. There were clear boundaries and expectations on behaviour set at the secure school and with natural consequences in place.

Substance misuse and gang culture - in response to a question on management of substance misuse and gang culture, it was acknowledged that there were serious issues in the country with gang culture. Any identified issues would be managed through the core teams, with therapeutic work, and through Personal Health Social Emotional (PHSE) Education, including life story work but it was important to understand that this work could only be undertaken with young people who were ready to embark on that difficult emotional journey. It was vital to understand that if a young person was sent back to the same environment upon release, which was how the system was currently set up, there was an extremely high likelihood that they would reoffend as they were vulnerable and intertwined in that culture. Oasis Restore operated with a focus on provision of alternative ways of life for young people beyond the realm of custody once they were released by providing alternatives such as halfway homes. This provision was outside the government remit but not outside the remit of the organisation. There was partnership working in place with charities that worked with gangs to come into the secure school to deliver enrichment programmes. There was a team in place to support young people with substance misuse or addiction, but this was not an immediate issue at the school.

Christian Faith - it was asked to what extent the secure school approach was influenced by the Christian Faith and what the prediction would be on re-offending rates when young people left the estate. The Founder of Oasis Charitable trust confirmed that he was a Christian and Baptist Minister but not considered an evangelical by most due to his work and theology of inclusion for all which was at the heart of his work. He informed Members that the operations of the secure school were not based on Christian theology but one based on science, what was known about childhood and adolescent brain development and an understanding of changes to a traumatised brain. The Charity’s theology was simply, that they did not believe in ‘an eye for an eye or tooth for a tooth’.  Love and nurture of a person changed and regulated the functions of the brain. There needed to be changes to the whole custodial estate in order to address issues with reoffending rates.

Decision:

a)     The Committee noted the update report.