Secure Colleges: A shift in Framework of Youth Justice detention in England

In February 2014 the government published its response to the consultation paper Transforming Youth Custody: Putting Education at the Heart of Detention, revealing a shift in framework of custodial detention for young offenders in England.  As of February 2014, under the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, the government proposes one of the largest in modern reforms of youth justice; the introduction of a framework of secure colleges to house and educate all young offenders.

The issue in brief.

With almost 1,200 young offenders in custody in England and Wales the government have decided to tackle high reoffending rates and expensive secure accommodation facilities with the introduction of new Secure Colleges.

Reportedly 71% of young offenders leave custody and go on to reoffend within 12 months of their release and with an average annual cost for one young offender of £100,000 it has been recognised that the current framework is not having an efficient reduction of recidivism or cost value. Furthermore with in some cases only 12 hours of education provided a week in Young Offender Institute’s (YOI’s) and over half of 15-17 year olds have literacy and numeracy levels of a 7-11 year old, it is evident that the current system is not preparing young offenders with the skills they require for successful rehabilitation and reintegration. 

Nick Clegg MP summarises for BBC News (2014) “Some offenders spend less than one day a week in the classroom. By increasing the amount of time young offenders spend learning, we can help them move away from crime, take responsibility for their actions, and rebuild their lives.”

The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) investigated the hours of education received by young offenders in YOI’s and data sourced from a freedom of information request exposed that only 1 in 9 young offenders were actually provided with the 15 hours of contracted education a week. Below is a graph produced by the CSJ to demonstrate an average numbers of hours of education provided per week for each young offender in HM Prison Service Young Offenders’ Institutions in 2011-12.

(Click to Enlarge Photo)

 Source: Centre for Social Justice, 2014.

 

In some cases the average hours are as low as 8-10 hours a week in contrast with the average 30 hours provided in mainstream education.

Read more about the Centre for Social Justice’s investigation HERE 

The current ‘secure estate’.

Currently there are three types of secure accommodation available for young offenders sentenced to detention in custody.

·         Secure Children’s Homes (SCH’s)

SCH’s provide secure accommodation run by local authorities for 10-14 year olds, varying in size from 8 – 40 bed units. These offer 30 hours of education and training a week and cost on average £200,000 a year per young offender. As of June 2014 there are 105 young offenders in SCH’s

·         Secure Training Centres (STC’s)

STC’s accommodate 12-17 year olds in larger units of 50-80 and currently house 261 young offenders. These are all run by private companies and again provide 20 hours of education and training a week. STCs are also costly, on average £160,000 a year per young offender.

·         Young Offender Institutes (YOI’s)

YOI’s houses young offenders between 15- 21 years old in wings of 30-60, much more like the adult prison setting. They are run by HM Prison Services and private companies and are contracted to provide 15 hours of education per week, costing on average £60,000 per young offender, per year. With the highest proportion of offenders (738 as of June 2014) and the lowest time allocated for education and training purposes (even for those required by legislation to be in education) it is not difficult to see how the reoffending rates from YOIs are particularly high.

For more information on youth custody data click HERE

“Putting Education at the Heart of Custody”.

Under the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill (2014) the government have proposed reforms to youth justice system to improve public protection and reduce reoffending. These include plans for the introduction of a Pathfinder Secure College to pilot a framework for new secure educational establishments to replace the previous secure estate. With the primary aims to improve outcomes and reduce costs they put forward an education centred, intense provision following individual learning plans for each offender in purpose built secure accommodation. The colleges will comprise of classrooms, workshops, flexible learning spaces alongside living units for young offenders and intended to house all young offenders (12-17 years old) however separating them by age, gender and vulnerability. Initially the pilot Pathfinder Secure College will be opened in the East Midlands in the spring of 2017 with a 320 place establishment.

(Click to Enlarge Photo)

This image represents the vision of the new pathfinder secure college, a specifically built establishment intended to house and provide education to young offenders in the East Midlands from 2017. Source: Ministry of Justice, 2014.

Secure Colleges aim to integrate multiple agencies to provide a “broad and intensive curriculum to challenge and engage the full range of ages and abilities” (Ministry of Justice, 2014, p.5). With a focus on numeracy and literacy skills, combined with vocational training opportunities and development of interpersonal and practical life skills in an educational setting.  It is hoped that “this will ensure that young people leave with the motivation, self-discipline and independence to commit further studies, training or employment, and to steer clear of crime” (Ministry of Justice, 2014, p.6).

If this scheme is successful then the long term goal is the introduction of secure colleges extending across England and Wales and establishing a network to serve individual regions, eventually withdrawing costly STC’s SCH’s and underperforming YOI’s. The government also hopes that by distributing resources and funding amongst fewer, larger institutions it will be possible to make use of funding more efficiently and bring down the ‘operating cost’ down “significantly below the £100,00 current average” (Ministry of Justice, 2014, p.5).

With the expected opening of the first secure college just under three years away the government proposes changes and improvements to the current secure estate to facilitate youth custody’s main aims – a reduction in reoffending and an increasingly education centred rehabilitation. This intends to provide long term adjustments to youth custody provision which will aid the transition to the new secure colleges.

Primarily it is has been identified that the education provisions in YOI’s are failing to provide the educational requirements for this type of youth custody accommodation, “…consultation responses reaffirmed that it is in YOI’s that education provision is the poorest” (Ministry of Justice, 2014, p.9). In order to improve this new contracts are being drawn up with educational providers and are due to come into force from November 2014. Collaboration and co-ordination between theses education providers, National Offender Management Service (NOMS) and the Youth Justice Board (YJB) is required to maximise the learning opportunities and broaden the curriculum available to young offenders in YOI’s.

“The culture of YOI’s needs to change from being places of detention to places of learning” (Ministry of Justice, 2014, p.9). YOI’s accommodation and services are much closer to the adult prison system in comparison with STC’s and SCH’s, it is suggested that a change in this culture, perpetuated by an integration of education and training delivery with other custodial services. Furthermore, head teachers and senior leadership teams will be posted in YOI’s to service education delivery (these roles will also be integral to the running of secure colleges) working with NOMS who overall will be managing education provision in public sector YOI’s.

Current STC and SCH provision will continue to be available until secure college capacity has been established enough to transfer custody accommodations.

Finally, resettlement is a key issue to address in the changing framework of the youth custody. The emphasis of resettlement has been identified in order to support the young offender in rehabilitation from day one. Instead of the process beginning near the end of a period of detention, the  youth criminal justice system will be integrate their communication and services to prepare and work towards a resettlement plan for each young offender. They plan to do this by vital changes to sentence planning and casework processes in custody. Additionally to aid resettlement education, training or employment will be secured for young offenders to start immediately upon their release. This aims to continue the development of skills and learning that has taken place within secure colleges into the community and will be bolstered by more effective use of ‘release on temporary licence’. ROTL allows a risk assessed young offender to be granted leave of custody for an agreed time to undertake activities to support their resettlement such as; attending school, college or job interviews, visiting housing placements and enrolling on apprenticeships.

The proposed changes to the framework of youth justice present a shift in focus from detention to education centred rehabilitation. It aims to tackle high reoffending rates and low literacy and numeracy levels of young offenders by introducing a network of secure colleges built purposely to accommodate and educate. A drastic overhaul of our current secure estate structure is due to take place with the withdrawal of STC’s, SCH’s and a reduction in YOI’s; although in the lead up to this there a number of suggested improvements in education provisions, providers, delivery and an overall more efficient integration of current services.

With the statistics of lack of education and reoffending so shockingly high it is clear that changes are required and the simple logic that increased high quality educational opportunities for young offenders will need to be successfully implemented over the next 3-5 years in order to achieve the primary goals for youth justice set out by the current government.

To access and read Transforming Youth Custody: Putting Education at the Heart of Detention, Government response to the consultation click HERE

S. Allen.

B.A. (Hons) Criminology

Youth Justice Board's Budget Reduced by 45% since 2010/11

The Youth Justice Board has released their Corporate Plan and Business Plan which can be found HERE. The Youth Justice Board is a public body whose members are appointed by the Secretary of State for Justice. The main responsibilities are to oversee the youth justice system in England and Wales, work with others to prevent offending and reoffending by children and young people under the age of 18, and to ensure that custody for young people is safe, secure, and addresses the causes of their offending behavior. Visit their website HERE

The YJB has announced in their 2014-2017 Corporate and Business plan that they will be focusing on reducing reoffending of young people by improving resettlement strategies for young people who are released from custody, increasing educational opportunities while in custody, ensuring young people are placed at the secure estates that best suit them, and by creating the secure college pathfinder to be built in spring 2017. More information about the secure college can be found HERE.

In addition to working closely with the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the Secretary of State for Justice, the YJB also works with the Home Office. Their mission with the Home Office is to 'prevent anti-social behavior and youth crime, including youth violence and support the delivery of the cross-departmental Ending Gang and Serious Youth Violence strategy and related work to prevent the sexual exploitation of girls'. This is undertaken even though the Home Office has withdrawn all financial support to the YJB this year.

In addition to working with the Home Office, the YJB also works with:

• Young Offenders - to get their opinion on youth justice and youth offending.
• The Department of Health - to ensure there are mental health and substance misuse services available to young people in the youth justice system.
• Department of Education - to ensure education services meet the needs of children and young people.
• Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) - to support YOT objectives and also make sure YOTs are evaluated and performing to high standards.
• Secure Accommodation Providers - such as the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), local authorities and private sectors.
• Voluntary Sectors - with around 6,000 volunteers to support initiatives such as restorative justice, act as appropriate adults for young people in custody, mentors, in prevention or education schemes and with families. If you are interested in volunteering, click HERE
• Adacemic Community - to ensure that advice and guidance is based upon the latest UK and international research.

The main objectives in their Business plan for 2014/15 are as follows:

1. Improvement in the delivery of the youth justice system in the community.
2. To create an under-18 secure estate that better meets the needs of young people.
3. To make structural and process improvements that support a better youth justice system.
4. Make sure young people are placed efficiently in the most appropriate establishment.
5. The safety and well-being of children and young people in the youth justice system is assured.
6. Practitioners have access to the best advice and support, and use this in practice.
7. The YJB is seen as an effective and efficient public body.

Needless to say, the YJB has a lot on their plate over the next year. However, their report has indicated that by the end of 2014/15, they will have 'delivered cumulative savings of £525m, with a budget now £210m (45%) less than the 2010/11 baseline'.

This is the breakdown of expenses and savings made:

 

The YJB is now solely funded by the MoJ following 'the transfer of the Home Office prevention funding from the YJB to police and crime commissioners'. <--- This is another topic for another day...   

One finding based on recent Youth Justice statistics is that there has been a decrease in the number of First Time Entrants (FTEs) into youth custody. This was seen as a result of the positive work of the YJB, which I am sure some of it was. However, in their business plan, the YJB openly admits that in order to deal with the financial challenges stated above, they have incorporated a strategy which is to: 'Maximise savings from having fewer young people in custody by decommissioning beds in the under-18 secure estate'. Well...if you have less money and there are less spaces available in custody for young offenders, then obviously there will be a reduction in the number of FTEs. Is this reduction really an outcome of best practice, or is it simply the outcome of a reduced budget?

This isn't to take away from the hard work that the YJB does to help prevent offending and re-offending. Instead, it is a means to provide a clearer picture of what is really going on and to help us understand that while we are being told that more is being done to help young people in England and Wales, the government is actually spending LESS money on young people at risk of offending and re-offending. It is also important to consider whether or not the government is perhaps embellishing the results of their youth offending statistics by taking credit for the reduction in FTEs, when in reality it is very likely the result of budget cuts and fewer available spaces in youth custody.

A. Neaverson

Enough with the politicized knee-jerk response to selective interpretation of Youth Offending Statistics.

 According to David Barrett, who is a Home Office Correspondent for The Telegraph Newspaper, the “proportion of young offenders committing new crimes reached a 10-year high” (October 31, 2013). 

Mr. Barrett is correct when he reports that recently published data from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has identified a 2% increase in re-offending rates since 2000 leading to the highest percentage of offenders re-offending. The response from the Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, is that the 2% increase is evidence that his “payment by results” reform proposals should be taken into serious consideration. This reform will create contracts with private companies and charities who will work with less serious offenders. These companies will only be paid in full if they achieve the targets set to reduce re-offending. 

What Mr. Barrett and Mr. Grayling are neglecting to mention, is the fact that the overall youth offending and custody rates are currently at an all-time low. With such a small youth offending cohort, it is not surprising that the percentage of re-offending rates has increased slightly. It could be argued that those who are still in the system are young offenders who are considered the most serious and challenging; thus, we would predict they would be the most likely to re-offend. Simply put, if your cohort has reduced and primarily includes only serious and violent offenders,  your statistics of re-offending will naturally increase. The fact that they have only increased by 2% is actually a positive given the offending nature of those currently involved in the youth justice services.

Taking a closer look at the statistics provided by the MoJ, it was reported that overall there were 137,335 proven offences by young people in 2011/12, which is a decrease of 22% from 2010/11 and a decrease of 47% since 2001/02. This overall reduction includes a reduction in criminal damage (-28%), public order (-27%), theft and handling (-23%), and violence against the person (-22%). Furthermore, while the rates of re-offending has increased 2% since 2000, the rates of 'First Time Entrants' (FTEs - first reprimand, warning, caution or court conviction) has fallen 20% since 2010/11 and an impressive 59% since 2001/02. 

(click to enlarge image)

With regards to the total number of young people receiving sentences, there were 66,430 in 2011/12 which is another reduction of 22% since 2010/11 and 48% since 2008/09. This decrease is the result in the fall of FTEs.

As proposed above, while the overall number of young people involved in the justice system has fallen, those who are involved could be identified as more serious and challenging offenders. In 2011/12, the majority of proven offences were committed by young people aged 15+, with only 25% committed by those aged 10-14. However, this year is the first time in 10 years that the average custody population has fallen below 2,000 (1,963) with a dramatic 30% reduction since 2001/02 (2,801). Although violence against the person has decreased by 22% (as stated above), it is one of the most common offence types amongst young offenders in custody, supporting the argument that the current cohort of young offenders are the offenders who would be considered the most challenging.  

(click to enlarge image)

The breakdown of primary offence types indicates a high proportion of serious and violent offences. This year, 27% of young people were in custody for robbery offences, and 21% for violence against the person. Again, supporting the argument that the current population now consists of young offenders who are most serious and challenging which would increase the statistics of re-offending; not because of the failure of the justice system. In fact, based on the significant decreases in overall offending and custody rates, it could be argued that the current system is doing exactly what it is meant to do.

Overall, the politicized statement given in the above article is questionable given the fact that “in 2000, there were 139,326 young people that formed the re-offending cohort, in 2010/11 the size of the re-offending cohort had fallen 37% to 88,357...this suggest that young offending teams are working with a smaller but generally more prolific cohort” (MoJ, 2013). Making these generalized statements that “re-offending is the highest it’s been in a decade” and that we need to seriously consider “payment by result” rehabilitation methods is a very narrow minded response to the published statistics and needs further investigation. This type of politicized response is not taking into consideration the demographics and risk-factors of those who are not included in the small but serious offending cohorts. Enough with the politicized knee-jerk response to selective interpretation of Youth Offending Statistics. 

A. Neaverson 

Increasing Offences to Face Life Sentences, A. Smith

Increasing Offences to Face Life Sentences

 A. Smith

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15464874

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has proposed changes to those offences faced with mandatory life sentences. As discussed on BBC News, this includes those who have been convicted of a second serious sexual or violent crime in England and Wales.

Violent or sexual offences were not the only crimes listed to potentially receive increased sentences; those 16 and 17-year-olds who have threatened someone with a knife could face mandatory custodial sentences which could result in an additional 400 young people being in custody per year.

Some young people were asked their thoughts and said this new mandatory sentence is not the way forward. As discussed on BBC Newsbeat, some young people said that the lawmakers are not understanding the reason WHY youth carry a knife in the first place. Their concerns were that some young people carry a knife because they are scared and they use it as a means of protection. Other young people commented and said that the new sentence would not act as a deterrent for young people – if they are going to carry a knife they will do it with or without the threat of consequences.

Currently offenders can be sentenced to an indeterminate sentence. This means that the offender can remain in custody until the parole board decides that they are no longer a threat to society. Indeterminate sentences are known to increase strain and stress on offenders and instead of participating in programs and focusing on how to become a better person, they are constantly thinking about and worried about the fact that they have no idea when they can be let out of custody. If you have been in custody for a long while and have started to become institutionalised, leaving custody can be just as frightening as arriving to custody.

With regards to the new sentences for knife crime, offenders could receive an automatic four-month detention and training order. On the first day of November the House of Commons will debate these new measures and potentially add them to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill which is, at the moment, going through Parliament.

For more information visit http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15464874




Comment: 

What are your comments regarding life sentences for a second violent or sexual offence? Do you agree or disagree with this approach?

Do you think the new mandatory custodial sentence for 16 and 17 year olds who threaten with a knife will act as a deterrent or do you think this could potentially be another method of net-widening?

A. Smith  
criminologyonthestreets@gmail.com 

Looking Closer at England Rioters, A. Smith

Looking Closer at England Rioters

A.Smith 

Information about those involved in the "disturbances" in England between August 6th - 9th 2011 has been released. The information has been condensed below. For more information visit the Justice Statistic Bulletin. 

*Click to enlarge photos 

So what do these figures tell us? Are these figures similar to the initial statements made by the press when the riots were first taking place?

                                         

When reading some of the quotes and responses of those involved or of friends and family of those involved, there seemed to be a common theme; some participated because they were bored, some because they were angry and frustrated, and others because they saw an opportunity to make money when in need. I am sure there are many other reasons as to why certain individuals were involved in the riots and I do not condone their actions or approve of what happened; however, I would hope that one of the government responses would be to address the frustrations expressed. 

Or maybe not. 
Wake up. 

A.Smith

criminologyonthestreets@gmail.com

*All posts are the opinion of the author.