1

2

1. ABOUT INDEPENDENT ACADEMIC RESEARCH STUDIES (IARS)

IARS is a leading, international think-tank with a charitable mission to give everyone a chance to forge a

safer, fairer and more inclusive society. IARS achieves its mission by producing evidence-based solutions to

current social problems, sharing best practice and by supporting young people to shape decision making.

IARS is an international expert in restorative justice, human rights and inclusion, citizenship and user-led

research.

IARS’ vision is a society where everyone is given a choice to actively participate in social problem solving.

The organisation is known for its robust, independent evidence-based approach to solving current social

problems, and is considered to be a pioneer in user-involvement and the application of user-led research

methods

2. ABOUT THIS CONSULTATION RESPONSE

IARS has written this evidence-based consultation response with the main aims to:

enable the Ministry of Justice to hear the voices of key stakeholders, namely, young people and voluntary and community organisations implicated in proposed reforms to ‘transform youth custody’;

share IARS’ related expertise in delivering alternative education programmes to young people and empowering communities through action research to make recommendations for improvements to criminal justice policy and practice.

Therefore, following a brief summary of the context from which the Transforming Youth Custody Green Paper emerges, this response focuses on consultation questions c, d, g, k, o, and x, with emphasis on:

meeting multiple needs of youths in custody;

ensuring wider participation from voluntary and community sector organisations (VCOs) and cross-sector co-operation;

evaluating potential impact.

This response draws on a recent IARS report, Restorative Justice and the Secure State: Alternatives for Young People in Custody (2012), carried out as part of a three year project, Mediation and Restorative Justice in Prison Settings (MEREPS). Therefore, the potential for incorporating restorative justice and mediation into the Secure Colleges offer will be highlighted here.

Please follow links for more information about this IARS research and other pertinent projects currently in progress, including, The 3E Restorative Justice in Europe (2013) and, Race and Probation: Achieving Better Outcomes for Black and Minority Ethnic Users of Probation Services (2013).

In addition to this paper, IARS has previously submitted consultations on the reform of the criminal justice system issued by the Ministry of Justice under this government. Responses to Strategy for the Secure Estate for Children and Young People in England and Wales, Getting it Right for Victims and Witnesses and Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders along with accompanying letters to Ministers are available from our online library.

3. YOUTH CUSTODY IN CONTEXT

3

Despite several reforms, investment plans, partnerships and criminal justice policies targeting better solutions to youth crime, 7,219 young adults (18-21years)1 and 1,372 minors (10-17years)2 were held in custody in England and Wales in 2012; the highest number of incarcerated young people in western Europe. The Ministerial foreword to this consultation strongly states that the current youth custody system is “failing to turn these young people’s lives around, and we need to do things differently.” The consultation outlines intentions for key reforms to philosophy and practices of youth custody and for further privatisation. Links between reoffending and wider social problems with low levels of educational attainment and engagement are well documented and therefore, the Government views education, and the establishment of a network of ‘Secure Colleges’, as central to the solution. In 2012/13 the Ministry of Justice and Youth Justice Board budgeted £245million per year (an average of approximately £100,000 per person) for detaining young offenders. The Ministerial foreword continues by stating, “We are also spending large sums of money to achieve such poor outcomes.” One such ‘poor outcome’ is that 73 per cent of young people currently go on to reoffend within 12 months of release from custody. The high rates of reoffending combined with the overcrowded prisons and inhumane conditions to which young people and children are subjected, the increasing number of suicides by young prisoners, and the rising costs of incapacitation as a policy and a philosophy for crime control are some of the factors that populists quote in their search for more attractive solutions. With Government’s priority to reduce national deficits, the Ministry of Justice under pressure to save over £2billion (26 per cent) by 2014/15, and the current contracts for Secure Children’s Homes (SCH), Secure Training Centres (STCs) and education provision in Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) due to expire in 2013 and 2014, a unique opportunity exists to rethink strategies within the criminal justice system.

4. MEETING THE NEEDS OF YOUNG PEOPLE IN CUSTODY (QUESTION D)

The consultation document draws the sound conclusion, “If we do not tackle [the] wider needs [of young people in custody] alongside education for those that require it, we will not enable them to turn their lives around.” It is imperative that plans for Secure Colleges give attention to the ‘whole child’, whereby a child’s physical health, social and emotional development, as well as cognitive development, are addressed together (Zigler and Bishop-Josef, 2006). Different aspects and institutions of a child’s life should not be compartmentalised, fragmented or viewed as separate entities. A ‘one size fits all’ approach will not work: a holistic approach and environment that meets all needs is essential. As we know, those in the youth secure estate are some of our most disadvantaged, vulnerable and troubled young people with needs that are often multiple and more complex than mainstream schooling, potentially encompassing learning, behavioural, emotional, social, physical health and mental health needs (Harrington and Bailey, 2005; Harvey, 2011).

Crucial to improved outcomes from proposed reforms to the youth secure estate will be tailored care plans, support, assessments, resources, teaching methods, learning environments, and specialist staff with wide-ranging expertise and an understanding of the prison context with services joining up and communicating within and outside of Secure Colleges. Furthermore, young offenders’ needs must be identified and prioritised by all service providers in collaboration with the offender (O’Brien, 2010). This is endorsed by Prior and Mason’s (2010) review of ‘what works’ in engaging young offenders which ascertained effective programmes include, “the promotion of person-centred, collaborative and ‘client-driven’ approaches.” Therefore, Government must plan for ‘the wider needs of young people’ to be managed in order to maximise young offender engagement in Secure College programmes; quality of education provision cannot be the sole focus.

1 http://www.howardleague.org/young-adults/

2 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/youth-custody-data

4

BUILD ON AND JOIN UP EXISTING SUCCESSES (QUESTION G) Effective, cohesive multi-agency partnerships at national and local levels are vital to ensure continuity and consistency of high quality education and services that promote young people’s welfare, improve transitions from custody to resettlement (Hill, 2013) and address obstacles to reintegration. No one agency alone can identify and deal with all problems that lead to youth disengagement and offending (Newman et al, 2013). Government should recognise the knowledge, expertise and successes of existing projects, initiatives and organisations from which Secure Colleges could learn or partner with to deliver key services, both to support the provision of high quality education to young people in custody and to prevent them from offending on release. This could be achieved through Government support to establish fora or hubs (either online or face-to-face) to engage in dialogue with existing and potential service providers. PROMOTE SERVICE USER INVOLVEMENT THROUGH RESTORATIVE JUSTICE (RJ) PROCESSES (QUESTION G) Any strategy to reduce reoffending must consider the possibilities provided by implementing restorative justice and mediation programme as part of key service provision in Secure Colleges. RJ and mediation processes play a crucial role in successfully rehabilitating offenders and reducing rates of reoffending in the youth secure at present. They are important tools to empower young people to understand their actions, to improve their lives both whilst in the secure estate and beyond, as well as addressing the needs and views of victims and communities. Therefore, it would be beneficial to include such practices in Secure Colleges. Please see IARS’ Mediation and Restorative Justice in Prison Settings (MEREPS) project for further information. STRIKING THE RIGHT EDUCATIONAL BALANCE (QUESTION C) The consultation document asserts, “Education and training can be a means to gain qualifications and skills for employment, understand the importance of individual responsibility and build self-respect, all of which enable a young person to engage constructively in society and lead a law-abiding life.” However, the strong link between a young person’s education experience and risk of offending is well-documented. The right educational balance can only be struck if Secure Colleges grasp each young offender’s individual educational needs and history; it must be the right education. Statistics included in the consultation regarding the educational levels, engagement and needs of 15-17year olds entering public sector YOIs underline the fact that mainstream education is not working for some young people:

half have literacy levels equivalent to that expected of a 7-11 year old;

88% of young men and 74% of young women had been excluded from school at some point;

36% of young men and 41% of young women were aged under 14 when they least attended school;

18% of sentenced young people had a statement of special educational needs, compared to 3% in the general population.

There is a clear case for a new approach.

In IARS experience, a practical, experiential approach to alternative education delivery increases retention rates of students (that, is young people from marginalised or disadvantaged backgrounds, with and without

5

history of offending). For example, in 2012, IARS in partnership with Together UK,3 trained and supported 12 peer researchers to undertake an action research project with 24 young female offenders with mental health problems. This research informed a ground breaking report into the experiences of young women with mental health problems passing through police custody: Listening to Young Women in Police Custody.4 Many of the young female offenders were coping with anxiety, stress, post-traumatic stress syndrome, depression, and were alcohol and drug abusers. Safeguarding and managing the expectations of all participants were paramount. All 36 young females acquired skills in research methods, engaged with the research process, and completed the year-long project. This example indicates that a practical and experiential approach to alternative education provision can lead to sustained and meaningful learning, and increased attainment and retention levels. Therefore, if Government is to ensure that education attainment and retention improves for the offender cohort, with their associated needs, alternatives to mainstream education practices must be considered. 5. A JOINED-UP AND ACCESSIBLE APPROACH (QUESTIONS K, O) Given the extent of disengagement, the social, physical, emotional and educational needs, and reoffending rate of the young offender cohort, it is clear that Secure Colleges will need to engage with wide-ranging specialist service providers in order to address the wide-ranging needs of young offenders. Increased cross-sector understanding will be central to facilitating the high-levels of co-operation between service providers required for Secure Colleges’ success. As partners, providers and advocates, VCOs are ideally placed to work with local authorities to achieve results for local people, “to offer an individually-tailored framework of ‘wrap-around’ support and to meet the specific needs of particularly vulnerable groups of offenders” (NCVYS, 2012). With key stakeholders, specifically service users, involved in determining priorities and evaluating alternatives, VCOs’ proven flexibility and expertise can improve the quality of life and the quality of services in every area for young people both inside and outside of Secure Colleges. Furthermore, statistics show that the public trusts the voluntary and community sector more than other sectors, particularly in relation to crime work (Clinks, 2009). It is crucial that these key points are considered in the development of any new policy developments within the youth secure estate. Secure Colleges must learn from, utilise or partner with the wealth of innovative organisations, programmes and initiatives from within the voluntary sector, in particular. The consultation does not make clear how participation and engagement between sectors, particularly regarding local authorities, custodial and community services are envisaged, and how any disagreement or mismatch between regional and local priorities will be resolved. For the widest range of VCOs to participate in Secure Colleges, Government needs to support the sector to create a national infrastructure that:

provides crucial information so that opportunities as well as best practice are communicated to all local service providers;

facilitates a dialogue between service planners commissioners, service providers and young people about needs, priorities, service design and delivery;

assists in the formation of bidding consortia to ensure that smaller as well as larger VCOs benefit from opportunities to tender for services; and,

helps service providers to demonstrate impact by providing information on measurement tools and frameworks.

3 Together UK is a national mental health charity: http://www.together-uk.org/

4 More information about the project can be found here: http://www.iars.org.uk/content/young-women-criminal-justice-system

6

Ultimately, VCOs need better access to capital to invest in their long term growth and play a greater role in the market for key service provision for young people in Secure Colleges. 6. IMPACT OF POLICY PROPOSALS ON YOUNG PEOPLE IN CUSTODY (QUESTION X)

The Howard League for Penal Reform (2012) conclude:

In the main, children and young people in the youth justice system come from backgrounds of social and economic disadvantage. Their experiences within the system reinforce their perceptions as a ‘collective other’, furthering their feelings of being disenfranchised and detached from society and eroding their hopes of positive futures.

If the Secure College is created, it could, as any environment for young offenders, result in some form of segregation or reinforcement of negativity. Therefore, Secure Colleges should not exist in isolation and attempts should be made to ensure that integration with mainstream society is achieved. Ultimately, emphasis must still be placed on early intervention as a long-term strategy. Government’s focus on education, holistic provision and cross-sector participation will require a national strategy and review. Consideration must be given to the wider and longer-term gains and impacts, both socially and financially, of the proposed policy reforms in order not to repeat the mistakes of the past “such as the failing Secure Training Centres where reoffending is sky high and two children have died”5 (Travis, 2012).

YOUNG WOMEN AND MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS If Secure Colleges do not provide the necessary assessment and support for young women’s mental health needs then psychological problems facing young women who offend could be compounded and will continue to manifest in multiple ways. At present there is greater prevalence of emotional and mental health problems amongst young women with 41 per cent having such needs identified in comparison to 26 per cent of young males who come into contact with Youth Offending Teams (Youth Justice Board, 2012). The relatively small number of young women in the system has meant that their needs are often overlooked and that there are few gender-specific services being made available to them (APPG, 2012). The complex and specialist needs of many young women who offend reflect both past and current events and pose specific challenges to providers of criminal justice services. The importance of all staff within Secure Colleges having at least basic training around women’s offending, mental health issues, and local referral services, and the implementation of a joined up approach ensuring a cohesive care plan during and after custody cannot be emphasised enough. In sum, Government’s proposals to focus on the wider social and emotional needs of young women in the Secure College model could help to address the underlying mental health and addiction problems that led to the offending behaviour in the first place. BLACK AND MINORITY ETHNIC (BME) YOUNG PEOPLE BME young people’s suspicion and mistrust of criminal justice service providers will impose significant limits on Secure Colleges’ ability to engage offenders in rehabilitative programmes.

5 Frances Crook, CEO of the Howard League of Penal Reform quoted in Travis, A. (2012)

7

Although black and minority ethnic groups comprise 2.7 per cent of the UK population, the level of BME young people in custody is disproportionate: at 29 per cent in 2012. Independently of whether discrimination is embedded or not within the youth secure state, these figures contribute to perceptions of unfair treatment and to suspicion and mistrust of criminal justice agencies among BME communities. These perceptions impact on engagement and may act as a barrier for improving outcomes through the proposed reforms.

BME groups can also find themselves isolated from their own communities as a result of their offending behaviour. In Asian communities, for example, there is a strong stigma attached to substance abuse and so drugs-based offences can lead to a community backlash where the offender and their family is ostracised (Furzana et al, 2000). Three-quarters of the sample of Indian offenders in Calverley’s study admitted to spending periods of their lives homeless, despite having widespread family and community networks (Calverley, 2009). Therefore, whilst family integration into the rehabilitation process can have some positive implications providers for Secure Colleges must be aware that not all offenders have access to the same support networks. There is strong evidence to suggest that the voluntary sector is ‘crucial’ to the delivery of effective rehabilitation and resettlement services but that this valuable resource has traditionally been under-utilised by statutory bodies (Nacro, 2005). Government should recognise that voluntary organisations are specially disposed to provide for groups of offenders with specialist needs. This should be reflected in the commissioning arrangements when developing services for BME groups in Secure Colleges (Jacobson et al, 2010). USER-LED AND YOUTH-LED APPROACHES To increase young offenders’ (both with and without protected characteristics) confidence in the system and the likelihood of more positive impact it is important to involve them in the design and set up of Secure Colleges. A ‘user-led’ or ‘youth-led’, participatory approach that consults young people is more responsive to their needs, instils a sense of ownership and empowerment over their progress and choices, prepares them for life outside of custody, and produces more positive practical outcomes, including reduction of recidivism. It is a concept which, in any form, firmly challenges commonly held perceptions of young people as passive citizens and recipients of services and products, disengaged from project or policy development (Cass, 2010; Youth in Focus, 2002). A youth-led approach encourages participation and engagement of marginalised young people who might otherwise fall outside the position of contact with any adults with decision-making powers (Eberstein et al, 2003). Homeless Link (2006) describes the opportunity for service users to lead on project delivery as an important part of developing their “Sense of self-worth, confidence, responsibility… helping to create positive change in their lives.” Authors have further commented that the youth-led approach also promotes the moral and social development of young people (Kirby et al, 2003). This is facilitated by the process of young people being encouraged to take responsibility for a certain aspect of a project and being provided with appropriate support to ensure positive outcomes. Examples of youth- and user-led peer mentoring programmes to reduce recidivism are delivered by Catch 22 and the St. Giles Trust, and also Goldsmith’s University’s Open Book project. Further, the Howard League for Penal Reform’s initiative U R Boss6 seeks to evaluate criminal justice interventions and sentences and involve ex-offenders in solving criminal problems to influence how to deal with offending behaviour.

6 U R Boss provides participation opportunities and support to young people aged 10-24years who have experience of the criminal

justice system or who may have experienced some form of custody. The project engages young people in important research projects, such as, Life Outside: Collective Identify, Collective Exclusion which investigated experiences of children reintegrating into their communities after leaving custody. The report highlighted young people’s sense of being destined to failure after leaving

8

Implementation of user- and youth-led initiatives in the Secure College model may mitigate the problems outlined above of mistrust in the system, community stigma and isolation, unidentified or unattended needs, experienced by offenders with protected characteristics. Therefore, if Government is to ensure more positive impacts by the Secure College then user- and youth-led approaches and development of mechanisms to share best practice and involve young offenders need to be considered.

custody suggesting that a welfare approach to the youth justice system could be a more effective way of supporting children and young people who have offended and preventing future reoffending. Prior to this report, U R boss published Life inside 2010: A unique insight into the day to day experiences of 15-17 year old males in prison which highlighted the experiences of young males whilst in prison. UR Boss’ research focuses on the experiences and feelings of those young people in the criminal justice system. Findings and recommendations from the reports are based on robust evidence from children and young people themselves around how the criminal justice system could be improved. Their first hand experiences offer valuable evidence for policy development around the prevention of reoffending amongst young people and ensuring that the specific needs of children and young people are taken into account.

9

7. REFERENCES

APPG (2012) Inquiry on Girls: From Courts to Custody. London: Howard League for Penal Reform Calverley, A. (2009) An Exploratory Investigation into the Process of Desistance Amongst Minority Ethnic Offenders. Keele University: PhD Thesis. Cass, R. (2010) ‘Creating a space for young people’s voices: an investigation into the youth-led approach’, Youth Voice Journal, 1 Clinks (2009) Working Together: Prison Service Engagement with the Voluntary, Faith and Community Sector in London. London: Clinks Eberstein, N., London, J. and Zimmerman, K. (2003) Youth-led Research and Evaluation: Tools for Youth, Organisational, and Community Development. Available at: www.youthinfocus.net Furzana, K. et al (2000) ‘Ethnic minority use of illegal drugs in Glasgow, Scotland: Potential difficulties for service provision’, Addiction Research, 8(1) Harrington, D. and Bailey, S. (2005) Mental Health Needs and Effectiveness of Provision for Young Offenders in Custody and in the Community. London: Youth Justice Board Harvey, J. (2011) ‘Young prisoners and their mental health: reflections on providing therapy’, Prison Service Journal, 197 Hill, T. (2013) ‘Transforming youth custody: putting education at the heart of detention’, Local Government Information Unit/Children’s Services Network Policy Briefing. Available at: http://www.lgiu.org.uk/briefing/transforming-youth-custody-putting-education-at-the-heart-of-detention-moj-consultation/

Homeless Link (2006) Placing Service Users at the Heart of Service Development and Delivery. London: Homeless Link

Howard League for Penal Reform (2011) Life Outside: Collective Identity, Collective Exclusion. London: Howard League for Penal Reform

Jacobson, J., Phillips, C. and Edgar, K. (2010) ‘Double Trouble’? Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Offenders’ Experiences of Resettlement. London: Clinks and the Prison Reform Trust.

Kirby, P., Lanyon, C., Cronin, K., and Sinclair, R. (2003) Building a Culture of Participation: involving Young People in Policy, Service Planning, Delivery and Evaluation. London: Department of Education and Skills

Marougka, M. and Cass, R. (2012) Listening to Young Women in Police Custody. London: IARS Ministry of Justice (2013) Monthly Data and Analysis Custody Report. February 2013. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/youth-custody-data Nacro (2005) Integrated Resettlement: Putting the Pieces Together. London: Nacro Newman, R. et al (2013) Turning Young Lives Around. London: Prison Reform Trust and Young Minds O’Brien, R. (2010) The Learning Prison. London: Royal Society of Arts

10

Prior, D. and Mason, P. (2010) ‘A different kind of evidence? Looking for ‘what works’ in engaging youth offenders’, Youth Justice Journal, 10(3) Travis, R. (2013) Young Offenders: Government Plans to Put Education ‘At the Heart of Detention’. 14 February 2013. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/14/young-offenders-education-detention-academies Youth Justice Board (2012) Youth Justice Statistics 2011: England and Wales. London: Youth Justice Board/ Ministry of Justice Zigler, E. and Bishop-Josef, S. (2006) ‘The Cognitive Child Versus the Whole Child: Lessons from 40 Years of Head Start’, Play = Learning: How Play Enhances Children’s Cognitive and Social-Emotional Growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press