Select committee inquiry
Secure training centres and secure schools
Closed
What the inquiry looked at
“In 2016, the Taylor Review of the youth justice system recommended reforms to youth custody including the introduction of secure schools – which would be small local establishments, governed and inspected as schools – to replace other custodial provision for young people including secure training centres (STCs), which were designed to accommodate and educate more vulnerable young people. The government originally committed to establishing the first secure school in 2020, but it is delayed. Meanwhile, joint inspections have highlighted declining conditions in the three STCs: Medway STC closed in March 2020 and the two remaining sites, Rainsbrook and Oakhill, were subject to adverse inspections in 2021. The joint inspections highlighted increasing levels of bullying, violence, and unacceptable practices. The Committee will question senior officials at the Ministry of Justice and HM Prisons & Probation Service on these recent challenges with STCs, the current conditions of youth offenders in secure custody and current progress with establishing a secure school . If you have evidence on these issues please submit it here by 6pm Monday 23 May 2022.”
The committee's words, from the inquiry page on parliament.uk ↗.
What it found
In the committee's words, from the summary of Thirteenth Report - Secure training centres and secure schools ↗
Youth custody provision is failing children. Our inquiry has shown that The Ministry of Justice (the Ministry) and Her Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) have not fixed poor provision at secure training centres (STC), where vulnerable children have been persistently held in unsafe conditions. The closure of all but one STC has led to children being sent to alternative places that are less suitable for their needs. While the number of children is custody is relatively low—560 on average in 2020–21—the Committee is concerned that these children are receiving substandard care. Their needs are diverse, and many are highly vulnerable, particularly girls. Suitable provision is needed to help them to get their lives back on track.
Following a long-term decline in the number of children in custody, the Ministry and HMPPS now expect this number to more than double by 2024. Meanwhile, HMPPS faces significant delays and cost increases in progressing the first of a new type of custody, a secure school. It now intends the first secure school to be a ‘pathfinder’, and it does not plan to launch the second secure school until it has evaluated the first. We are unconvinced of the Ministry’s and HMPPS’s commitment to delivering the secure school vision of small, local, educationally focused establishments. The first secure school may not open until February 2024—more than seven years after the Ministry accepted the Taylor review’s vision for secure schools—and plans for the second have not been made.
Meanwhile, the Ministry and HMPPS have an estate that is totally unsuited to meeting the complex needs of children in custody. The recent MacAlister review of children’s social care described Youth Offender Institutions (YOIs) and STCs as “wholly unsuitable”
for accommodating children in the criminal justice system. The Ministry is reviewing its position on the remaining STC, Oakhill, and is also considering reopening another, while progressing a first secure school and seeking to improve YOIs. The Ministry and HMPPS urgently need a clear and convincing plan for youth custody options that can meet children’s diverse and complex needs and help them escape a vicious cycle of reoffending. They say that their vision is to be more outcomes-led and to focus on early intervention, but we are concerned by the absence of a clear strategy for evaluating what works and for ensuring appropriate placements are available for children in custody.
What the government said
The government responded on 14 October 2022. The deadline was 15 September 2022.
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response.
The government states that it agrees with the Committee's recommendation on each of the six areas covered, setting out current work and some target implementation dates.
- On monitoring the diverse needs of vulnerable children, the government agrees and describes the recommendation as implemented, citing a Diversity and Inequality workstream; work to improve the capture and monitoring of special educational needs information "will start later in 2022-23".
- On strategy, the government agrees and considers that its steps and strategy "should deliver a step-change" in youth justice and custodial performance, including a 9.8% funding uplift to Youth Offending Teams in 2022-23 and a new 'Turnaround' programme.
- On the first secure school, the government agrees, states that arrangements are in place to exert "firm control" over timetable and costs, and "commits to providing the Committee with an update on progress against the timetable in January 2023".
- On evaluation, the government agrees and says an evaluation team is being recruited to develop a secure schools evaluation strategy, which "will be in place at least six months before opening"; target implementation date is June 2023.
Read the government's response ↗ Read the report ↗ Report an error
How the inquiry ran
Each dot is a dated item listed on this page, from the inquiry's opening on 26 April 2022 to its close on 14 October 2022. The dashed mark is the deadline Parliament records for the government's response.
- Oral evidence 25 May 2022
- Report 15 Jul 2022
- Government response 14 Oct 2022
- Correspondence 8 Sep 2022
What it recommended 14 recommendations · 11 conclusions
2The Ministry and HMPPS do not have a coherent strategy for improving outcomes for children...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Ministry and HMPPS do not have a coherent strategy for improving outcomes for children in custody or to meet the expected increase in demand for places. The number of children in custody is expected to more than double by 2024 and there is a risk that the Ministry and HMPPS will not have appropriate accommodation for some children’s needs. The Ministry has a vision to be more outcomes-led to drive up standards and performance, with £60 million committed to the Turnaround programme focused on early intervention. Realising its vision will require joint working, including with other central government departments and local authority youth offending teams. Yet the Ministry does not have an overall strategy for youth justice. To help realise its vision, the Ministry is intending to develop provision for children in various ways, including by improving YOI and STC provision, trialling a secure school as a ‘pathfinder’, and possibly by reopening Rainsbrook STC. But the Ministry and HMPPS are focusing their efforts on these individual projects, without a clear and convincing overall strategy. Recommendation: The Ministry should set out clearly its strategy to improve outcomes for children through early intervention and improvements to the youth custodial estate.
3We are concerned that too many children are being held many miles away from home.
Recommended (the committee's words)
We are concerned that too many children are being held many miles away from home. The number of children in custody has reduced by 73% in the decade to 2021–22 (from 2,040 to 560 children), and we acknowledge that it is very hard to offer enough local provision with such a small cohort. But HMPPS predicts the number of children in custody to double soon, and location is important so children 6 Secure training centres and secure schools can be near to their families and local connections. One ambition for secure schools was to have small, local provision, with children being housed closed to home. The Ministry originally planned to trial one secure school in the South East and one in the North West because of the rates of reoffending in these areas and a lack of provision in the North West. Currently it only has plans for one secure school in the South East. While HMPPS is reviewing where there is demand geographically, it does not have immediate plans to create new establishments to fill gaps in provision, making it harder for children in custody to maintain important family connections. Recommendation: The Ministry / HMPPS should set out how they will provide an appropriate level of properly managed capacity in the system, to ensure that children can be placed in the right type of provision closer to home than is currently possible.
4The first secure school has not yet opened, more than six years after it was...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The first secure school has not yet opened, more than six years after it was recommended, and costs have spiralled. Originally HMPPS planned for the secure school to open by autumn 2020, but it now aims to open the first secure school at the former Medway STC site in November 2023. It has also added a further three months of contingency into the new timetable so now it may not open until February 2024. This is more than seven years after the Taylor Review was published. The delay is partly because the Ministry failed to recognise, at the start, the need to pass legislation to permit a secure school to be run by a charity. The Ministry originally estimated it would cost £4.9 million to refurbish and convert the former Medway STC site to a secure school, but having developed its understanding of the requirements, it now estimates that it will cost £40 million. This is the same as its initial capital cost estimate for building a brand new secure school. The Ministry accepts that its original estimate was significantly insufficient and accepts that it should have done more due diligence to understand the requirements for secure children’s home registration. Recommendation: The Ministry and HMPPS should provide assurance that they now have firm control over the remaining timetable and costs to delivering the first secure school. They should also provide an update to the Committee on progress against the timetable in six months’ time.
5The Ministry and HMPPS are relying on a provider to deliver the new secure school...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Ministry and HMPPS are relying on a provider to deliver the new secure school model, but the approach they are taking is untested and there are insufficient safeguards in place. The Ministry and HMPPS appointed a provider, Oasis Charitable Trust (Oasis), in July 2019 although Oasis has not previously provided secure accommodation for children. It was only following discussions with the Charity Commission that HMPPS later realised legislation was needed to allow a charity to run a secure school. HMPPS intends to move away from contracting and instead work in partnership with the provider to deliver the secure school. It will use a Funding Agreement, rather than a contract, to manage the provider. But it is still working out the essential details of this arrangement, including how it will incentivise the provider to accept the wide range of children that HMPPS would like it to accept, and how it would manage underperformance. Secure training centres and secure schools 7 Recommendation: The Ministry / HMPPS should set out how the Funding Agreement will incentivise the secure school provider to deliver high-quality care for all children in custody, including how they would manage underperformance or children being refused a place.
6The Ministry and HMPPS do not know what works in terms of early intervention and...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Ministry and HMPPS do not know what works in terms of early intervention and custodial provision for children. The Ministry wants to focus on intervening earlier to deliver better outcomes for children. But it does not yet understand the most effective ways to divert children away from entering the youth justice system, such as through community resolutions. Meanwhile, it plans to conduct an evaluation of the first secure school as a ‘pathfinder’, to feed into scoping a second secure school in
1On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Audit General, we took evidence...
Concluded (the committee's words)
On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Audit General, we took evidence from the Ministry for Justice (the Ministry) and Her Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) about current youth custody provision in England and Wales, as well as their strategy for improving the options available for placing children in custody.1
7We asked the Ministry and HMPPS why it has been unsuccessful in responding to poor...
Recommended (the committee's words)
We asked the Ministry and HMPPS why it has been unsuccessful in responding to poor performing STCs and how it has looked after children’s needs following STC closures.13 They acknowledged the significant challenges with STC performance, which they described as a mixed picture prior to 2017.14 They told us that the cohort of children in custody has become more difficult to manage over the past decade, as it has evolved to include children with increasingly complex needs who have committed more serious offences, which STCs were not designed to accommodate.15 Alongside this, they have struggled with a shrinking provider market and leadership at STCs.16 As the National Audit Office noted in its report, the joint inspectorates have persistently highlighted the issue of ineffective leadership at STCs. Between 2017 and 2021, the supplier (G4S Care and Justice Services UK Limited) appointed nine different directors to manage Oakhill STC.17
8The Ministry and HMPPS told us that there are mechanisms in the STC contracts to...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Ministry and HMPPS told us that there are mechanisms in the STC contracts to drive up performance. It is only as a last resort that they decant children to other settings, as they did in the case of Rainsbrook STC. Using their placement process, they told us that they considered each individual child’s needs to identify the provision that would be most appropriate.18 However, as the National Audit Office noted in its report, this has resulted in some children being placed in YOIs, although HMPPS’s placement guidance deems YOIs as less suitable for more vulnerable children. When Rainsbrook STC closed, around one-third of the 33 children were transferred to a YOI, and only a very small minority were transferred to equivalent provision.19
9Children in custody cover a wide range of demographics, by gender, ethnicity, and disability.20 Girls...
Recommended (the committee's words)
Children in custody cover a wide range of demographics, by gender, ethnicity, and disability.20 Girls represented just 3% of children in custody in the ending March 2021, but they are some of the most vulnerable children in the estate, as they are more likely to have experienced victimisation (sexual and physical) and relationship difficulties. HMPPS 9 C&AG’s Report, paras 11, 2.4 10 Q15, Q17; C&AG’s Report, para 2 11 C&AG’s Report, paras 3, 2.17 12 Q9–Q11, Q20 13 Q7–Q9, Q11 14 Q7; C&AG’s Report, para 2.5 15 Q7, Q21; C&AG’s Report, para 1.2 16 Q7 17 C&AG’s Report, paras 2.5, 2.15 18 Q8-Q9 19 C&AG’s Report, para 13 20 Q11, Q56–Q57, Q86; C&AG’s Report, para 9 10 Secure training centres and secure schools opened a specialist unit (the Keppel Unit) at HMYOI Wetherby to accommodate girls at short notice when Rainsbrook STC closed. It continues to place girls in the Keppel Unit while it works to improve provision there, although HMPPS told us that provision is still maturing.21 Furthermore, as the National Audit Office noted in its report, in the year ending March 2021, 53% of children in custody were from ethnic minority groups (on average).22 HMPPS told us that it monitors the profile of children in custody, including data on ethnicity and disability.23 However, it does not have a coherent plan for how to ensure it can meet all of these different needs.24 Strategy for improving provision and meeting an expected increase in demand
10Following a long-term decline in children in custody, the Ministry and HMPPS anticipate the number...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Following a long-term decline in children in custody, the Ministry and HMPPS anticipate the number of children in custody to more than double from 2021 levels by September 2024. They expect children aged 15 to 17 in young offender institutions (YOIs) will increase from 343 in July 2021 to 700 in July 2025. They attribute this expected increase to courts recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic, the impact of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, and government’s plans to recruit additional police officers.25 Currently, HMPPS has spare capacity in its youth secure estate—the occupancy rate was 60% in February 2022—but there is a risk that it will not have the right accommodation for some children’s needs.26 Its provision for more vulnerable children is limited, as the first secure school has not yet opened, and only one STC remains open but is subject to performance concerns.27 SCHs house very vulnerable children, but their legislative arrangements mean that the Local Authority running the SCH may refuse to accept a child if it perceives doing so will compromise that child’s safety and care or that of another child.28
11The Ministry and HMPPS accepted the weaknesses in current provision and told us that it...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Ministry and HMPPS accepted the weaknesses in current provision and told us that it is trying to address the need for more and better provision. They told us that they are using the four principles of the Taylor Review—smaller units; well-trained staff; a child-first approach; and strong leadership—to inform its approach.29 Firstly it is trialling a first secure school as a ‘pathfinder’. Secondly it is seeking to improve existing STC and YOI provision, for example by considering the use of specialist units in YOIs for more vulnerable children.30 It highlighted that 73% of children in custody are held in YOIs, which is why it wants to focus on improving and developing this provision.31 The National Audit Office report noted that the Ministry is considering a range of proposals, but it does not have a coherent or agreed overall strategy. Its proposals include opening the first secure school, making “swift and tangible” improvements to YOIs and STCs to make them more rehabilitative; and reopening Rainsbrook STC at reduced capacity and with 21 Q11; C&AG’s Report, paras 9, 2.13 22 C&AG’s Report, para 9 23 Q57 24 C&AG’s Report, para 3.5 25 C&AG’s Report, paras 8, 1.8 26 C&AG’s Report, para 3.5 27 C&AG’s Report, paras 2.14–2.16, 3.5 28 Q34, Q39; C&AG’s Report, para 3.13 29 Q16 30 Q68, Q69, Q75–Q76 31 Q80 Secure training centres and secure schools 11 increased staff-to-child ratios.32 It is also reviewing and actively monitoring performance of Oakhill STC33 and HMPPS mentioned it planned some medium-term alternative provision for girls.34
12The Ministry spoke to us about its vision to be more outcomes-led and to drive...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Ministry spoke to us about its vision to be more outcomes-led and to drive up performance and standards. It also wants to focus on early intervention. The Government has announced youth funding of £100 million a year over the next three years, including £60 million a year for the Turnaround programme – focused on early intervention for children in the community. The Ministry informed us that it is working with other government departments, including the Department for Education (DfE) and NHS England, on early intervention.35 It also referred to the cross-government work of the Youth Justice Board and the joint funding for local youth offending teams. Yet it was unable to point to a coherent cross-government youth justice strategy and told us that local areas will understand more about what is needed in their area.36 It considered the changes it was making to youth custody establishments to be in support of this vision, but improvements were piecemeal and it did not articulate how each improvement project— for secure schools, YOIs, and STCs—fed into an overall strategy for youth justice.37 Location of youth custody provision
13The average number of children in custody has fallen by 73% in the last decade,...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The average number of children in custody has fallen by 73% in the last decade, from 2,040 in 2010–11, to 560 in 2020–21, reflecting a long-term decline in the number of recorded youth offences.38 The Ministry told us that the reduction has a lot to do with diversionary activities, whereby children may be diverted from formally entering the youth justice system, such as through community resolutions.39 With such a small population, HMPPS told us it is persistently difficult to provide enough local provision for children. It described how it already has places available in YOIs and SCHs, as well as Oakhill STC and the secure school coming online. Its challenge is being able to match children to the right provision, in the right part of the country.40 HMPPS told us that it provides financial support so families can visit.41 But location is important so children can be close to their families.42
14Secure schools were intended to be located where there is demand.43 As the National Audit...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Secure schools were intended to be located where there is demand.43 As the National Audit Office described in its report, the Taylor review proposed secure schools as small establishments located in the regions they serve. The Ministry originally planned to open one secure school in the South East and another in the North West because of the rates 32 C&AG’s Report, para 3.5 33 Q15, Q18 34 Q92 35 Q79 36 Q89 37 Q79–Q80 38 Q7; C&AG’s Report, para 8, 1.6 39 Q7; C&AG’s Report, para 1.3 40 Q73 41 Q52 42 Q51 43 Q51, Q70 12 Secure training centres and secure schools of reoffending in these areas and lack of provision in the North West.44 Currently, the Ministry only has only started planning one secure school at the former Medway STC site in the South East.45
15HMPPS informed us there is a gap in provision in the North West.46 But it...
Concluded (the committee's words)
HMPPS informed us there is a gap in provision in the North West.46 But it does not have any immediate plans to address this gap.47 The Ministry and HMPPS told us that their number one principle for designing provision and placing children is getting the best outcomes for the children. They acknowledged that there will always be spare capacity, and told us that their focus is on making sure they have the right sort of capacity, which is why they are focused on improving YOI provision, which is where most children are held.48 However, improving YOIs may not help improve options for placing the most vulnerable children. The Ministry gave examples of two YOIs, Wetherby and Feltham, that include specialist units for more high risk or vulnerable children but typically YOIs accommodate older children and are less suitable for children with complex needs.49 The National Audit Office report highlighted the Ministry and HMPSS’s acknowledgement that STC failures had heightened pressures to place children in YOIs that are less suitable for vulnerable children.50 44 C&AG’s Report, paras 3.3, 3.4 45 Q67, Q71 46 Q51 47 Q64–Q65 48 Q74 49 Q75: C&AG’s Report, para 1 50 C&AG’s Report, para 13 Secure training centres and secure schools 13 2 The secure school programme and understanding what works Delays and cost increases
16The 2016 Taylor review called for education to be at the heart of dealing with...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The 2016 Taylor review called for education to be at the heart of dealing with children in custody and outlined a new model of provision called secure schools. The Ministry immediately accepted the findings of the Review and committed to creating two secure schools. HMPPS originally planned for the first secure school to be open by autumn 2020, but there have been recurrent delays, partly because of unrealistic timescales at the start of the project.51 HMPPS told us that it is now aiming to open the first secure school at the former Medway STC site in November 2023, but has built in another three months contingency on top, so the secure school may not open until February 2024.52 This would be more than seven years after the Taylor review. HMPPS told us that upon opening the secure school will build up to full complement slowly and that it would avoid moving children around Christmas time as this would be too disruptive.53
17A key reason for the delay was that the Ministry did not foresee the need...
Recommended (the committee's words)
A key reason for the delay was that the Ministry did not foresee the need for new legislation to underpin the secure school model which relied on established as a 16–19 academy, but also approved as a SCH. HMPPS appointed a charitable provider— Oasis Charitable Trust (Oasis)—in July 2019 before there was the legislation to allow for secure schools as proposed to be run by charities.54 Oasis runs 52 academies in England and works with homeless or vulnerably-houses young adults, but has not previously provided secure accommodation for children.55 However as an education provider, HMPPS told us it is confident that it will be able to provide specialist education for children with special educational needs or behavioural difficulties.56 HMPPS told us that it purposely appointed the provider early as it wanted them to be involved in creating the secure school model.57 The Ministry subsequently included clauses in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Bill to permit a secure school to be registered as a charity.58 The PCSC Bill received Royal Assent on 28th April 2022.59
18The Ministry originally assumed that it would cost £4.9 million to convert the former Medway...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Ministry originally assumed that it would cost £4.9 million to convert the former Medway STC site into a secure school, compared with £40 million to build a secure school from scratch.60 At the time the National Audit Office reported, the estimated costs had increased to £36.5 million (excluding £7.3 million for optimism bias), due to redesigns to meet SCH specifications required by Ofsted. The time taken to complete the redesigns was also a source of delays. The Ministry told us that it now expects the Medway secure school to cost £40 million (including optimism bias)—equivalent to its original cost estimate for building a brand new school.61 It informed us that this estimate—now signed off by 51 C&AG’s Report, paras 3.3, 3.4, 3.14 52 Q59–Q60 53 Q61 54 C&AG’s Report, para 3.12, 3.15 55 Q27; C&AG’s Report, para 3.12 56 Q86–87 57 Q24 58 C&AG’s Report, para 3.15 59 Boost for public safety as four justice bills receive Royal Assent – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) 60 Q45; C&AG’s Report, para 3.17 61 Q45; C&AG’s Report, para 3.16–3.18 14 Secure training centres and secure schools the Ministry’s investment committee—takes into account recent inflationary pressures and supply chain disruption.62 Not withstanding these recent cost pressures, the Ministry accepts that its original estimate was significantly insufficient, especially with regard to expected construction costs. For example, it told us that it did not factor in fire safety upgrades that would be required, including upgrades to the electrical and mechanical infrastructure. It accepts that it should have done more due diligence to understand the requirements for SCH registration.63 Risks to delivering the secure schools model
19HMPPS began accepting applications for a provider to run the Medway secure school in October...
Recommended (the committee's words)
HMPPS began accepting applications for a provider to run the Medway secure school in October 2018 and received five applications. As the National Audit Office noted in its report, HMPPS used a DfE application process for academies (free schools)—rather than the regulations that govern public procurements—as they considered it the best option for attracting the right educationally-focused provider.64 The Ministry and HMPPS told us that they wanted to develop the provider market for secure schools, as well as encourage innovation and greater provider autonomy.65 Even with one or two secure schools they would ideally want to have more than one or two potential providers. HMPPS also said that it wanted to have a provider involved early on, to help with shaping its decisions on the nature of the service.66 Yet, its decision to appoint the provider early on to co-design the school was risky, as it did not have the legislation in place at that time that would permit a charity to run a secure school. It was only following discussions with the Charity Commission that it had realised such legislation was needed.67
20HMPPS is using a Funding Agreement, rather than a contract, to manage Oasis.
Recommended (the committee's words)
HMPPS is using a Funding Agreement, rather than a contract, to manage Oasis. Such an agreement will not have a defined duration, although it will include an option to terminate for convenience, and HMPPS is still working out how it will manage performance under this arrangement.68 HMPPS told us that partnership working with Oasis includes designing its Funding Agreement with input from Oasis as well as DfE. It also mentioned plans for an assurance programme with different ladders of intervention, to identify and address signs of poor performance.69 Although it seems late in the process to discuss incentives and levers in the funding agreement, HMPPS told us that it was confident it could address potential drawbacks of this approach.70
21The secure school will be registered as an SCH, although, designed with 49 places, it...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The secure school will be registered as an SCH, although, designed with 49 places, it will be significantly bigger than a SCH.71 One consequence of its registration as a SCH is that the manager could refuse to accept a particular child. We asked the Ministry and HMPPS how they are managing the risk of children being refused a place. HMPPS told us that it is working in partnership with Oasis to agree the criteria on use of places. It expects the secure school to take a broad range of children (boys and girls), but it also described how placement decisions will be made in line with the existing statutory obligation to do 62 Q46 63 Q44–Q45, Q49 64 Q26; C&AG’s Report, para 3.10 65 Q29–Q30 66 Q26 67 Q25; C&AG’s Report, para 3.12, 3.15 68 Q32–Q33; C&AG’s Report Figure 13, para 3.11 69 Q32 70 Q33 71 Q49 Secure training centres and secure schools 15 what is in the best interests of the child.72 HMPPS told that if placing a child in the new Medway secure school is not in the child’s best interest, they would expect to look for an alternative, whether that is a SCH, STC or YOI.73 The Ministry and HMPPS told us that they expect the Funding Agreement to facilitate this partnership approach to placing children although HMPPS has not yet set out how it intends to do so.74 Evaluation
22The Ministry told us that it is focused on early intervention to improve outcomes for...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Ministry told us that it is focused on early intervention to improve outcomes for children.75 We asked the Ministry how it knows what works in terms of diverting children away from the youth justice system.76 It informed us that it is working closely with the Youth Justice Board and youth offending teams on what community provision and diversion looks like.77 It pointed to funding of £60 million a year for the Turnaround programme—an early intervention scheme for children in the community—and told us that the evidence these diversionary activities are working could be seen in the long-term decline in the number of children entering custody.78 However, the Ministry does not have good data to understand the reasons for this reduction in full, including the extent which it is due to a reduction in crime or more children been diverted from formally entering the youth justice system.79 The Ministry and HMPPS acknowledged that it is both hard, but important, to evaluate diversionary tactics because of the absence of a counterfactual.80
23We also asked the Ministry and HMPPS about their evidence base for secure schools, including...
Recommended (the committee's words)
We also asked the Ministry and HMPPS about their evidence base for secure schools, including their evaluation plans. The Ministry told us that the secure school model is based on international evidence of what works, which it is trying to apply in practice by prioritising investment in staff training.81 However, the National Audit Office reported that Oasis (as the provider) will have autonomy over staff recruitment, training and pay.82 The Ministry also described its first secure school as a ‘pathfinder’; and HMPPS intends to evaluate it and use the findings to feed into scoping the second secure school.83 HMPPS told us that it would draw on existing management information and outcome data—such as data on assault rates, self-harm, use of force and educational outcomes—as part of its evaluation, but it does not yet know how many children it expects to divert from the adult system.84 The National Audit Office reported in April 2022 that HMPPS had yet to develop the plan and secure funding for this evaluation.85 While the Ministry and HMPPS told us that they have decided to start scoping the second secure school this year, they have not started the work.86 72 Q35–Q37 73 Q35 74 Q89 75 Q89 76 Q96 77 Q88 78 Q79, Q89 79 C&AG’s Report, para 1.3 80 Q96–Q97 81 Q22–Q24, Q58–Q59 82 C&AG’s Report, para 3.12 83 Q64–Q66 84 Q40–Q42 85 C&AG’s Report, para 3.5 86 Q65 16 Secure training centres and secure schools
24We furthermore asked the Ministry and HMPPS about how they are responding to criticism about...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We furthermore asked the Ministry and HMPPS about how they are responding to criticism about existing custodial provision.87 Josh MacAlister—in The independent review of children’s social care—described YOIs and STCs as “wholly unsuitable” for accommodating children in the criminal justice system.88 Yet, the Ministry said it is committed to the existing sector where most children are held.89 It described this independent review as helpful and said it would issue a joined-up response to the recommendations, with input from DfE and other relevant bodies.90
25Meanwhile, HMPPS intends to keep the Keppel Unit—a specialist unit for girls at HMYOI Weatherby—for...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Meanwhile, HMPPS intends to keep the Keppel Unit—a specialist unit for girls at HMYOI Weatherby—for up to 24 months, but it has not yet formally evaluated it.91 It said that it only plans to evaluate it at the end of the 24-month period. It acknowledged that it will be challenging to evaluate this provision with such a small cohort, so it intends to work with NHS partners on devising a suitable evaluation approach.92 87 Q68; C&AG’s Report, para 3.5 88 Q81; MacAlister, J. The independent review of children’s social care, May 2022 89 Q68 90 Q81 91 Q92–Q94 92 Q94–Q95 Secure training centres and secure schools 17
Evidence
Oral evidence sessions 1
- 25 May 2022Secure training centres and secure schools3 witnesses, listed belowparliament.uk ↗
Who gave evidence 3 witnesses
- Amy ReesDirector General Chief Executive, HMPPS
- Antonia RomeoPermanent Secretary, Ministry of Justice
- Helga SwidenbankDirector of Accessibility and Disputes, Department for Work and Pensions