Young Offender Institutions are increasingly "unsafe"

The new National Chair of the Independent Monitoring Boards (IMBs), Elisabeth Davies has hit the ground running. In post for less than a month, she has already written to the Prisons Minister Damian Hinds to urge him take urgent action to improve the conditions in which children are held across young offender institutions (YOIs) in England.

What are Independent Monitoring Boards?

Independent Monitoring Boards (IMBs) exist for every prison and immigration removal centre. They are made up of ordinary members of the public who are independent, unpaid and make an average of 3-4 visits to their local institution per month. Their role is to monitor the day-to-day life in their local prison and ensure the proper standards of care indecency are maintained.

Members have unrestricted access to their local prison or immigration detention centre at any time and can talk to any prisoner or detainee they wish to, out of sight and hearing of a members of staff if necessary.

Board members also play an important role in dealing with problems inside the establishment. Any prisoner can put in a confidential request to see a member of the IMB. Problems might include concerns over lost property, visits from family or friends, special religious or cultural requirements, or even serious allegations such as bullying.

IMBs are very different from prison inspectors who only visit some establishments every three to four years, IMB members are constant visitors and, in some cases, are likely to have a much deeper understanding of the successes and failings of an individual establishment. Not only do they have a much greater level of contact, but many prison inspections are planned in advance which means that the institution can try to remedy any existing failings before the inspectors call.

The problems

Ms Davies’ letter includes feedback from IMBs at England’s four YOIs and found that at every institution children were subject to severely restricted regimes and were commonly spending 19-21 hours a day in their rooms, some up to 23. In one month alone the IMB at Wetherby received 51 written representations from children regarding the negative impact regime restrictions were having on their mental and physical health. Ms Davies described this as “unacceptable treatment of children in custody”.

The IMB report highlights four other key issues:

• Children are being denied access to purposeful activity and education, often caused by significant staff shortages, leading to more time locked in their rooms.
• Violence remains a problem and, in some cases, incidents were triggered by the impact of restricted regimes. While this is perpetuated by only a small number of boys the chilling effect is that many more children report feeling unsafe and unprotected in an environment where they should be safeguarded.
• Attempts to manage violence by keeping children apart from those they are likely to have conflict with was a growing issue. For example, the IMB at Feltham A reported the attempted management of nine different regimes.
• There is an increasing cohort of children with complex needs, such as histories of trauma and neurodiversity, whose needs were not being met.

IMBs, and indeed HM Inspectorate of Prisons, have reported their concerns about individual institutions repeatedly over a number of years but Ms Davies points to a marked deterioration where these concerns are now “endemic” across every Young Offender Institution.

Conclusion

Ms Davies does acknowledge that since the urgent notification at Cookham Wood YOI, IMBs have noticed some improvements but says there remains a long way to go and urges the Minister to take action to ensure there is real momentum behind these changes and not just a short response to a high profile concern that has been featured in the media.

She concludes: “There have always been children with profound needs in the custodial estate. Often they can present a high risk to themselves and others.

"Attempting to manage poor behaviour through restricting regimes, increased use of force and keeping children apart, fails to address violence and poor behaviour in the long term. If more focus was placed on providing structured and fuller regimes, cycles of violence and poor behaviour would be reduced and outcomes for children improved. “