PRISON REFORM TRUST SUBMISSION TRANSFORMING MANAGEMENT OF YOUNG ADULTS

  CORRECTIONS AGEING PRISONER AND OFFENDER POLICY FRAMEWORK
PUBLIC DOMAIN CORRECTIONAL MANAGEMENT STANDARDS FOR MENS PRISONS IN
THE PRISONS & PROBATION OMBUDSMAN THIS INSTRUCTION APPLIES

[PRINT NAME ABOVE] [NAME OF PRISON JAIL
1 RESEARCH INVOLVING PRISONERSI AS SUBJECTSII (CHECK IF “YES”
15 DOES PRISON WORK? MAY I BEGIN BY THANKING

Question 1: We are proposing that our new policy accommodates young adults in mixed institutions with other adults and that we target resources on addressing the risks and needs of young adults in all these institutions


PRISON REFORM TRUST SUBMISSION TRANSFORMING MANAGEMENT OF YOUNG ADULTS


Prison Reform Trust submission

Transforming management of young adults in custody


The Prison Reform Trust is an independent UK charity working to create a just, humane and effective prison system. We do this by inquiring into the workings of the system; informing prisoners, staff and the wider public; and by influencing Parliament, government and officials towards reform. We welcome the opportunity to respond to this consultation.


Summary


Young adults in custody have distinct needs and vulnerabilities, and present particular challenges, born of their youth and immaturity. They are open to influence, both good and bad, which means that any decent prison system must provide an environment and regime that takes full account of their age and stage.


To support this, the Prison Reform Trust believes the following actions are required:


  1. Young people ages 18-20 should be accommodated separately from adult prisoners.

  2. A distinct regime should be developed, with particular emphasis on:



This approach is needed to maximise the chances of effective rehabilitation in what in many instances will be a first term of imprisonment for young and immature people.


  1. This regime should be supported by the introduction of a specific Prison Service Instruction or Instructions (PSI).

  2. The Government should give consideration to the creation of a Board either as an extension, or building on the success, of the Youth Justice Board, in order to create momentum for reform and focus specifically on this age group.


The Prison Reform Trust is not alone in recognising the distinct needs of young adult prisoners. The Barrow Cadbury Trust’s Transition to Adulthood Alliance (T2A), of which we are a member, evidences and promotes “the need for a distinct and radically different approach to young adults in the criminal justice system; an approach that is proportionate to their maturity and responsive to their specific needs”. This position is reflected in NOMS’ Commissioning Intentions which have, since 2012, outlined the distinct needs of young adults as well as some of the programmes needed to address these.


Successive governments have identified this age group as a priority for intervention and crime prevention. Yet despite manifesto and policy commitments, little or nothing has been done to develop effective, age-appropriate regimes to counter prolific offending. In 2004, drawing on information supplied by independent monitoring boards, the Prison Reform Trust produced a report A lost generation which revealed how good intentions had not led to effective practice in establishments across England and Wales and presented clear recommendations for reform.


Our 2012 report with INQUEST, Fatally Flawed, documented the vulnerabilities of many young people in conflict with the law and illustrated how such young men and women were placed in unsafe institutions that were ill-equipped to deal with their complex needs.1 We showed how in some circumstances this can lead to tragedy. We also specifically called at that stage for research to be undertaken into the distinct support needs of 18-24 year olds in prison, how they differ from adult prisoners, and how they are best identified and addressed. More than a year later this research need remains unacknowledged, a weakness that the current proposal for change brings into stark relief.


We do not believe that the proposals in this consultation document take the right direction. While the current performance of some of the young offender institutions is a matter of concern this doesn’t create a case, on its own, for turning away from this model. It is our view that, properly staffed, resourced, and led, such prisons are manageable. The consultation document contains little detail as to what the Government thinks should replace this model. While this could be argued to be consistent with the principles of consultation it is not possible to reach serious conclusions about the merits of two models when the details of only one model are known.


Young adults are one of the most vulnerable and volatile groups in the prison system. Without interventions based on what works with this age group, many of these young people will continue to offend and become the long term adult prison population of the future.


This is not the time to rush to a conclusion. Rather than dismantle the one legislative safeguard for 18-20 year olds, the sentence of Detention in a Young Offender Institution, the Ministry of Justice should focus on proper research and the development of detailed age-appropriate options. As numbers of 18-20 year olds in custody have begun to fall, this is an opportunity to take stock of the learning from police and probation led IOM schemes and to develop intensive alternatives to custody as well as ensuring that proper regimes and safeguards are in place in prison specifically for this age group.


Question 1: We are proposing that our new policy accommodates young adults in mixed institutions with other adults and that we target resources on addressing the risks and needs of young adults in all these institutions. Do you agree?


The proposal appears in most ways to run counter to the evidence that young adults in prison need extra protection and support, and which is acknowledged in the consultation document. The evidence base in support of the Detention in a Young Offender Institution (DYOI) sentence has, if anything, grown since its introduction.

However, although HM Prisons Inspectorate and independent monitoring board (IMB) reports have raised concerns over provision in young adult YOIs (see for example HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2011-12), a model in which a distinct regime, with additional resources, is provided for 18-20 year olds is one that we would wish to see continue. Existing weaknesses do not justify scrapping the model; rather, they point to the need to redouble efforts to make the model work as it was intended to do.


We note the principal arguments put forward against specfic secure provision for young adults, notably distance from home (and the challenges this poses for rehabilitation programmes) and the difficulties associated with holding a volatile and unstable age group effectively. However, neither argument is robust. There is as yet no evidence base to suggest that rehabilitation is more likely to be achieved for this age group in local prisons, whilst the consultation document acknowledges that the stability argument is largely anecdotal. Evidence gathered by independent monitoring boards, most recently at Portland, indicates that mixing young offenders with adult male prisoners has led to significant increases in drug use, violence and self harm.


Whilst we acknowledge that younger prisoners present very distinct challenges to the Prison Service, precisely because of the level of problems that they bring with them through the gate, it is our view that, properly staffed, resourced, and led, such prisons are manageable. The focus should be on improving these institutions, not scrapping them, and developing half-way house provision for young adults.


It is the absence of an evidence base that makes it dangerous to reject the existing model. There have been many opportunities to research these matters and it is disappointing that the Ministry of Justice has not done this by now – not least because the ‘creep’ introduction of accommodating young adults in dual-designated prisons, exemplified in the statistics cited in paragraph 4, would appear to lend itself to such research.


Whilst we understand that NOMS is committed to seeking the views of young adults in custody on the relative merits of being held in YOIs rather than adult prisons, we are concerned that this was not undertaken prior to this consultation.


We are aware that this consultation represents policy catching up with practice but it is not reasonable to ask consultees to endorse the proposal in the absence of detail as to what regime and services young adults might expect to find in ‘mixed’ institutions. It is impossible to reach a conclusions as to whether Model A (standalone YOIs for 18-20 year olds) is less desirable than Model B (“mixed institutions with other adults … [in which resources are targeted] on addressing the risks and needs of young adults”) when there is no detail beyond that phrase for this second model. There is no basis on which such a comparison could be made.


We would contend that this point is all the more important in the light of reports from HMIP on existing prisons that hold young adults alongside older men. Reports on HMP/YOI Highdown and HMP Lewes both highlight an absence of distinctive responses to young adults in their population. This does not encourage confidence in this model.


Question 2: Drawing on available evidence, what other factors around risks, needs and circumstances, including age, should we take into account when looking at how we manage young adults in mixed adult custodial institutions?


Rob Allen’s (2013) report for the Transition to Adulthood Alliance2, summarises the key requirements of an effective regime for young adults as being:



While all of these elements have relevance for all groups of people in custody, they have particular currency in institutions housing young adults, because the needs that they address are sharpest amongst this population of (predominately) immature young men who face often profound problems that have not yet been addressed properly in the community, and who need to be occupied by meaningful programmes if they are to take responsibility for turning their lives around.


The consultation document describes many of the principal needs of young adults in custody which gave rise to the existing policy of holding young adults separately to the older adult population. We commend paragraph 38, which makes a very strong case for the continuation of separate treatment and conditions.


There are other factors we wish to outline. First, the over-representation of people with learning disabilities is now well documented. We are not arguing that this is greater, proportionately, amongst young adults, but we believe it is the case that younger people with learning disabilities have less developed coping mechanisms to deal with some of the consequences of incarceration and therefore have very specific needs. How to respond to the needs of young prisoners with learning disabilities, and speech and language difficulties must be a priority for those developing regimes.


Secondly, you make nothing of the childhoods that many young adults bring with them into prison, illustrated by the high proportion of young adult prisoners who have spent time in the care system (research by the Barrow Cadbury Trust estimates that 40-49% of young men in custody aged between 18 and 21 have been in local authority residential care, a finding that is consistent with other overviews). Customarily, such young adults exhibit a range of attachment disorders of particular relevance to life in prisons (for example distrust of adult/authority figures, emotional volatility). Understanding this is key if institutions and prison staff are to offer the potential for personal responsibility and change during periods in custody. Too often, behaviour is seen as problematic in itself rather than as evidence of underlying problems that need to be addressed.


The consultation document highlights the intention of “ensur[ing] that staff members in all adult institutions understand and respond effectively” to younger adults with different needs and capabilities. Without wishing to dismiss this aspiration, we are concerned the scale of such needs and capabilities has been underestimated. Will all adult institutions offer employment, training and education opportunities designed for 18-20 year olds? Will all institutions be able to prepare their staff for engaging with young people with the complex and fractured backgrounds that this age group manifests? Will all adult prisoner staff receive training in identifying young adults who might be eligible for leaving care status and in holding local authorities to account for the support and services they are entitled to? Will prison staff develop the specialist skills, and liaise with the right outside agencies, to ensure that young parents get the support they need to break the cycle of crime?


Lastly we would observe that the issue here is not just about policy but also delivery. Even if the policy requirements in respect of the management of young adults are framed comprehensively, this is largely worthless if actual delivery falls short of such standards. In recent times, for example, the Prison Service has performed poorly in relation to time spent out of cells (only 5% of young adults spending at least 10 hours out of cells on weekdays – a standard that is arguably of more significance for young adults than for older men) and decency (for example access to daily showers). While policy is very important, the Prison Service (and through them the government) will also be judged on actual delivery in this area.


Consistent underperformance does once more raise the question as to whether the government should consider appointing, at arms length, a commissioning and monitoring body with real teeth to oversee delivery of the desired policies in this area.


Question 3: How do we best allocate young adults to institutions in the adult estate to enable a safe and effective custodial sentence and resettlement in the community?


If young adults are to be held in mixed prisons, then they are most likely to be kept safe and receive effective sentence planning and resettlement support if they are held apart from older people for large parts of the prison day. It is our belief that 18-20 year olds should only be accommodated together with older men on wings and units in exceptional circumstances, and in such circumstances the 18-20 year olds should be in the majority. This view echoes that of successive Chief Inspectors of Prisons since 2006.


That young adults have a greater need for, and are more likely to benefit from, an active and engaging day, points to the need for a largely separate regime, with greater opportunities for education, training and employment, physical activity, and personal advice and guidance.


Effective regimes for young adults require greater focus on the development of individual sentence management. In our experience, a management and officer culture supporting this is more likely to be found when young adults are held together in specialist units.


Since the strongest rationale for the changes proposed in this consultation is that it will enable young adults to reap the full benefits of the new arrangements for rehabilitation, it follows that young adults must be placed in the most local resettlement prison to their intended future address. We would be particularly concerned if the proposed changes led to an increase in movement between prisons during sentence as this would run counter to the central thrust of the programme. We recommend active independent monitoring of how often, and with what justification, young adults are moved whilst serving custodial sentences.


Some thought needs to be given to the specific circumstances of young adults with gang affiliations. We are aware of anecdotal evidence that some gang affiliates have been helped by out of area placements which put them further from the reach of their previous associates. We would welcome further consideration on this issue.


Overall the aim of allocating 18-20 year olds to enable a safe effective sentence to be served in an adult establishment is almost a contradiction in terms. If it were to become policy, it would require oversight, skilled and informed population management and adequate resources and staffing to underpin it – difficult to achieve in a prison service experiencing swingeing cuts in its budget.


Question 4: Are there other ways that we should consider addressing both positive and negative aspects of peer relationships in custody?


On the question of gang associated young men, we acknowledge that wider dispersal can help break such patterns, as can (in some circumstances) distance from home area, perversely an argument in certain instances against local imprisonment.


The Nature of Adolescence prison service training in understanding and working with young people paved the way for peer to peer mentoring and the subsequent development of prisoner councils.


Question 5: In the context of our proposed new approach, what specific additional measures can we take, including in how we tackle drugs issues, to ensure that young adults experience the custodial environment as safe, and are consequently able to focus on rehabilitation and change?


The evidence base on tackling drug use in prisons in which young adults are co-located with the general adult prison population is anecdotal. In these circumstances it would be unwise to depart from the existing orthodoxy in this area which holds that young adults’ use of drugs is different to that of older groups and requires an approach that takes into account the individual’s age and maturity.


Recent research indicates that this age group as particular problems with binge drinking leading in turn to public disorder offences and violent crime. There is a pressing need to tackle hazardous drinking by young adults.


Question 6: What else can we do to support the effective transition of young adults from the juvenile estate, and ensure continuity of support and access to appropriate services?


It is not possible to provide a complete answer to this question until the Government’s proposals for Transforming Youth Custody are published in the Spring. However, there is already a considerable difference between the regime in under-18 YOIs (and more so for Secure Training Centres and Secure Children’s Homes) and either YOIs for 18-20 year olds and mixed prisons. It is reasonable to assume that this gap will grow if the proposal for Secure Colleges is introduced.


NOMS and the YJB published a shared protocol for transfers from the youth to adult estate in September 2012, and we commend its intentions and support its contents. The scale of the challenge that such transfers represent is well summarised in the protocol, and points to the need for phased transitions for 18 year olds into the adult estate. New technology makes this increasingly easy.


We would welcome confirmation that the government has no plan to disrupt the current agreement between the Youth Justice Board and NOMS that sees some 18 year olds retained in the juvenile estate to enable them to complete their sentence or to aid the transition of particularly vulnerable young men. We believe this will become more important in the years to come and would recommend that a financial transfer takes place now to take account of this process, so that financial considerations alone cannot bring its continuation into question.


Transition arrangements for the very small number of girls in custody are also of concern to PRT, following the closure of the units holding 15-17 year old girls in YOIs. We would welcome clarification of the safeguards in place for this minority group.


Question 7: What specific skills and experiences do you think staff working with young adults should be supported to develop?


The first requirement is that all prison staff working with young adults, including those at governor level, should have actively elected to work with this age group and, as part of their operational deployment, should be able to demonstrate a capacity for this group. It is not for everyone. Promotions in situ for good governors of YOIs should be given consideration.


Beyond that some access to training on the specific needs, already identified, of this group should be available. This would include, for example, an understanding of the entitlements that young adults in this age range often have, for example as care leavers.


Young people aged 18-20 are in transition from childhood to adulthood. As the former chairman of the POA pointed out, they may ‘act big’ but at night many cry for their mothers and wet their beds. Staff working with young adults need a broad understanding of adolescent development, and of developmental delay and know how to apply this understanding in their day-to-day tasks. The need to know how to motivate young people, set boundaries and maintain higher professional standards.


Question 8: Are there specific areas that we should consider for securely remanded young adults?


We are not aware of an evidence base to support your assertion that “young adults would be more likely to engage with their regime if they are held [while on remand] in the same institution in which they are likely to serve their sentence”. Indeed, it would not be fair to criticise young adults on remand for their limited involvement in activities if these have not been designed with this very particular group of individuals in mind.


Question 9: How might we most effectively take into account the needs of groups with protected characteristics? Please let us have any examples, case studies, research or other types of evidence to support your views.


Repeated studies of public services in the United Kingdom and elsewhere have highlighted the importance of those that work with significant numbers of people from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds possessing a workforce that understands and can demonstrate its sensitivity to such groups. This must be as true for the prison service as it is elsewhere. Successful services can point to a workforce that has been trained to understand and deal with confidence with issues of ethnicity, as well as a workforce that is reflective of the ethnicity of, in this case, its custodial population. Whilst this remains a significant challenge for NOMS, it must be key to that part of personal change which is aided by the development of trusting professional relationships with authority figures.


As far as care leavers are concerned, we have already commented on the need for any prison holding young adults entitled to this support to be familiar with the specific entitlements that stem from this status. In addition, such groups are much more likely to have experienced disrupted childhoods, to which we have also referred, and institutions will need to provide services that can offer support in relevant circumstances.


Question 10: How can we ensure that these proposals, in as much as they apply to the women’s estate, are proportionately reflected across the women’s estate and reflect any distinct needs of women?


Young adult women in prison are a minority of a minority, accounting for 5% of the female prison population at September 2013. Their small numbers, both relative to the women’s prison population and the total prison population, mean young adults women in prison are “almost invisible as a group.3 To begin to remedy this, we recommend NOMS identify this age group as a distinct group within its segmentation work.


The consultation acknowledges that “female offenders may have some different needs and risks” but the needs of young adult women within this minority appear to be an afterthought – both in terms of the consultation and the management of this age group in custody more broadly. For example, time spent in local authority care as a child is more of a risk factor for young women than young men.4 Given that “the emotional needs and the type of education and activity that will be suitable for an 18 or 19 year old will usually be very different for the majority female prison population5, and that young adult women in prison are already co-located with adults, how does government propose to reform custody for this age group?


The consultation document states it is Government’s intention to “allocate offenders to institutions that offer interventions appropriate for the length of their sentence” but does not cite an evidence base that will enable NOMS to do so. What research has NOMS undertaken on the specific needs of young adult women in prison in terms of interventions, and how do they differ to those of older adult women in prison? Given that placement choice in the female prison estate is already limited (and may be limited further if the Women’s Estate Review is fully implemented) what safeguards will be put in place to ensure that placement decisions for young adult women are informed by their age-specific needs as well as the availability of interventions appropriate for offending behaviour and their sentence length?


As HM Chief Inspector of Prison’s has highlighted, “women’s prisons are increasingly becoming multi-functional”, despite recognition of women’s distinct needs and of the specific needs of minority groups (such as young adults and foreign national prisoners) within this population.6


Government statistics show that women leaving prison have significantly lower positive resettlement and employment outcomes compared to men (8.4% vs. 27.3%).7 We are concerned that the proposed closure of the only open prisons in the women’s estate, East Sutton Park and Askham Grange, could restrict placement choice for 18-20 year old women further and limit opportunities for release on temporary licence (ROTL) and external work placements. Given that many of the work and training opportunities available to women in prison appear to be as much informed by gender-stereotyping as by opportunities for employment in the community (being focused on developing cleaning and beauty skills) we would like to see a substantial improvement in the employment, training and education provided for young adult women, including apprenticeships in non-traditional areas of work.   


The consultation document refers to “the safer and more effective services” that young adults in prison will have access to if the decision is taken to “target resources away from dedicated institutions”. Given that young adult women have not been held in dedicated institutions for some time, we would welcome clarification of how they will benefit from the decision to close dedicated young adult male institutions.

We note that under the Government’s Transforming Rehabilitation programme, short-sentenced young adult women will be subject to post-release supervision. It is essential that this includes provision of women-specific services. The concerns that PRT has raised about these changes, and the impact of contracting out service, apply to young adult women who can be especially vulnerable to male violence and coercion.8


We support the development of a new Prison Service Instruction (PSI) on the care and management of young adults in prison. We welcome confirmation that a new PSI will be gender-specific and Bangkok Rules compliant. We also note the development of new Expectations for women’s prisons by HMIP.


Question 11: Are there any additional measures that the Inspectorates or monitoring bodies should consider if we implement this new policy?


We have already referred in our answer to Question 3 to our belief that, if this new policy is implemented, we would wish to see active independent monitoring of how often, and with what justification, young adults are moved from one prison to another whilst serving custodial sentences.


More generally we believe that this policy would place an additional burden on both HMIP and the IMB by increasing the range of specialist arrangements in any given prison that they must review.


We would support the introduction of specific policies, by way of a Prison Service Instruction or Instructions (PSI), to codify the particular responses that young adults need in order to receive an effective experience while in custody. This becomes more important if they are held in mixed prisons where there is less likely to be an organisational culture to support their needs. In our view most of the content in the existing PSI 2012-08, The Care and Management of Young People, could be equally relevant to the young adult population.


Conclusion


In conclusion we are concerned that the Ministry of Justice is actively considering dismantling the one legislative safeguard that helps to delineate and protect 18-20 year olds in the criminal justice system. The Prison Reform Trust asks that Ministers think again before taking such a retrograde step.


Prison Reform Trust

December 2013

1 http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Fatally%20Flawed.pdf

2 http://www.t2a.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/T2A-Young-Adults-in-Custody_V3.pdf

3 Nick Hardwick speech to University of Sussex ‘Women in prison: Corston five years on’ 29 February 2012 at www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/hmipris/women-in-prison.pdf

4 http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/why%20women1312131659.pdf

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 Table 2b, Data spreadsheets on offenders, NOMS (2012) Equalities annual report 2011-12 London: NOMS

8http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Prison%20Reform%20Trust%20Briefing%20Offender%20Rehabilitation%20Bill%20HoC%202nd%20Reading%2011Nov13.pdf

11



386 THE 1985 PRISON RULES (JAIL MANUAL) (US 59
43 GROUP CLIMATE AND WORKERS’ ATTITUDES IN YOUTH PRISON
4872 ZIMBARDO PRISON EXPERIMENT (MCKIRNAN PSY 242) P 16


Tags: adults in, young adults, reform, trust, adults, young, management, submission, transforming, prison