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:





a full programme of purposeful activity led by specifically trained staff;
reliable access to specialist services to meet assessed health and wellbeing
needs;
the provision of robust sentence management plans;
a strong focus throughout their period in custody on resettlement; and
the availability of an effective personal officer scheme and family liaison
programme.
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.
3. This regime should be supported by the introduction of a specific Prison Service
Instruction or Instructions (PSI).
4. 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.
1
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
1
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Fatally%20Flawed.pdf
2
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 201112), a model in which a distinct regime, with additional resources, is provided for 1820 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.
3
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:






effective leadership that recognises the specific characteristics of the age
group and pays sufficient attention to their needs;
specific commitment to meeting their health and well-being needs;
regimes which provide a full daily programme of supervised activities;
vocational and work style learning opportunities;
an effective personal officer scheme; and
highly proactive resettlement programmes.
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.
2
http://www.t2a.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/T2A-Young-Adults-in-Custody_V3.pdf
4
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.
5
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 1820 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.
6
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 colocated 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
7
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
8
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
population”5, 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
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.
9
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
6
Ibid.
Table 2b, Data spreadsheets on offenders, NOMS (2012) Equalities annual report 2011-12 London:
NOMS
8
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Prison%20Reform%20Trust%20Briefing
%20Offender%20Rehabilitation%20Bill%20HoC%202nd%20Reading%2011Nov13.pdf
7
10
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
11