Follow up inspection of Yarl's Wood IRC

Report on an unannounced full follow-up inspection of Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre 9 - 13 November 2009 by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. Report compiled February 2010, published Wednesday 24th March 2010

• Posted on Mar 24, 2010

Anne Owers latest inspection of Yarl's Wood IRC

'on two occasions in the last year (2009) force had been used on children'

'detention adversely affected children's welfare, inspectors were concerned that their detention did not appear to be exceptional or necessary, given that half the families detained were later released under temporary admission.'

'focus on improving the environment for children appeared to have led to a lack of attention to the needs of the majority population of women.'

'provision of activities for women was among the poorest seen in any removal centre'

'average length of stay had increased by 50% since the last inspection'

'support for those at risk of self-harm was inconsistent and there had been no assessment of mental health need'

'43 recommendations from the last inspection had not been achieved'

Although this was a custodial establishment, we were mindful that detainees were not held because they had been charged with a criminal offence and had not been detained through normal judicial processes.

'Improvements made, but some concerns remain'

Download the full report: http://www.ncadc.org.uk/Newszine116/YarlsWood2009.pdf

Introduction: Yarl's Wood is the only immigration removal centre that holds only women, children and families. The inherent vulnerability of the population has meant that it has been subject to particularly active scrutiny.

This inspection found that there had been some improvements in the centre since the last inspection, particularly in relation to conditions, services and support for children. There was a new school, professionally run, which attempted to provide a good curriculum for the wide range of transient children held. The youth club and youth worker provided much-needed support and activity and nursery provision was good. Social workers participated in weekly multi-disciplinary meetings to discuss the welfare of each individual child.

On the adult side, Yarl's Wood was a safer place than when last inspected, with little evidence of bullying or tensions between the different national and ethnic groups, and the environment was less institutional than previously. Healthcare provision had also improved, particularly for children, with specialist mental and physical health services. In spite of these improvements, and the support which individual members of staff provided, we continued to have concerns about aspects of detention at the centre. The first related to the detention of children.

In spite of the centre's considerable and commendable efforts, the fact of detention clearly and adversely affected children's welfare, as our interviews with and observations of detained children during the inspection made clear.

What was particularly troubling was that decisions to detain, and to maintain detention of, children and families did not appear to be fully informed by considerations of the welfare of children, nor could their detention be said to be either exceptional or necessary. Over the past six months, 420 children had been detained, of whom half had been released back into the community, calling into question the need for their detention and the disruption and distress this caused. Some children and babies had been detained for considerable periods - 68 for over a month and one, a baby, for 100 days - in some cases even after social workers had indicated concerns about their and their family's welfare. Detailed welfare discussions did not fully feed into submissions to Ministers on continued detention.

Secondly, the focus on improving the environment and activities for children appeared to have led to a lack of attention to the needs of the majority population of women. Provision of activities for them was among the poorest seen in any removal centre. It had been inadequate at the last inspection, and had declined even further. The absence of activity added to the depression and anxiety of women, many of whom were spending lengthy periods at Yarl's Wood. The average length of stay had increased by 50% since the last inspection, and one in ten women had been detained for more than six months. There was some paid work, but only about a dozen jobs offered more than 10 hours a week. The quality and quantity of education was poor, except for some good arts and crafts work.

Many women were extremely anxious about their future, and the quality of support procedures for those at risk of self-harm was not consistently good, though there was some caring individual work. There had been no assessment of adult mental health needs. Relationships with staff were reasonably good, but it was not clear that staff as a whole had sufficient time to provide positive help, and we were particularly concerned about levels of staffing at night.

Finally, we were concerned about the consistency and adequacy of preparations for release or removal. The assiduous welfare officer tried to assist detainees with practical issues, and was a visible presence on the units. However, he was not routinely informed of all removals, and we came across some women and families who were extremely anxious about the arrangements, both overseas and in the UK. We found no evidence of multi-disciplinary pre-release strategy meetings in high risk cases, such as women at risk of self-harm. On some occasions, families were separated to effect removal, and on two occasions in the last year force had been used on children. Though we were assured that these events were exceptional, and were properly authorised and planned, better resourced pre-release work could reduce the need for such actions, which often resulted in failed removals. Moreover, there is no detailed national guidance to staff on the circumstances in which force can be used on children, at what age or with what methods.

Yarl's Wood was an improved and largely well-run centre. However, there were two main findings from this inspection. The first is that the conditions, activities and services for children, within the centre, had improved significantly, but this, while welcome, could not compensate for the adverse effect of detention itself on the welfare of children, half of whom were later released back into the community. The second main finding is that there had not been equal or sufficient attention to the needs of the majority population of single women, some of whom were held for long periods, and for whom there was little activity and sometimes not enough support. These are messages for the UK Border Agency, as well as for the centre and its managers.

Anne Owers HM Chief Inspector of Prisons

^ top of page ^