Two months ago, the jury at the inquest into the death of 16-year-old Kevin Jacobs at Feltham young offenders institution took the unprecedented step of returning a damning verdict of "suicide to which neglect contributed". It found gross deficiencies within the system, including the failure to provide consistent and safe accommodation in prison.

Jacobs was the subject of a care order and the responsibility of Lambeth social services department when he was arrested, charged and remanded to Feltham in July 2001. He remained at Feltham when, later that month, a six-month detention and training order was imposed on him.

During his three months there, Jacobs had self-harmed and been bullied numerous times. Prison staff, social workers and doctors all described him as exceptionally vulnerable, disturbed and at risk. He hanged himself to the point of unconsciousness in his cell in September 2001, but two prison officers found him in time and he survived.

Yet just two weeks after his attempted suicide, Jacobs did kill himself by hanging. Neither Feltham, Lambeth social services nor the Youth Justice Board had attempted to find an alternative placement for Jacobs, says Deborah Coles, co-director of Inquest, a charity monitoring deaths in custody and providing legal advice to bereaved families. No one seemed to know what the procedures were when a child was viewed as being at risk of suicide or self-harm, or who was responsible for child protection, she says.

"You had three agencies that had accepted he was at risk, but no one seemed to think it was their responsibility to get him out," says Coles.

YOIs have a history of condemnation, mainly from former chief inspector of prisons Sir David Ramsbotham. He has been scathing in his reports, citing unsafe environments, breathtaking neglect and unacceptably high self-harm and suicide rates. Many of his comments have been included in a report launched this week highlighting the treatment young offenders can expect in YOIs.¹ Bullying is rife and the main threat is from other young offenders - an inspection by Sir David of one YOI found that all remanded juveniles who had arrived in the previous 10 days were in constant fear of assault from other children. In another YOI there were more than 700 reported incidents of injuries to young people over an eight-month period. The levels of distress and neglect in some wings would have resulted in their closure if they had been delivered in non-Prison Service establishments, Sir David said.

Violence and bullying, coupled with inadequate health and mental health care, suggest that YOIs are unsuitable environments in which to place some of our most vulnerable young people. Last month, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child highlighted its concerns that children do not receive adequate protection in YOIs,² noting "the very poor staff-child ratio, high levels of violence, bullying, self-harm and suicide, inadequate rehabilitative opportunities and solitary confinement in inappropriate conditions".

It recommended that the government urgently review conditions and ensure that all children deprived of their liberty have equal statutory rights to education, health and child protection as other children.

A couple of weeks later, a report from eight independent inspectorates identified the protection of young people in YOIs as a major concern.³ Youth offending team (YOT) files were examined in six areas and three YOIs were visited. Few referrals under local child protection procedures were being made to social services, and inspectors could not be confident of an appropriate response that could safeguard these young people.

YOT files revealed that staff focused almost exclusively on offending behaviour and there was little evidence of welfare needs being considered and addressed. Just one area had a YOT representative on the local area child protection committee, and the committees were not engaging with the welfare of young people in YOIs.

Coles says: "I feel very pessimistic about the institutions' ability to reform themselves and become safe places, because a culture of punishment and control is so ingrained."

The inspectors' report contrasts the serious risks faced by young offenders in YOIs with the reported good quality of care and protection provided in local authority secure accommodation. Why the difference? The key reason is the quality of staff, says Coles. The majority of professionals in secure units are trained in all areas of child protection. Prison officers' main priorities, on the other hand, are containment and control, rather than support and supervision. "It's very telling that you don't have children dying in secure units," she adds.

The incidence of self-harm and suicide among young offenders in YOIs and prisons is indicative of the dangers posed by these institutions. Statistics gathered by Inquest speak for themselves. Since 1990, 163 young offenders aged 21 and under have committed suicide in prisons and YOIs. Twenty were younger than 18.

But who is responsible for protecting them? It may come as a shock to discover that the Children Act 1989 does not cover young people in YOIs because domestic legislation does not apply to prisons, which are governed by their own laws set out in the Prison Act 1952. This has left the 19 YOIs and prisons in England and Wales to make their own child protection arrangements for more than 2,000 15 to 17 year olds they house. Many professionals think they have failed.

Geoff Monoghan, senior policy development officer in the youth crime section of rehabilitation agency Nacro, says: "My strong view is that the Children Act should apply, end of story. The stock defence from the Prison Service, Home Office and Youth Justice Board is that child protection procedures are being put in place, but this exposes them to be inadequate because there are no statutory requirements in place. They are hard to monitor and not robust enough... and can fall into disuse."

Since April 2000, the Youth Justice Board has been responsible for commissioning and purchasing placements in 14 YOIs. A spokesperson for the YJB says it introduced a child-centred approach to young people in custody that is reflected in standards the YJB sets with the Prison Service. When standards fall it can take action - for example, it recently froze placements at Ashfield YOI which was considered unsafe for such large numbers of young offenders to be housed.

According to the YJB, YOTs have many welfare targets including ensuring those with mental health needs are referred to the children and adolescent mental health services for assessment.

These measures are of little comfort to the families of the 15 young offenders who have killed themselves since Jacobs. In contrast to young offenders' treatment in YOIs, those placed in secure units are covered by the Children Act 1989 because they remain under the jurisdiction of social services. This discrepancy is about to be challenged by the Howard League for Penal Reform. At the time of writing, the organisation was due in the High Court to challenge the government's refusal to apply the Children Act to prisons. The organisation is supported by Sir David Ramsbotham and six national children's charities.

According to the Howard League, young people in prisons are routinely treated in ways that elsewhere would trigger a child protection investigation, including excessive use of painful physical restraint by staff and solitary confinement for more than one week. It argues that government policy results in local authorities taking the view that once a child from their area goes into custody they have no further obligation towards them until they are released.

Assistant director Fran Russell says: "We are arguing that the Children Act was deemed to totally challenge the way children are treated by the state and as such it supersedes the Prison Act."

This principle has been successfully argued before, for example with race relations legislation. If the argument is won, it would mean greater involvement from social services, "probably something they don't relish because of the resource implications", says Russell. "But it would make prisons a lot more accountable. We hope that the welfare of the child would become paramount."

Why is the government so resistant to addressing the welfare needs of young offenders? "The government says there's no need [to bring in the Children Act] because it has introduced multi-agency working through youth offending teams," says Russell. The same teams, incidentally, were criticised in the inspectors' report for working in isolation from other services and failing to address child protection issues.

As usual, it boils down to money. To bring YOIs up to the same standard as secure units would cost a small fortune. But what price a life? If the Howard League challenge fails, it will be interesting to see how the government, the YJB and the Prison Service justify their actions to the family of the next young offender who hangs himself.

¹ Children's Rights Alliance for England, Rethinking Child Imprisonment: a report on young offenders institutions, CRAE, 2002

² Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child available from www.unhchr.ch

³ DoH, Safeguarding Children available from www.doh.gov.uk/scg/socialc.htm

"I am afraid for the children still there"  

Two weeks before his trial for street robbery earlier this year, 16-year-old Joseph Scholes slashed his face with a knife in the bedroom of his children's home. There was so much blood the room had to be repainted.   Scholes had a history of attempted suicide, depression and self-harm.

His divorced parents had been involved in a bitter custody battle, after Scholes said he had been sexually abused by a member of his father's family for several years.   When his mother, Yvonne, could no longer cope, he went into a local authority children's home. Days later he went out with a group of young people who committed a street robbery. Scholes pleaded not guilty, and victims and witnesses said he had not stolen anything.  

But Scholes changed his plea to guilty because he was becoming more mentally ill and could not stand the pressure any longer, says Yvonne. Given his state of mind, his two-year sentence to Stoke Heath young offenders institution in March this year came as a shock.  

On arrival he was assessed as at risk and placed in a cell in the health centre. But just two days later this risk was downgraded and he was sent over for "association" time on the normal wing. "We believe other young offenders told him he would be in serious trouble when he moved to the normal wing," says Yvonne.  Just over a week later, he hanged himself. When Yvonne identified his body, he had torn off his fingernails and scratched the word "mum" on his leg. "The mental health assessment let him down," says Yvonne. "I feel saddened, sickened and afraid for the children still there." 

Murdered teenager Milly Dowler went missing around the same time that Scholes killed himself. The media coverage for her case was in stark contrast to Yvonne's experience. Yvonne says: "Nobody cared about Joseph. Yes, he had gone wrong in some respects, but he was ill. Nobody laid wreaths at my door, nobody put it in the paper and I found that very upsetting. It was as if Joseph was of no significance because he was just a boy in a YOI." 

The government cannot bury its head in the sand any longer, says Yvonne. "How can there be children in society who aren't covered by the Children Act? The true crime is that the government is aware that these things are going on, and doing nothing about it. They are like forgotten children."