Children’s overall experiences and progress at Oakhill Secure Training Centre remained inadequate, according to an inspection report published in July 2026. Inspectors found improvements in several areas since the previous full inspection. But serious concerns remained about how well staff helped and protected a small number of children.
Inspectors said that “although concerns are not widespread, they are serious in how well children are helped and protected”. They found that leaders were still dealing with legacy issues, including some poor staff behaviour that affected children’s safety and wellbeing.
Oakhill, in Milton Keynes, holds boys and girls aged 12 to 18 who are serving custodial sentences or have been remanded by the courts. G4S Care and Justice Services runs the centre. It has places for up to 80 children and held 43, three girls and 40 boys, during the inspection from 15 to 19 June 2026.
How Oakhill is inspected
Secure training centres follow a different inspection framework from adult prisons. Ofsted leads the inspections, working with HM Inspectorate of Prisons and the CQC. Inspectors use Ofsted’s judgements rather than the four healthy prison tests applied to adult jails.
Inspectors judged the overall experiences and progress of children and young people inadequate. Children’s education and learning, children’s health, and the effectiveness of leaders and managers each received a judgement of requires improvement to be good.
The previous full inspection, with a report published in September 2025, also judged Oakhill inadequate. Inspectors returned for a monitoring visit, reported in October 2025, and a short assurance inspection, reported in March 2026. A further monitoring visit followed this inspection in August 2026, with a report published in September 2026.
As a result, although concerns are not widespread, they are serious in how well children are helped and protected, and their overall experiences remain inadequate.
HM Inspectorate of Prisons report
Safeguarding concerns
Inspectors described one incident in which multiple staff did not follow a child’s safety plan. The report said this “could have had the most serious consequences”.
In another incident, staff physically restrained a naked child. Inspectors said poor decisions about which staff should intervene compromised the child’s rights and dignity. It likely affected the child’s emotional wellbeing too.
High levels of violence and use of force affected children’s experiences and wellbeing at the time of the inspection. The safeguarding team did not always explore every aspect of incidents in detail. Some staff were not clear about their safeguarding responsibilities.
Quality assurance systems did not always pick up poor practice or prompt quick action. Leaders mostly took authoritative action against shortfalls, inspectors said, but not always quickly or firmly enough.
Other gaps affected daily life. Evening activities were limited, and some children said they felt bored between mealtimes and bedtime. Staff did not consistently assess whether to monitor individual children’s mail and phone calls for public protection reasons. Nor did they consistently complete key-work packs that help children build life skills.
Where things have improved
An interim director led the first improvements, and a new director took over on 8 December 2025. Leaders had stabilised the workforce and set clearer standards of acceptable practice. Fewer children living at the centre had eased staff workloads. Some staff and children told inspectors the culture felt more child centred.
Investment had made the centre cleaner and more welcoming. Children helped choose colours for their house units and built new planting areas with staff.
Most children spoke positively about residential staff and usually had someone to talk to when worried or sad. Staff respected each child’s faith through individual care plans. Parents gave positive feedback, and visiting arrangements had improved, with regular family days that children enjoyed.
Children knew how to complain and received detailed responses. Independent advocates visited regularly. More children now went out on release on temporary licence, and resettlement planning remained a strength.
Education and health
Inspectors said improvements to education had been too slow, although several changes had come recently. The centre had recruited more staff, added subjects such as construction and business studies, and introduced a pupil passport setting out each child’s targets. Children could now use laptops to build digital skills.
Some children sat GCSE examinations, a few only days after arriving. However, Oakhill lacked a curriculum that would allow teaching of all subjects to GCSE level. Children who stayed a long time sometimes repeated subjects. Inspectors said the recent improvements were in their infancy.
The healthcare provider had made significant progress. Children typically received timely health assessments on admission and had good access to GP, dental, optician and specialist services. Governance and oversight had strengthened. Medicines administration still needed embedding, and not every child with an underlying health need had an appropriate care plan.
About this story
This story is based on HM Inspectorate of Prisons’ report on Oakhill Secure Training Centre, published on 29 July 2026, following an inspection that ended in June 2026. All figures and judgements are the inspectorate’s. Read the full inspection report · See the prison’s profile in our directory.
