Transcript Slide 1

Shared Lives for Offenders?
Professor Chris Fox
Manchester Metropolitan University
Chris Fox
•
Professor of Evaluation at Manchester
Metropolitan University
•
•
Interests include:
•
•
•
•
•
Director: Policy Evaluation and Research Unit
Criminal justice reform
Payment by Results
Social Innovation
Young people’s economic and political participation
Advisory roles
•
•
•
•
Home Office Economic Research Advisory Group
Ministry of Justice Evaluation Consultation Group
Greater Manchester Reducing Re-offending Steering
Group
Advisor to Interserve (FTSE 250 company)
Overview
•
•
•
•
The Criminal Justice System
Offenders
Opportunities for Shared Lives
Commissioning
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Custodial sentences
• Standard Determinate Sentences
•
•
•
12 months plus
Half in community / half in prison
License condition includes probation supervision
• Determinate Extended Sentences
•
•
48 months plus
Judge sets length of time in prison and on license
• Imprisonment for Public Protection
•
•
Parole hearing for release
License is for 10 years
• Life imprisonment
•
•
Tariff set by court
Released on life license – sentence never revoked
Sentences which include supervision
• Community Order (Criminal Justice Act 2003)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Compulsory (unpaid) work
Participation in any specified activities
Accredited programmes aimed at changing offending behaviour
Prohibition from certain activities
Curfew
Exclusion from certain areas
Residence requirement
Mental health treatment (with consent of the offender)
Drug treatment and testing (with consent of the offender)
Alcohol treatment (with consent of the offender)
Supervision
Attendance
Most common requirements in red
Reconviction rate
• The latest adult reconviction rate for adults
discharged from custody or who start a court order
is 36.2% reconvicted within 12 months (Ministry of Justice
2011)
• The reconviction rate for all custodial sentences is
44.8% (Ministry of Justice 2011)
•
The reconviction rate custodial sentences less than 1 year
is 56.8%
• The reconviction rate for Community Orders is
36.8% (Ministry of Justice 2011)
The rising prison population
160
16000
140
14000
120
12000
100
10000
80
8000
60
6000
40
4000
20
2000
0
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Total Prison Population (per 100,000) and Total Offences (per 100,000)
Cost of prison
• £45,000 per prisoner per year plus £170,000
to build and maintain each new place (Prison Reform
Trust 2010)
• Total penal expenditure increased from
£2.843bn in 1995 to £4.325bn in 2006 (all at
2006 prices) (Prison Reform Trust 2010)
•
In 2009-10 it was £4.385bn
Cost of community sentence
• National Audit Office estimated that in 2008:
•
•
•
A highly intensive 2 year community order, involving
twice-weekly contact with a probation officer, 80 hours of
unpaid work and mandatory completion of accredited
programmes would cost £4,200 per offender.
The estimated cost of a more typical one-year order
involving probation supervision and drug treatment was
£1,400.
A six-week stay in prison cost, on average, £4,500
OFFENDERS
Prisoners
• Average age of those sentenced to custody in 2006
was 27
•
•
A quarter was aged 21 or under
30th June 2009: 7,532 prisoners aged over 50, including
1,999 aged between 60 and 69 and 539 over 70.
• 20–30% of offenders have learning disabilities or
difficulties that interfere with their ability to cope
with the CJS
• 72% of male and 70% of female sentenced prisoners
suffer from 2 or more mental health disorders.
All figures from Prison Reform Trust (2010)
Short-term sentences
• Over 60,000 adults per year receive custodial
sentences of less than 12 months
• On any given day they make up around 9% of all
prisoners
•
But account for some 65% of all sentenced admi
• Majority of short sentences are for 3 months or less
(only 10%) are for more than six months.
•
Therefore most serve less then 6 weeks as automatically
released when they have served half their sentence
National Audit Office 2009
Short term prisoners
• Short-sentenced prisoners are most
commonly convicted of theft and violence
offences.
• On average, they have 16 previous
convictions (more than any other group of
offenders).
• They are also more likely to re-offend than
any other group leaving prison
National Audit Office 2009
The problem
• Homelessness, unemployment, substance abuse,
mental health and other problems affect shortsentenced offenders more than other prisoners and
they are the group leaving prison most likely to reoffend, but:
•
•
Unless they are 18 – 21 they receive no statutory
supervision on release
The majority spend 45 days or less in custody and wait, on
average, for 26 days to get access to a resettlement
activity
National Audit Office 2009
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED LIVES
Specified activity
• A ‘specified activity’ requirement in a
community sentence
• West Yorkshire Probation Trust Pilot
Rather than probation staff presenting presentence report to court the court specifies one
of 3 levels of punishment but doesn’t specify the
actual elements of the sentence.
• Probation staff then assess offenders after
sentencing to determine the activities which will
be required as part of their community sentences.
•
Housing provision
• Housing regularly cited as a factor in re-offending for
offenders leaving prison and on community sentence.
• Social Exclusion Unit (2002) Reducing Re-offending by ExPrisoners:
•
“Research suggests that stable accommodation can make a difference
of over 20 per cent in terms of reduction in reconviction.”
• Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR)
•
•
37% of all prisoners stated that they would need help finding a place
to live when released.
Of those offenders who needed help with finding a place to live after
custody, 65% were reconvicted within one year of release, compared
with 45% who did not feel they required help.
Vision Housing
History
Clients
• Set up in January 2007 and panLondon
• A London-based housing charity
and social enterprise.
• Set up by ex-offenders and many
of the staff and volunteers
involved are ex-offenders.
• Referrals come from local
authorities, the prison service,
probation trusts, third sector
organisations and self-referral.
• Has housed and supported over
650 clients since 2007.
• Clients typically have multiple
problems including debt,
substance misuse, domestic
violence, involvement with gangs
and poor mental and physical
health.
• Vision Housing’s service starts
with an offer of housing and it is
often able to provide
accommodation on the day of
release. It provides housing and
unlimited on-going support.
Methodology
• The evaluation design compared expected re-offending
rates after one year calculated using Offender Group
Reconviction Scale (OGRS3) with actual reoffending rates
after one year based on data from the Police National
Computer (PNC).
• ‘Proven re-offending’ in line with MoJ definition:
•
“[A]ny offence committed in a one year follow-up period and
receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in
the one year follow up or a further six months waiting period.”
(Ministry of Justice 2011: 3)
• Analysis of 400 clients referred to Vision Housing between
2007 - April 2011 and who had a previous conviction.
Findings
Headline finding:
Nine per cent reduction in one year re-offending rates
for whole cohort.
Profile of client group:
• Four fifths of client male and a fifth female.
• Almost half were aged between 20 and 29.
• At the point they were referred to Vision Housing average
predicted reconviction rate of 41 per cent.
Integrated Offender Management
• IOM builds on and expands current offenderfocused programmes, such as PPO, MAPPA and DIP
• IOM provides a local framework for agencies to
come together to ensure that the offenders whose
crime causes most damage locally are targeted in a
co-ordinated way,
• It manages a selected and locally defined cohort of
offenders
• Regardless of whether they are under statutory
supervision or not.
5 IOM Principles
• “All partners tackling offenders together - local partners, both criminal justice
and non- criminal justice agencies, encourage the development of a multiagency problem-solving approach by focussing on offenders, not offences.
• Delivering a local response to local problems - all relevant local partners are
involved in strategic planning, decision-making and funding choices.
• Offenders facing their responsibility or facing the consequences - offenders are
provided with a clear understanding of what is expected of them.
• Making better use of existing programmes and governance - this involves
gaining further benefits from programmes such as the PPO programme, DIP and
Community Justice to increase the benefits for communities. This will also
enable partners to provide greater clarity around roles and responsibilities.
• All offenders at high risk of causing serious harm and/or re-offending are ‘in
scope’ - intensity of management relates directly to severity of risk, irrespective
of position within the criminal justice system or whether statutory or nonstatutory.” (Ministry of Justice 2010a)
COMMISSIONING
Marketisation
• “We will introduce a ‘rehabilitation revolution’ that
will pay independent providers to reduce reoffending,
paid for by the savings this new approach will generate
within the criminal justice system.” (HM Government
2010 Coalition Agreement)
• “The Government … intends to use the scope provided
by the 2007 Act to open significantly more probation
services to competition, including some aspects of
offender management.” (MoJ (2012) Punishment and Reform: Effective
Probation Services)
Payment by results
• Payment by results “will link payment to
the outcomes achieved, rather than the
inputs, outputs or processes of a service”
Cabinet Office (2011: 9)
• Payment by results allows the
government to pay a provider of services
on the basis of the outcomes their service
achieves rather than the inputs or
outputs the provider delivers.
Social Impact Bonds
• In PBR payment arises after outcomes are known,
which might involve substantial time delays. Key
challenge is that of raising working capital (Mulgan et
al. 2010).
• The Social Impact Bond will be used to raise capital for
social projects.
• A branch of national or local government will agree to
pay for a measurable, social outcome and this
prospective income is used to attract new funds to
meet the up-front costs of the activity (Mulgan et al.
2010).
•
The new funds could come from the public sector, the private
sector or a social investor (ibid).
Potential benefits
Greater Efficiency
Greater Innovation
By focusing reward on outcomes,
and providing minimal
prescription on how these should
be achieved PbR will drive greater
efficiency in tackling social
problems.
Focus on outcomes and reduced
focus on commissioners ‘micromanaging’ delivery processes will
encourage greater innovation.
Transfer of risk and deferred
payment
New market entrants
PbR transfers risk away from the
branch of government
commissioning the service and
towards the service provider.
Payment is also deferred.
PbR can provide opportunities for
new market entrants (particularly
from the private and not-for-profit
sectors) to enter the market for
provision.
Community Budgets