Reimagine reducing reoffending
KPMG's Chloe Burton offers her thoughts on how the introduction of a Prisoner Performance Manager could help reduce reoffending by incentivising good behaviour through support provisions that go beyond the prison walls.
Cutting crime
Reducing reoffending is one of the biggest challenges facing the British justice system. Currently, 46% of those released from prison commit another offence within 12 months – creating over 26,000 new victims every year¹, whilst jeopardising their own chances of turning their lives around.
This level of recidivism undermines the effectiveness of public services, and creates massive additional costs. The Ministry of Justice and Home Office sit at the sharp end, while their staff endlessly process repeat offenders rather than concentrate on prevention or rehabilitation. The effects are felt across the public sector. Local authorities and the Department of Work & Pensions must provide accommodation and a basic income for released prisoners unable or unwilling to find work. The Department of Health handle the mental and physical health impacts of long-term drug addictions and violent crime. Social services must cope with the impact of repeated offending on families – including the creation of new generations of offenders.
Government knows the importance of addressing reoffending and spend millions providing prisoners with education, training and counselling. But participation is generally voluntary, and interventions aren’t carefully targeted to address the challenges facing each individual.
Within the prison environment, many criminals are reluctant to admit that they have issues such as illiteracy or addiction - and the long-term benefits of addressing their problems are often lost behind the hard realities of life behind bars. So many offenders leave prison without having tackled the challenges that brought them there; and once alone on the outside many slide back into criminality.
Incentivising beyond the prison gates
Let’s reimagine the potential here to provide support in the form of a Personal Performance Manager, assigned to each prisoner, whose role would be to oversee rehabilitation. Based on a mentoring approach combined with incentives - rehabilitation and reward would be driven through a single programme.
Offenders on entry to prison, would be interviewed by a performance manager, who would identify factors most likely to lead to the individual reoffending. Prisoners would be asked to participate and help identify and fill gaps based on their needs, also taking into consideration needs post release.
Following these mandatory one to one assessments, a bespoke programme of interventions could be tailored to offer support both during an offender’s sentence and for and agreed period after release. Accompanying this rehabilitation programme would be an incentivised scheme, rewarding those who actively address issues and display good behaviour whilst inside. The performance manager would also be responsible for supporting and encouraging a prisoner’s self-development, ensuring that targets are met within the sentence plan, approving incentives.
Prisoners who participate by completing elements of their tailored plan – e.g. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, English GCSE or a skills based course, would be entitled to earned benefits. For example - those prisoners who have lost their homes could receive additional transitional housing following their sentence, and support or funds to help them secure new permanent accommodation. Those without work could benefit from additional Job Seekers Allowance, basic qualifications or a supported programme to help them back into work. Those who’ve damaged family relationships might be provided with personal development classes or the services of a family mediator in the weeks after their release.
It would also be important to address some of the wider problems that hinder an offenders’ ability to keep on the straight and narrow. Those with mental health problems could receive treatment in prison, and mentoring or support services after release. Those with drug problems could benefit from addiction counselling whilst inside, and in providing accommodation or activities that help them steer clear of bad influences. Those facing the longest and most onerous job-hunts could even be offered more flexible terms around the provision of jobseekers’ allowance, giving them more time before securing work.
Prisons currently adopt a national ‘Incentives and Earned Privileges’ scheme - those who behave well, attend training courses and contribute to prison life can earn luxuries such as TVs, personal possessions and the right to wear their own clothes. This programme is an integral part of a the day to day running of a prison but its incentives end at the prison gates; not designed to help prisoners tackle their offending behaviour once on the outside.
Researchers and prisoners themselves are clear about the problems that most often lead to reoffending. Whilst offenders are on the inside, many lose their homes, jobs, and connections to family and community which makes it far harder to integrate back into society. The rehabilitation programme designed would focus on the greatest risks, in order to help minimise those risks and reduce reoffending.
One strike and you’re out
In order to win public approval for this type of programme, it must be very clear that incentives have to be earned - only awarded through a prisoner’s active engagement and results. In order to work, this programme would have to offer offenders things that they value – and for some media commentators, prisoners’ entitlements end at food and water. But this programme isn’t about entitlements – it’s about earned rewards. Presented as a tough regime that offers benefits for those trying to turn their lives around; it would no longer be possible for offenders to earn privileges simply for behaving well inside, whilst refusing to address their criminal behaviour.
The programme would also have to ensure that prisoners couldn’t play the system. Offenders could behave well and participate in order to earn benefits following release and then reoffend. The obvious solution here is a ‘one strike and you’re out’ rule, under which people who’ve reoffended following their participation in the programme wouldn’t be eligible to participate again.
Perhaps the greatest challenge, though, would be the task of lining up funding and services required for the programme. Rather than providing a set budget to meet the needs of the UK’s prison population, the departments funding education, training, mental health and drug treatment services would have to serve all those offenders who’ve earned the rewards set out in their development programme. And when committed and well-behaved offenders left prison, their support packages would call on those providing services such as housing, job support, counselling and benefits. To trial this approach, a pilot scheme could provide a good indication of how successful this programme could be.
Ending the offending life-cycle
In the long term, investments would help tackle some of the missed opportunities produced by our failing rehabilitation system. If the UK could cut its reoffending rate, the savings would reach far beyond policing and criminal justice – reducing demand for benefits, healthcare and social services. So this would be a long-term investment, producing long-term rewards. To calm concerns in those departments required to commit resources up front, ministers could divert the cash savings accrued the police, courts, probation and prisons – to repay investments by health, education, housing and employment services.
Taking a more personalised and incentivised approach to rehabilitation would ensure that government is delivering the right interventions to tackle each individual’s offending.
This new holistic approach could, in time, generate not only big savings across government, but also provide huge social and community benefits. Happier families and communities. Less economic drag. Falling rates of drug addiction, unemployment, homelessness and violent acts. A drop in the number of people wasting their lives in criminality and prison sentences. And, above all, fewer victims of crime. What we’re doing now isn’t working. Perhaps it’s time to try something new.
Chloe Burton is a manager in KPMG’s Government practice, where she focuses on business transformation and customer experience.
This article is one of a series of thought experiments in which KPMG staff imagine new ways for government to achieve public policy objectives. This might mean building services around the user rather than the provider, or drawing on the huge potential of data and digital technologies, or tapping into the power of markets, new incentives, transparency, or the wisdom of crowds.
In every case, it involves fresh ideas. To channel our thinking, we imposed three rules: 1) Ideas must be designed to produce better public outcomes without increasing the burden on the taxpayer; 2) they must align with the government’s philosophy and headline policies; and 3) they must be realistic and deliverable. But within these rules we want to step outside conventional thinking, and test out new ideas on how public policy goals can be achieved. We want to stretch ourselves, applying new technologies and techniques to solve old problems. We are not calling for a specific future – but we are reimagining it.
I highlighted that article yesterday Jim because I found it quite disturbing. To me, it's simplicity and nieviety and it's base assumption that if you get the carrot and stick proportions right, you'll get the right response from the offender. I was also quite shocked by...
ReplyDelete"The programme would also have to ensure that prisoners couldn’t play the system. Offenders could behave well and participate in order to earn benefits following release and then reoffend. The obvious solution here is a ‘one strike and you’re out’ rule, under which people who’ve reoffended following their participation in the programme wouldn’t be eligible to participate again."
I mean what happens then? Does some private company get sold the failed offenders soul?
I guess in some ways it has an echo of how probation used to be when it functioned under the banner of advise, assist and befriend, but it doesn't have any recognition of the complexities that lead people to offend in the first place.
I guess what I found most disturbing was that the concept was being floated by someone with no real knowledge of the CJS, published in a government magazine, for someone in the MoJ to pick up and read and think what a great idea, let's run with this one for awhile.
It was probably something similar that sparked the TR idea in Grayling mind in the first place.
If you want to solicit ideas about rehabilitation, then source them from people that have some knowledge in that field.
'Getafix'
Here's something else that may be of interest to some readers, and maybe it's also something that was once extended by probation in bygone years.
Deletehttp://www.insidetime.org/life-enhancing-opportunities/
'Getafix '
The University of the Third Age (U3A) movement is a unique organisation which provides, by way of numerous U3A groups throughout the UK, life-enhancing and life-changing opportunities for people aged 50 plus and is particularly suitable for those leaving prison. Members share many educational, creative and leisure activities which are organised mainly in small groups that meet regularly. Through sharing their knowledge, skills and experience, members learn from each other.
DeleteWhichever part of the UK you are returning to upon release from prison there will almost certainly be a U3A group in the area and they are of considerable benefit to isolated former prisoners who wish to integrate and pursue an interest.
Each of the UK’s 996 groups run numerous classes and activities to suit all tastes, including creative writing, photography, chess, art, music, rambling, language courses, painting, current affairs, local history, keep-fit and many more different subjects, so there is something for everyone.
Upon release, anyone interested should contact their local group; a full list of all the U3A groups in the UK can be found at www.u3a.org.uk
Clearly this accountant has never been near a prison and has never actually met any prisoners. Her lovely little theory would fall flat on it's face when it collides with the reality of a severely underfunded prison system, lack of staff and a probation service not fit for purpose. What she describes is clearly a prison system that exists only in the imagination because unless a staggering amount of dosh is thrown at the system and it's completely reimagined from the bottom up not to mention only imprisoning those who fit some imagined criteria it would never ever work in the real world
ReplyDeleteBy the second paragraph, words like naïve and simplistic arose, but I read on. And she is dead right: we need sound assessments and well-resourced programmes that would hopefully incentivise prisoners to cease reoffending. It seems utopian because it's a long way from the current reality that essentially warehouses. But if you want things to be better in the future, then you must invest in the present – sound, socialist penal policy. She is saying if you want to improve things you have to fund it, and so perhaps an unintended consequence of this article is that it draws attention to the dire underfunding and austerity mentality that has cut regimes to the bone.
ReplyDeleteExactly - however I'm not sure how this particular accountant would satisfy KPMG's number one rule:- "Ideas must be designed to produce better public outcomes without increasing the burden on the taxpayer"
DeleteI agree, she breaches rule 1 and 3 for definite, so it's a wonder that this article was ever published in the first place.
DeleteBut if you look closely, dear reader, the bean-counter has thought of everything:
Delete"In the long term, investments would help tackle some of the missed opportunities produced by our failing rehabilitation system. If the UK could cut its reoffending rate, the savings would reach far beyond policing and criminal justice – reducing demand for benefits, healthcare and social services. So this would be a long-term investment, producing long-term rewards. To calm concerns in those departments required to commit resources up front, ministers could divert the cash savings accrued the police, courts, probation and prisons – to repay investments by health, education, housing and employment services."
Okay, she's thought of everything except ... numbskull politicians, Tories in power, LibDem yellah-bellies, right leaning Labour MPs, lickspittles in general, egotistical civil serpents, greedy profiteers, oppoertunists & speculators, erm, and reality in general. Other than that, what have KPMG done for us?
As one of The Big Four, they've done us for every last penny, e.g. advising clients on tax, exploiting conflicts of interest, etc.
Delete"In 2013 a report by the influential UK Commons public accounts committee (PAC) found that the Big Four were using knowledge gained from staff seconded to the Treasury "to help wealthy clients avoid paying UK taxes". The firms, it said, went on to "advise multinationals and individuals on how to exploit loopholes around legislation they had helped to write".
PAC committee chair and former Labour minister Margaret Hodge said the accountancy firms' actions represented a "ridiculous conflict of interest". She called for the Treasury to stop accepting their staff to draw up new tax laws. "The large accountancy firms are in a powerful position in the tax world and have an unhealthily cosy relationship with government," she said.
According to Andrew Simms of the New Economics Foundation, "Conflicts of interest are built into the very DNA of the big professional services firms. These companies are working with firms that need to be regulated and the government bodies that are regulating"."
KPMG made a series of policy changes based on accounting a few years back now. Areas made a mess of implementation did things not required to do and trusts just upset everyone in the muddeled attempt to reduce spending and increase the partnership finance arrangements. KPMG just have no real idea of spending and accounting and the facts on the ground implemented by managers who are not skilled at books balancing. More recently though they are becoming more skilled in books cooking will that help anyone?
DeleteBig four accounting firms get by because "nobody ever got sacked hiring a big for firm". You are the finance director of "Probation is about throughput" and you hire your mate Bob who is a local accountant. Now Bob tells good stories but misses something and costs the shareholders £1000,000. Your career is over because you "hired this nobody thereby proving your lack of judgement". Instead hire KPMG at 10x the cost, they screw up and cost you £10,000,000. You say "Well what could I know, I did hire a market leader" and go on to get a job with their Management Consultant subsidiary. This is why such firms are full of idiots with their thumbs up their bottoms.
DeleteOn point I love the lack of understanding of change as a PROCESS. "If they fail once they will be off the programme" Right there is the proof they know nothing.
Scuse my french but it was fucking idiotic know nothings like this that dreamt up the TR split in the first place...perhaps I should start to advise her company on tax evation or avoidance or screwing the public purse ...these people along with the new brand of ego driven ACE s get right up my nose....
ReplyDeletewhen were the goalposts moved - we've just been told that an order is only successful if 60% of RAR days are completed, this goes against advice given 18mths ago that CRC contact level reporting was once per fortnight for the 1st 8wks then professional judgement thereafter which usually meant putting people on to either monthly to 8 weekly. Left hand right hand springs to mind.
ReplyDeleteJudges & magistrates will be well chuffed to learn that after only 60% of a community sentence has been implemented its regarded as completed & the profiteers can ring up another sale. Still, its 10% more than a term of imprisonment, so it must be a tougher option!!
Deletecourt orders generally say 'up to X RAR days. Professional judgement is being exercised to reduce the days by the sounds of it - person is still on the Order for 12mths but if they get 40 days RAR then 24 = a positive outcome. I cant see magistrates having a problem with that as if at sentencing we'd have said 20 days they would 9 times out of 10 agreed with us - the problem lies with court staff not advising benches adequately but let's not open that can of worms!!
DeleteWho said that about the 60 % and what was it based on? The inspection? We have been told " up to" means any number from 0 and upwards. And that if sentence plan has been achieved then we can put a closing summary on deli is and be done with.
ReplyDeleteLet's hope Antonia Romeo does a better in New York than she did with our Criminal Justice System:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/21/antonia-romeo-the-woman-wholl-make-sure-british-business-keeps-b/
ReplyDeleteAntonia Romeo: The woman who'll make sure British business keeps booming in the US
DeleteThe heat was searing on the streets, fraying tempers and exhausting New York’s habitually harried inhabitants. And yet, perhaps remarkably given the circumstances, across the city it was transatlantic business as usual.
As the Brexit result unfolded across the Pond on the night of June 23, the New York-London business community was keeping its cool.
“These are sophisticated players,” explained Antonia Romeo, the Government’s newly appointed British consul general in the Big Apple, who also holds the new title of director-general economic and commercial affairs USA. “No one is going to panic.”
Her role involves overseeing British trade policy across the US; her ambition, she said, is to “rocket boost” British-US trade. And, despite the vote to leave the EU, she insisted that most of the business and financial leaders she talks to are remaining calm.
“There is definitely no sense that this is a crisis. These are organisations that have been through global crises. And I think there is more of a sense of waiting for the dust to settle.”