Monday, 8 April 2019

Prison : Sound Advice

Mention has been made of the recent Justice Committee report on the future of our prison system published on 3rd April last week. It's another big document at 124 pages, but there's a handy summary. The thing is, I can't help wondering how it's all ended up being such a colossal mess when our government has such sound advice available to it?   

Prison population 2022: planning for the future
Sixteenth Report of Session 2017–19

Summary

Over the past 25 years, the prison population has grown significantly from 44,246 in 1993 to 82,384 as at December 2018. Capacity has not kept pace with demand and many prisons are now deemed to be overcrowded. Whilst the number of people in prison has remained roughly stable since 2012, the amount spent on prisons has fallen in recent years. The Ministry of Justice currently has a gap in its finances across 2018–19 and 2019–20 which equates to £1.2 billion. We heard that this equates to a reduction in the prison population of roughly 20,000 prisoners. We conclude that ploughing funding into building prisons to accommodate prison projections is not a sustainable approach in the medium or long-term.T here must be a focus on investing in services to reduce the £15 billion annual cost of reoffending and prevent offenders from continually returning to prison, thereby reducing the size of the prison population. 

David Gauke, the Justice Secretary, set out in his speech on prisons in February 2019 that there is a very strong case to abolish sentences of six months or less altogether. We agree with him and recommend that the Government should introduce a presumption against sentences of less than six months. We believe that this approach will be more financially sustainable and will do more to reduce the cost of reoffending to society. We further recommend that when changes are being made to sentencing legislation in Parliament, the Ministry considers what more it might do to make Parliamentarians aware of the likely impact on increasingly restrained resources. 

We conclude in this Report that the ability of former prisoners and those on community sentences to access appropriate support in the community is vital to supporting their rehabilitation and reducing reoffending in the future, potentially reducing the repeated use of imprisonment. We welcome the Government’s recognition of the need for the new iteration of the Transforming Rehabilitation programme to address the shortcomings of the previous one in terms of funding for probation services. 

The nature of the prison population is rapidly changing. A higher proportion of offenders are in prison for serious violent or sexual offences. The average age of the prison population is also rising. Many prisoners have mental health problems, making it difficult for them to navigate the criminal justice system, and levels of literacy are often low. All these factors and others make managing the current cohort of prisoners extremely challenging. 

Our Inquiry also heard that the rise in the prison population in recent years has resulted from a greater proportion of those convicted being given a custodial sentence and custodial sentences becoming longer. This has been driven by a complex set of factors. The most significant explanation has been legislative factors created by a series of political and policy choices by successive Governments and parliaments. 

The Ministry has rightly focussed on safety and decency in prisons, however this has come directly at the expense of rehabilitation and purposeful activity. The Ministry needs to refocus its efforts to maintain a dual approach to maintain safety and decency, as well as improve rehabilitation. We heard during our Inquiry that regime restrictions related to staffing shortages and other disruptions severely undermine the delivery of rehabilitative services including education, mental health treatment, substance misuse treatment and offending behaviour programmes. This results in immeasurable wasted costs and does not represent an efficient or effective use of funds. The nature of regimes and restricted access to rehabilitative activities has a cyclical impact on the degradation of regimes and safety, owing to the boredom and frustration of prisoners enduring impoverished regimes, which can in turn lead to violence and self-harm. 

We also found that, whilst progress made on the Prison Estates Transformation Programme is welcome, the new-for-old strategy is not working as intended. Sites for new prisons have proven difficult to obtain, older and decrepit prisons have been forced to remain open owing to population pressures and receipts from the sale of existing sites do not cover the cost of building new prisons. The backlog of maintenance continues to grow, and many prisoners continue to live in cells designed for fewer people. On the Ministry’s current spending trajectory, it will take many years before these major issues are resolved. We recommend that as part of its Justice 2030 project the Ministry develops a realistic, properly costed, long-term estate strategy, that enables it to meet the needs of an ever-changing prison population. This should include provision for trials of alternative approaches for accommodating and caring for elderly and otherwise infirm prisoners, for women who do not represent a high risk to the public, and for the treatment of young adults to resolve the long-standing anomaly of the sentence to detention in a young offender institution no longer meaning that they are accommodated in suitably specialist provision. 

This Report finds that we are now in the depths of an enduring crisis in prison safety and decency that has lasted five years and is taking significant additional investment to rectify, further diverting funds from essential rehabilitative initiatives that could stem or reverse the predicted growth. There is a grave risk that we become locked in a vicious cycle of prisons perpetually absorbing huge amounts of criminal-justice related spending, creating a perverse situation in which there is likely to be more “demand” for prison by sentencers in areas where they have less access to effective community alternatives. 

We conclude that addressing the crisis in the sustainability of our prisons calls for a serious open public debate about the criminal justice system, the role that prison can and cannot play, and its affordability. We are pleased that the Prisons Minister and Justice Secretary have acknowledged this, but, regardless of the political climate, this cannot be just a long-term aspiration. We call for greater transparency to enable the public and others to understand the true costs and the challenging and testing nature of decisions which need to be made about public spending on prisons and other aspects of criminal justice. This should form the first step of the Justice Secretary’s ‘national conversation’ about these matters, which cannot continue to be hidden behind either prison gates or within the Ministry of Justice.

19 comments:

  1. Life After Lock-up, Channel 4 — a snakes-and-ladders game of rehabilitation and reoffending

    Channel 4’s previous documentary series Prison painted a harrowing portrait of life in jail but, as a new three-parter shows, some ex-offenders think back longingly on their stretches when compared with Life After Lock-Up (Monday, 10pm). Prison gives you “everything you need,” says downbeat Jason (six months for assault and affray). “Warm, dry, getting fed,” is what it means to drug-addicted Gemma (six weeks for shoplifting), who, having no alternative, has to go back to living in a car park in Swindon. The series follows eight prisoners in the weeks following their release. Given that half of ex-cons swiftly reoffend and end up back in jail, can they beat the bleak statistics?

    Accommodation is the first hurdle. The most serious offender, Chris, who served 32 years for murder, is welcomed back by his family (“Live your life now, our kid!”), as is burglar Azhar. Good-looking Rhys, another addict in his early twenties, who’s spent 34 out of the last 38 months in jail, has been forbidden the family home to protect young siblings. Unable even to keep to the minimal behavioural standards of his hostel, he’s drifting back to Weston-super-Mare and the bad crowd he used to mix with. Mother Joy agrees to take him in with a heavy heart. “He’s made everybody’s life hell.” An abject Rhys is long on apologies but low on the will to change. Joy’s is the most heartfelt and meaningful iteration of the word “Kids!” you will hear all year.

    There are some unexplained anomalies. Azhar is immediately found comfortable quarters by the council when he decides he can no longer stand his devout Muslim family’s judgmental attitude — they hide their bags and car keys whenever he’s around. Jason, severely depressed, is met at the prison gates by a charity worker and spends his first night on the outside in a Premier Inn, again paid for by the council. So why is chaotic, vulnerable Gemma, teeth missing after an alleged assault by her ex-partner and clearly suffering with mental issues, still living in a car park and resorting to sex work to make ends meet? Someone even pays her £40 for a sex-free “girlfriend experience”. That must have been quite the night.

    Chris enjoys walking in nature — trees are one of the things prison doesn’t supply — but one excursion takes him near the community home where he was abused by a member of staff. None of the ex-prisoners attempt to mitigate their crimes, though Chris explains that “he [the victim] represented all the shit in my life.” On “life licence”, Chris could be returned to prison at any time. In this loaded snakes-and-ladders game, it’s almost inevitable that one of the group is back behind bars by the end of the programme. As Azhar observes: “There’s a high success rate of failure.”

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here we go round the mulberry bush
    The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
    Here we go round the mulberry bush
    So early in the morning

    More equivocal gibberish, this time from Justice Committee:

    The Report says "The Ministry has rightly focussed on safety and decency in prisons...", yet it also says:

    "Capacity has not kept pace with demand and many prisons are now deemed to be overcrowded... the amount spent on prisons has fallen in recent years... ploughing funding into building prisons to accommodate prison projections is not a sustainable approach... The backlog of maintenance continues to grow, and many prisoners continue to live in cells designed for fewer people... we are now in the depths of an enduring crisis in prison safety and decency that has lasted five years... We conclude that addressing the crisis in the sustainability of our prisons calls for a serious open public debate about the criminal justice system..."

    Meanwhile, in a parallel universe:

    "We welcome the Government’s recognition of the need for the new iteration of the Transforming Rehabilitation programme to address the shortcomings of the previous one in terms of funding for probation services."

    The shortcomings are NOT the funding per se, the MoJ have proved they've plenty of cash to throw at the CRCs - its the way those funds are used. And you can have weeks, months or years of "serious open public debate"; the trick is to listen, to hear & to act accordingly.

    And what do they do? They just roll out TR2 regardless, defiantly ignoring the evidence, pretending the catastrophic effects of TR1 are nothing to do with them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sound advice which government have had twice now. To ignore sound advice once looks like misfortune, to ignore it twice looks like carelessness (to misquote) or, alternatively, to be so blinded by the vested interests of your party and advice from civil servants you have required to invest, that you will not grasp the easily graspable nettle. All they have to do is reinstate the CRC staff in the government owned companies, ease them back from whence they came, and have a Big Think about the future. Even if you believed that The Market is the place for rehabilitation, to believe that you can rewrite the whole system and the contracts in the time now available is beyond rationality

    ReplyDelete
  4. Email off Ian Mulholland, Interserve to say salary discussions ongoing (regarding shortening scales) with NAPO and unison but, in the interim, we are getting our annual increment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They're taking the piss, as ever. 1% payrise in 10 years "but, in the interim, we are getting our annual increment".

      What do you think they are paying Mulholland? Why do you think he baled from the Public Sector? He's pocketing your money.

      Delete
    2. https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/Justice/correspondence/chair-interserve-300118.pdf

      Delete
    3. Robert Neill MP
      House of Commons
      London
      SW1A 0AA
      31 st January 2018

      Dear Mr Neill,
      Further to the Justice Committee hearing into Transforming Rehabilitation on 30th January 2018, I wanted to write to you in order to clarify one specific point put forward by your witness Ian Lawrence of NAPO.
      Naturally, as the parent company of Purple Futures, we followed the session with interest.

      In reply to a question by your colleague Gavin Newlands MP about the different functions of the NPS and
      CRCs, Mr Lawrence stated that CRCs are “in a very bad place” and that when “you look at people like
      Interserve who only a few months ago were boasting that they were in a good place and have now had two
      or three profit warnings in recent times. You have a mini Carillion developing here.”

      It is important to note that Interserve is in a stable position, indeed the Cabinet Office stated on 17th
      January 2018 that it continues to “monitor the financial health of all of our strategic suppliers, including Interserve. We are in regular discussions with all these companies regarding their financial position. We do not believe that any of our strategic suppliers are in a comparable position to Carillion.”
      Nevertheless, given some of the financial challenges we have experienced in recent months, the Cabinet
      Office are of course following our progress closely and in turn, we are keeping them fully appraised of our
      progress, as would be expected. However, we are not currently on any specific ‘watch list’.

      As a result of the action we have taken in recent months the business is stabilising. We are confident that our work to stabilise the business further will provide a sound foundation to continue to serve our service users effectively and underpin our future.
      The utmost priority to us is that we continue to deliver a good level of service: we are continuing to
      recruit probation officers and PSOs, and we always put the quality of service and public protection first.

      We would, of course, be happy to evidence our ongoing performance, recruitment of front line staff and
      professional training to the committee, should you wish.

      I hope the Committee finds this information helpful. We await your report with interest and would request
      that our clarifications are reflected in the final document.

      Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance.

      Yours sincerely
      Ian Mulholland
      Managing Director, Public Sector Interserve

      Delete
    4. Doesn't "we are continuing to recruit" effectively translate to "we don't have enough..."?

      Delete
  5. "We conclude in this Report that the ability of former prisoners and those on community sentences to access appropriate support in the community is vital to supporting their rehabilitation and reducing reoffending in the future... regime restrictions related to staffing shortages and other disruptions severely undermine the delivery of rehabilitative services including education, mental health treatment, substance misuse treatment and offending behaviour programmes. This results in immeasurable wasted costs and does not represent an efficient or effective use of funds... This Report finds that we are now in the depths of an enduring crisis in prison safety and decency that has lasted five years and is taking significant additional investment to rectify, further diverting funds from essential rehabilitative initiatives that could stem or reverse the predicted growth... addressing the crisis in the sustainability of our prisons calls for a serious open public debate about the criminal justice system... We call for greater transparency to enable the public and others to understand the true costs and the challenging and testing nature of decisions which need to be made about public spending on prisons and other aspects of criminal justice."

    With judicious editing this could be from one of many contributors' submissions to this blog, Jim, albeit with just one passing reference to 'Probation'.

    However, rather than being the unheeded voice of the great unwashed its a very, very costly report that will do nothing to change the MoJ's approach - indeed it more or less endorses what Gauke & co are up to: "We welcome the Government’s recognition of the need for the new iteration of the Transforming Rehabilitation programme to address the shortcomings of the previous one in terms of funding for probation services."

    Sadly its just more self-congratulatory hogwash from a bunch of chums looking after their chums.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Interesting development in sentencing policy. I'm not sure however who will be responsible for the assessments, or how it may impact on probation workloads.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47861873

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Judges handing sentences to criminals with mental illnesses or learning difficulties will have to follow specific guidelines for the first time.

      New draft sentencing guidelines are being issued in England and Wales to ensure that courts are fair when deciding how responsible mentally ill offenders are for their crimes.

      It could see some offenders with mental disorders receive lighter sentences.

      One charity called it a "big step" for the justice system.

      The draft new guidance from the Sentencing Council for England and Wales applies to offenders who are aged 18 and have conditions such as learning disabilities, schizophrenia, depression, post-traumatic stress, dementia and disorders resulting from drug or alcohol misuse.

      It means judges and magistrates would need to consider several questions when determining how much responsibility the mentally-ill offenders bear for their crimes, including:

      Did the individual's condition impair their ability to exercise appropriate judgment, make rational choices or think clearly?

      Did they seek help, and fail to receive appropriate treatment or care?

      Were there any elements of premeditation or pre-planning in the offence?

      If the offender exacerbated their condition by drinking or taking drugs, were they aware of the potential effects of doing so?

      The new guidance does not aim to change sentencing practice but instead provide judges and magistrates with a "clear structure" to follow.

      And just because an offender has such a condition or disorder does not necessarily mean that they will receive a different sentence, the draft guidance says.

      It explains: "In some cases the condition may mean that culpability is significantly reduced, in others, the condition may have no relevance to culpability."

      Judge Rosa Dean, a member of the Sentencing Council, said: "The offender's mental health is just one element that the courts must consider, and the guideline strives to balance the rights and needs of offenders with protecting the public, the rights of victims and families, and their need to feel safe."

      And Lucy Schonegevel, from the charity Rethink Mental Illness, said: "This is a big step towards the justice system having a better understanding of mental illness, as it's the first time there will be specific sentencing guidelines in this area."

      The Sentencing Council said data suggests that people in the criminal justice system are more likely to suffer from mental health problems than the general population.

      According to a 2017 report, nearly one quarter (23%) of inmates arriving at prison had previously been in contact with mental health services.

      A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "It is vital the courts have clear and consistent guidance in these often complex cases, so that an offender's mental health is addressed and the public kept safe."

      The draft guidance, which is subject to consultation, must be followed unless a judge or magistrate considers it is not in the interests of justice to do so.

      It will be used alongside current guidelines, which exist to ensure that sentences are consistent across different courts. The Sentencing Council has a range of guidelines on different factors.

      Currently, pre-sentence reports are compiled for offenders, which can help the court decide which sentence to pass. Rethink Mental Illness charity says these can include information about mental health problems or drug and alcohol issues, for example.

      Delete
    2. Used to be de rigeur in the PSRs of olden times, when adjournments for psychiatric, psychological or other specialist assessments were recommended & encouraged when dealing with someone who had mental health complications.

      Funding was often the only sticking point - not helped by a few unscrupulous grasping arseholes who would exploit these adjournments in order to bump up their income i.e. lawyers, psychiatrists, psychologists.

      Delete
    3. Oh for the the 'olden times'! From the early days of this blog 'More on PSR's'26th Feb 2011:-

      As a result of skilfull and attentive interviewing, it's not unknown for significant issues to be picked up at this stage for the very first time. Two that spring immediately to mind are a history of sexual abuse or an unrecognised learning disability. In the case of the former understandably victims will have buried painful experiences very deep and disclosure may not surface until years later and when dysfunctional behaviours are played out in the form of some form of criminal activity. In the case of the latter, incredibly a significant number of people in my experience get to early adulthood without a learning disability being properly diagnosed. In both circumstances I feel it is important to bring the information to the attention of the court before sentence is passed, and sometimes with a request for a specialist report from a clinical psychologist.

      To be honest, even as I write this I realise that many colleagues are simply not prepared to stick their neck out at PSR stage and risk going back to the court either with a Nil Report or full report recommending further adjournment for a specialist report. I can understand why because the whole system is now geared up for speed and supposed efficiency, but I need to point out that it is only at this pre-sentence stage that a specialist report and diagnosis can be obtained. It is the only point at which funding is available and it will be appreciated that it is only when there has been a definitive diagnosis that appropriate treatment can be identified or even arranged as part of any plan for rehabilitation.

      I have often been told that cost is a factor. Clinical Psychology reports are not cheap and significantly more expensive than Psychiatric Reports. But is it not worth society spending the money at this stage in getting to really understand what lies behind a persons offending and identify a route for treatment, than paying much more further down the line in terms of more offending and costly incarceration? Research continually shows how many people are in prison with either mental health issues, learning disability or psychological damage. It's at the PSR stage that these can be identified by skilled probation officers and who sometimes request specialist reports as a result. Can I make a plea to sentencers for such rare suggestions to be heeded, as potentially they could be hugely beneficial to us all in the long term. Thanks.

      https://probationmatters.blogspot.com/2011/02/more-on-psrs.html

      Delete
    4. https://www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-london-47862354?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s

      Delete
    5. Thirteen prison officers had to be taken to hospital after being assaulted by teenagers at a young offenders institution (YOI), it has emerged. The officers were among about 20 staff attacked during an outbreak of violence at the weekend at Feltham YOI in west London. One officer suffered a broken nose and another was concussed after being repeatedly punched.

      The Prison Service said the assaults were "completely unacceptable". Several members of staff were bitten during the disturbance in the section of the YOI known as Feltham A which accommodates 150 boys, most of whom are aged 16 and 17. The other part of the facility, Feltham B, holds young offenders aged 18 to 21.

      A prison minibus was used to drive injured officers to hospital - they were all later discharged. The prisoners involved will face adjudication hearings in the next 72 hours and could be referred to the police.

      A Prison Service spokesperson said: "We will never tolerate violence against our staff and will push for the strongest possible punishment, which could lead to them spending more time behind bars." It also offered its sympathies to the "hard-working and committed" staff who were caught up in the violence.

      Mark Fairhurst, chairman of the Prison Officers' Association (POA), said violence had been escalating at Feltham for a number of weeks partly due to changes in the way it deals with inmates who misbehave. Until December last year, they could be locked in a cell in the segregation block, known as the Care, Separation and Reintegration Unit, which is located in Feltham B.

      But after the High Court ruled in 2017 that a 16-year-old had been held unlawfully in the block, and inspectors described the regime there as "impoverished" and "punitive", its use for younger boys was reduced and eventually stopped. Mr Fairhurst criticised the decision saying the lack of effective punishments for the most challenging prisoners was putting staff at risk. "We shouldn't be afraid to use sanctions," he said. He tweeted that the POA would "support staff and push for prosecutions".

      His members held meetings outside the jail on Monday to discuss their concerns and had talks with the Governor. As an alternative to segregation, a new section in Feltham A, known as the Falcon Unit, began operating in March to give the most challenging boys extra support.

      The Prison Service said it would contain "calm down" rooms by the end of the month. Last month, the Independent Monitoring Board, which carries out regular visits to Feltham, warned the government that it needed to take "urgent measures" to make Feltham safer after a rise in gang-related violence.

      In its annual report it said: "It is clear from talking to prisoners and staff that many prisoner-on-prisoner assaults and multi-prisoner fights are 'organised' and happen as a result of gang activity on the outside."

      Delete
  7. Now on R4 'you&yours' about stress at work - very interesting

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was harrowing hearing how so many are experiencing violence & violation in their workplace. It reminded me of the university research piece you highlighted a while back

      Delete
  8. Great piece at 13:47, JB. Its such a pity that a vast pool of knowledge & experience has been discarded & dismissed by career ideologues & MoJ gophers; Gauke, Stewart & those at HMPPS who can read ought to be tapping into it rather than blanking it. Maybe the 'new broom' will appreciate what's available via this blog?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Repeat after me....OMIC is a car crash

    ReplyDelete