Monday, 4 November 2019

Prison, Rehabilitation and Reoffending

Despite all the Parliamentary shenanigans distracting us, there's been a lot going on that concerns our probation world, like this from last week reported in the Guardian:-   

Prisoner rehabilitation does not work, says former prisons boss

A former director general of the Prison Service has said rehabilitation of offenders in jail does not work and should be scrapped.

Sir Martin Narey will say in a speech on Tuesday that research to establish a causal link between rehabilitation and reduced reoffending is lacking and short courses cannot fix problems caused by difficult childhoods.

“The things we did to prisoners, the courses we put them on, the involvement of charities, made little or no difference,” he will tell the International Corrections and Prisons Association conference in Buenos Aires.

Instead, the best the prison estate can offer prisoners is an environment where they are treated with “decency and dignity”, he will say. “Decent prisons in which prisoners are respected seem to provide a foundation for prisoner self-growth. Indecent, unsafe prisons allow no such growth and further damage those who have to survive there.”

He will add: “Stop fretting about rehabilitation. Politely discourage those who will urge you to believe that they have a six-week to six-month course which can undo the damage of a lifetime. The next time someone tells you they have a quick scheme which can transform lives – transform is the word of which you should be particularly suspicious – politely explain that life isn’t that simple.”

--oo00oo--

Rob Allen made a speedy response:-

Don't Forget Rehabilitation: Remember It in Everything A Prison Does

Sir Martin Narey’s call for prisons to “Forget Rehabilitation” was no doubt designed to provoke a reaction and in that the former head of the National Offender Management Service has succeeded. Canadian expert Frank Porporino found Narey’s presentation at the conference of the International Corrections and Prisons Association (ICPA) in Buenos Aires saddening and puzzling because as Narey himself admitted he had, as prisons chief in England and Wales, overseen a big expansion of education and psychological programmes designed to help prisoners change their behaviour. The disappointing results of the latter have led Narey to conclude that “the real and moral challenge is to make imprisonment humane”.

Much of what Narey had to say was uncontroversial. Prisons should be clean, orderly and respectful institutions and ensuring decent everyday conditions and treatment should be given a higher priority than they often are. His warnings about the risks of jails descending into brutality and violence were powerfully made. But is he right that humane containment is the best that prison should strive to achieve?

International law makes clear “the penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation”, and while the reality of most prisons worldwide may be far removed from that lofty ideal, that’s no reason to dismiss it. There’s good evidence that education, vocational training and work in prison reduce recidivism and as a recent manual I drafted for the UN recommends, these need to be expanded not forgotten. It would be a disaster if Narey's headline deters the developing countries represented at ICPA from doing so.

Moreover, without a strong emphasis on rehabilitation, how will prisoners in any jurisdiction be able to prove to a Parole Board that they have made efforts to reduce their risks of re-offending? What conclusions will politicians concerned about violent crime draw about how to protect the public? And how will Prison Services be able to attract the optimistic and skilled staff to work with the people in their care?


Other presentations at ICPA have stressed the need for a more humane and hopeful philosophy and practice in prisons - not in opposition to rehabilitation but as the very foundation of it. A public health approach to incarceration in the US state of Oregon has seen dramatic improvements in wellbeing of prisoners and staff. There and in other states, new practice is informed by prisons in Norway where staff are trained not only as guards but as “facilitators for rehabilitation” and mentors. A similar initiative in Pennsylvania is having to overcome the hurdle of regulations prohibiting fraternisation between staff and prisoners. But good relationships between staff and prisoners is increasingly recognised as the key not only to safe prisons but ones where prisoners can use their time positively.

Shadd Maruna, in a magisterial lecture demolishing the false science of static risk assessment tools, encouraged instead an approach which takes a much fuller account of what has happened to prisoners in their lives - which in many cases includes the experience of trauma. This is not just a matter for psychologists and social workers but for everyone working in prison and making decisions about prisoners.

The emerging consensus is that prisons need both to treat prisoners with dignity and respect and to offer them opportunities to come to terms with what they have done and chart a new course for the future. In fact, you can’t have one without the other. As Debbie Kilroy, the Australian activist and former prisoner told the conference, it's only when prisoners are treated as people and not defined by the worst thing they have done, that they ill take up the opportunities to change.

So, while it may be right to forget the false promise that a short psychological course can repair deep seated problems of disadvantage, a rehabilitative culture should remain a central aim for prisons, alongside all that is required to make it a reality.

Rob Allen

10 comments:

  1. Russell Webster today reporting on MoJ figures published last Thursday:-

    Another set of worst ever prison safety figures

    Deaths
    In the 12 months to September 2019, there were 308 deaths in prison custody (a rate of 3.7 per 1,000 prisoners), a slight decrease from 325 deaths in the previous 12 months (a rate of 3.9 per 1,000 prisoners). The most recent quarter saw the number of deaths increase to 76, up from 73 in the three months to June 2019. Quarterly death figures should be considered with caution due to greater volatility and the potential for seasonal effects.

    Tragically, there were 90 apparent self-inflicted deaths in the 12 months to September 2019 (a rate of 1.1 per 1,000 prisoners), there were 89 in the previous 12 months, and 158 deaths due to natural causes (a rate of 1.9 per 1,000 prisoners), a 9% decrease from 173 deaths the previous 12 months.

    Self-harm
    In the 12 months to June 2019, there were 60,594 reported incidents of self-harm (a rate of 732 per 1,000 prisoners), up 22% from the previous 12 months. On a quarterly basis, the number of incidents in the three months to June 2019 increased to 16,342 (up 13% on the previous quarter), a record high number of quarterly incidents.

    The number of individuals self-harming increased by 5% in the latest 12 months, to the highest recorded figure of 12,740 individuals (a rate of 154 individuals per 1,000 prisoners). The number of incidents per self-harming individual increased by 17%, from 4.1 in the previous 12 months to 4.8 in the latest 12 months, although a small number of prolific self-harmers have a disproportionate impact on this figure. The majority of those who self-harm in prison do so only once. Additional detail on this can be found in the annual self-harm tables.

    The number of self-harm incidents requiring hospital attendance increased by 7% to 3,388 in the 12 months to June 2019, and increased by 24% in the latest quarter (964 incidents). The proportion of incidents that required hospital attendance decreased in the previous 12 months, from 6.4% to 5.6%.

    Assaults
    In the 12 months to June 2019, assault incidents increased by 5% to 34,112, a rate of 412 incidents per 1,000 prisoners. In the latest quarter, there were 8,360 assaults, a decrease of 1% from the previous quarter. The quarterly figure reached a peak of 9,126 in the July to September 2018 quarter.

    The number of incidents in male establishments increased by 4% from 31,210 to 32,586 in the 12 months to June 2019. The number of incidents in female establishments increased by 13% from 1,346 to 1,526 incidents in the same period.
    In the latest quarter, the number of assaults in male establishments decreased by 1% to 8,005, and the number of assaults in female establishments decreased by 14% to 355. Assault rates were higher in male establishments (413 incidents per 1,000 prisoners) than female establishments (401 incidents per 1,000 prisoners) in the latest 12 months.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/nov/03/youth-court-system-in-chaos-says-childrens-commissioner

      Delete
    2. Thanks - am proposing to cover subject of court closures tomorrow, but this gives a flavour:-

      The youth justice system in England and Wales is “chaotic and dysfunctional” following almost a decade of cuts and court closures, the children’s commissioner has warned, after a Guardian investigation found a system plagued by increasing delays, confusion and poor child protection.

      Anne Longfield called for a wholesale review of the youth justice system, saying the youth court was “not a child-friendly environment where you could really help a young person and is not meeting standards that we had hoped”.

      Delete
  2. Narey was always a 'do what I say, not what I do' kinda guy. A shapeshifter for personal gain, a bit like our elected politicians.

    Slight tangent, but in a similar 'do as I say...' vein, the numbers of MPs who have 'changed allegiance' but remained in their seats (and thus continued personally reaping the benefits) since 1979 is interesting. Its higher than I thought.

    Total since 1979 = 170
    In 1981 - 28
    In 2019 - 54 (although this includes some double shifts, e.g. Chuke Umuna from Lab, then Ind to LibDem)

    The Govt's response to a petition seeking automatic by-election in such cases was -

    "There is no requirement for a Member of Parliament to stand down and cause a by-election to be held if they decide to leave the party for which they stood and were elected. Formally, electors cast their vote for individual candidates, and not the political party they represent; although it is recognised that many people vote on the basis of party preference. It is generally agreed that a candidate, if elected to the House of Commons, is not deemed to be a delegate of a particular party, and will hold the office to which they have been elected in a personal capacity.

    When a Member of Parliament decides to leave the party for which they were elected, it is for them to decide whether to stand down from their seat in the House of Commons and seek re-election in the subsequent by-election, or to continue to sit in the House of Commons. Amending the existing law would involve a significant change to our constitutional arrangements, and would raise important issues about the role and status of Members of Parliament, which would need careful consideration. The government currently has no plan to make such changes."

    Looking after Number 1.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If anyone is a member of ICPA perhaps they could post some of the presentations from ICPA, e.g. Prof Shadd Maruna.
    It seems that Narey's presentation isn't available to download.

    https://icpa.org/library_category/2019-conference-buenos-aires/

    ReplyDelete
  4. I get the criticism of Narey, and I understand the arguments put against what he said in his presentation.
    Yet in this current time, and given the state of the CJS at this time, his argument makes a lot of sense to me.
    Prisons aren't institutions where rehabilitation takes place. Whether they should be or not I see as a whole different argument. In the absence of rehabilitation, then its best to focus on providing the things that can be done. Safety, decency and wellbeing.
    I think the whole concept of rehabilitation needs consideration in its own right. For me it's a word that has lost its way, become stretched and ambiguous.
    Where I think Narey is particularly right is his warning on the programmes and courses that aim to transform people's thinking, lives and futures. My personal opinion is that they represent an expensive way to achieve little. A prerequisite with nothing to follow afterwards.
    Giving people the tools needed to be a plumber, dosen't make them a plumber, they've just got stuff they don't know what to do with, and being released from custody homeless, back to the same communities, no money struggling with addiction or mental health issues, they're not going to carry that bag of stuff around for very long.
    The programmes and courses being pedeled do serve a purpose however. It allows the State to say we've done x, y, and z with somebody, and facilitates the agencies within the CJS to operate a target driven, outcome based model that's so very suited to incorporate the private sector.
    If rehabilitation is to be on the order sheet it's needs to be taken far more seriously then it is in today's CJ world. If it's about punishment alone then so be it! But it can't be a concept that's being adopted in a half hearted basis or on the cheap.
    Until the rehabilitation of offenders is taken far more seriously by the state, and much more is being done, criticisms noted, but I personally go with Nareys thinking.

    https://www.varsity.co.uk/opinion/18019

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://esrc.ukri.org/news-events-and-publications/news/news-items/making-rehabilitation-work-for-ex-prisoners/

      Delete
  5. "As Debbie Kilroy, the Australian activist and former prisoner told the conference, it's only when prisoners are treated as people and not defined by the worst thing they have done, that they will take up the opportunities to change."

    Alas, the isolationist, punitive language & terminology of criminal justice in the UK does nothing to support Ms Kilroy's view, and hasn't done so for many years now:

    - offenders
    - offender management
    - NOMS (2004)
    - persistent offender
    - young offender
    - sex offender

    In 'A New Choreography' Eithne Wallis introduced the notion of "more accurate & effective assessment & management of risk and danger" as part of her desire to 'deliver rehabilitation' and to "deliver the Home Secretary's priorities & requirements"

    S.9 of the Offender Management Act'07 came into force on 1. Apr 2008, effectively deleting the Probation Office nomenclature:

    9. Officers of providers of probation services

    (1)In this Part “officer of a provider of probation services” means an individual who is for the time being authorised under subsection (2) (and “officer”, in relation to a particular provider of probation services, means a person so authorised to act as an officer of that provider).

    (2)An individual may be authorised to act as an officer of a particular provider of probation services (“the relevant provider”) by—

    (a)the Secretary of State; or

    (b)a provider of probation services (whether the relevant provider or any other provider) who is authorised to do so by the Secretary of State.


    Others far more erudite than a bumbling anonymous contributor to this blog have also had their say, but with no lasting impact upon the system:

    "Critical analysts of the history of ideas in the probation service have charted the various reconstructions of probation practice that have accompanied changes in penal theories, policies and sensibilities. Most famously, McWilliams (1983, 1985, 1986, 1987) described the transformations of probation from a missionary endeavour that aimed to save souls, to a professionalized endeavour that aimed to ‘cure’ offending through rehabilitative treatment, to a pragmatic endeavour that aimed to provide alternatives to custody and practical help for offenders (see also Vanstone, 2004). More recent commentators have suggested later transformations of probation practice related first to its recasting, in England and Wales, as ‘punishment in the community’ and then to its increasing focus on risk management and public protection (Robinson and McNeill, 2004)." - from A desistance paradigm for offender management FERGUS McNEILL Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde, UK


    Once politicians & their advisors got their mitts on the Probation Service (courtesy CJAct'91) its all been a bit shit really. It still is.

    Its just different shit redistributed by a different fan on a different day.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Programmes-programmes-programmes! That was the mantra, the great revelations of the 90s - and woe betide those who weren't on message. It was all supposed to be evidence-based, rooted in a What Works philosophy. But it wasn't. It was snake oil, much like a dodgy IT project. It showed to gullibility of probation. Mind you, one consequence was an expansion in the probation workforce. Programmes were more about job creation for the workforce, than effective rehabilitation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Similarly the 'risk assessment' business was an opportunity for some to to fill their boots with publicly-funded gold.

      Delete