Another Graphic Illustration of Failings

With quite astonishing testimony coming in on the state of probation, including cocaine use and 90% of the job being work on the laptop, one cannot escape the conclusion that fundamental restructuring cannot be far off. As the latest SFO review from the new HM Chief Inspector confirms, the present state of affairs is untenable. Here's the press release:-  

Independent serious further offence review of Joshua Jacques

Background:

On 25 April 2022 police forced entry to a property in Bermondsey, London, where the bodies of Denton Burke (aged 68), Dolet Hill (aged 64), Tanysha (Raquel) Ofori-Akuffo (aged 45), and Samantha Drummonds (aged 27) were found. All four victims had suffered stab wounds and lacerations. Joshua Jacques was charged with these murders.

In June 2022, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State asked the Chief Inspector of Probation to undertake an independent review into how the Probation Service managed Joshua Jacques, as he was under probation supervision when he was arrested for these offences. This review was completed in November 2022 and can now be published following the completion of criminal proceedings.

Statement:

Chief Inspector of Probation Martin Jones CBE stated:

“There were serious failings in the supervision of Joshua Jacques. Despite concerns about repeated non-compliance with his licence conditions, enforcement practice was inconsistent and opportunities to recall Jacques to custody were missed.

“Joshua Jacques was incorrectly allocated to a newly qualified probation officer who had only finished their training three months before being assigned the case. Under guidelines by HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), Jacques should have been allocated to an experienced, qualified probation officer. The probation practitioners in this case lacked the required experience to respond adequately to the complexity of the case. The management oversight of the probation practitioners involved in this case was also insufficient. Probation staff reported a lack of confidence in decisions made by their line manager, contributing to a reluctance to seek out further management oversight.

“There was a lack of professional curiosity in all areas of probation practice in this case. This meant several events, such as an arrest for further offences, disclosure of declining mental health, problematic behaviour towards neighbours, a new relationship, and the unpermitted use of social media, were not responded to or explored sufficiently.

“Joshua Jacques was appropriately assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm to the public prior to his release from custody. However, his risk in other categories, including to staff or potential partners was underestimated. No risk assessment was completed for Jacques following his release which resulted in no risk management plan or sentence plan in the community being completed.

“Probation practitioners were aware of Jacques’ mental health history, including that he had been sectioned in 2018 and that he had behaved violently during a period when his mental health was not stable. Jacques had also reported that random aggression could be a symptom of declining mental health. In February 2022, Jacques disclosed to probation court staff that he was experiencing a decline in his mental health; however, no action was taken. Inspectors found during this review that probation staff felt ill equipped to understand and respond to mental health concerns, with limited training and support being available to them.

“The case records show that Jacques was routinely using cannabis whilst on probation, and his licence contained a condition to engage in a drug abuse intervention on release from prison. No such intervention was organised by the Probation Service and our inspection found no evidence of a referral to a drugs agency.

“Sadly, this case is symptomatic of the issues we have observed across the probation service in recent years. A reliance on an inexperienced cohort of probation staff, a lack of support for mental health and substance misuse issues alongside insufficient management oversight are concerns which have been highlighted repeatedly. As a result of this review, eight recommendations were made to HMPPS. They have accepted all these recommendations and responded with an action plan for implementing them.”

The following extracts are from the full report and although lengthy, give a graphic illustration of the fundamental flaws in how the probation service as simply not fit for purpose as part of HMPPS and under civil service control.  

1. Foreword 

In April 2022, Joshua Jacques was charged with the murders of a family of four: Denton Burke, Dolet Hill, Tanysha Ofori-Akuffo, and Samantha Drummonds. On 21 December 2023 he was found guilty of murder following trial. 

Joshua Jacques was under probation supervision when he was arrested for these offences, having been released from prison on licence in November 2021. Ordinarily, the Probation Service would conduct a review of the management of the case, in the form of a Serious Further Offence (SFO) review. In this case, the Secretary of State for Justice asked HM Inspectorate of Probation to complete an independent review into how the Probation Service managed Joshua Jacques. 

The impact of these shocking crimes cannot be underestimated and will have had a profound impact on their family and the wider community. We offer our sincere and heartfelt condolences and recognise that the family need information about how Joshua Jacques was supervised in the community and answers as to whether there were failings in this practice.

This report presents the findings of our independent review and sets out that the practice in this case fell below the expected standards. 

As a result of recent recruitment drives and of experienced staff leaving the Probation Service, many probation teams now have large numbers of newly qualified officers (NQO) or recently qualified officers. In the Southwark Probation Delivery Unit (PDU), this situation impacted on the level of experience in the teams available to manage high risk and complex cases, something our core inspections have also routinely found. 

We found Joshua Jacques’ case was incorrectly allocated to an NQO, and the lack of good quality management oversight of this member of staff impacted on the quality of decisions made. There was a notable absence of professional curiosity1 across all areas of probation practice from court through to sentence management, and a failure of the probation practitioners overseeing the case and their manager to meet fully their expected responsibilities. As a result, several significant events, such as an arrest for further offences, disclosure of declining mental health, problematic behaviour towards neighbours, a new relationship and use of social media when not permitted to do so, were not responded to sufficiently. 

While appropriate referrals were made to Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) and to Approved Premises (AP) by the probation practitioner, these critical elements of increased supervision did not fulfil their potential in supporting the management of risk of serious harm posed by Joshua Jacques. An initial OASys assessment was not completed upon his release, which meant that his management in the community was not supported by a robust risk management plan, nor a sentence plan to inform his supervision on licence. The pace and level of engagement of Joshua Jacques with his licence was seemingly determined by him, rather than the probation practitioners, who viewed his engagement and progress too optimistically.

There were concerns Joshua Jacques was not complying with the conditions of his licence and, though this happened repeatedly, they were each dealt with in isolation. Practitioners did not see the bigger picture and missed opportunities to respond sufficiently to his concerning behaviours, for example through a recall to prison. 

Many of the findings of this review mirror those of our thematic and regional probation inspections. This review makes eight recommendations to His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service which we require implementation of as a matter of urgency to ensure learning is implemented quickly and nationally, not just in the PDU where this case was supervised.

Martin Jones CBE 

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

5. Summary of Key findings 

JJ’s supervision was characterised by several practice deficits and missed opportunities which impacted on how JJ was managed on licence. Nine key themes identified from the independent review are outlined below. 

Risk of serious harm assessment 

In custody, two OASys assessments were completed which concluded that JJ posed a high risk of serious harm to the public, specifically identifying the public to be drug users and peers operating in drug supply. This was an appropriate assessment, however it failed to identify all factors that were linked to the risk of serious harm such as his mental health, substance misuse and current accommodation. JJ was assessed as posing a low risk of serious harm in all other categories, which was an underestimation of the level of risk he posed. 

An initial OASys assessment was commenced upon release, however, this was never fully completed and remained an incomplete document. This was poor practice and was not in line with organisational expectations. 

The failure to complete an OASys assessment on release resulted in no assessment of risk of serious harm and no risk management plan in the community to inform how the risk posed should be safely managed while on licence. Additionally, there were no sentence plan objectives to support and inform the supervision appointments, which should have been targeted to address those factors most likely to contribute towards further offending. Further reviewing did not take place following MAPPA meetings, nor in response to changes of circumstances and significant events. Completing a review would have enabled the probation practitioner to consider the significance of new information, and review the sentence and risk management plans accordingly, to ensure the necessary arrangements were in place to protect the public. 

The pre-sentence report prepared for court, and the OASys completed following sentence to the suspended sentence order, both replicated the pre-release assessment and did not take the opportunity to consider all available information to support an updated and holistic assessment. 

MAPPA meetings considered the level of risk of serious harm posed by JJ; however, this did not negate the need for an OASys assessment to be completed. This is essential probation practice to ensure that the management of each case is supported by a robust and defensible assessment of risk of serious harm and need. In the absence of a formal assessment using the OASys tool, inspectors would have expected to see other evidence of assessment and planning within case management records. However, there were no such records to satisfy us that a clear understanding of how to manage the risks posed were in place. 

Professional curiosity and optimism bias 

PO1 and PO2 put a strong focus on addressing JJ’s needs, such as accommodation and employment. Though these were important factors and progress was made, the supervision sessions were not underpinned by a sentence plan and there was no evidence of interventions which focused on offender behaviour being delivered. Inspectors found that this strong emphasis on relationship building and addressing JJ’s needs was not balanced against the need to manage risk of serious harm. 

Probation practitioners viewed JJ’s behaviour on licence through an over optimistic lens and did not fully understand the expectations on them to be professionally curious and proactive. As a result, they did not adequately explore issues such as why he had purchased a vehicle, or his problematic behaviour in his accommodation and they failed to inform police of a second breach of the criminal behaviour order (CBO). 

These skills of professional curiosity grow and develop with practitioner confidence and experience, and with the effective support and oversight from peers and managers. There was a lack of experience within the probation practitioner staff group at Southwark PDU and lack of robust management oversight further contributed to this. Where a workforce has limited experience, they need guidance from those with a more established level of knowledge to provide support and oversight to aid their development. 

Enforcement 

Good probation practice seeks to motivate people on probation to comply and engage positively with the requirements of their sentence. While this should include a focus on desistance from further offending, it should also include appropriate enforcement action being taken when required. Instances of non-compliance should be responded to in a proportionate, fair, and transparent manner.

Enforcement practice in this case was inconsistent, with instances of non-compliance considered in isolation rather than seen in the round. Opportunities to escalate and consult with the delivery unit head (HOS1) were not sought. There was a failure to act upon a pre-release assessment that identified that swift enforcement of the CBO and licence were required to manage the risk of serious harm posed by JJ. Enforcement guidance issued in October 2021 was not followed. Our inspectors felt the decision not to recall JJ following his arrest for further offences was defensible. However, in making the decision, senior manager oversight should have been sought by SPO1 and the failure to do so was against expected practice. The enforcement practice in this case did not analyse the behaviour being displayed by JJ, nor did it explore whether additional supportive or restrictive measures short of recall were needed to manage his licence. 

Resourcing and workload 

Southwark PDU had been operating under ‘green’ status under the national prioritising probation framework but had several vacancies, particularly at probation officer and probation service officer grade. Many staff within the PDU were at early stages of their career and there were limited numbers of experienced staff available. The probation practitioners in this case lacked the required experience to respond adequately to the complexity of the case and behaviours being presented. In addition, the pace and volume of work impacted on the quality of work undertaken in this case. 

HMPPS’s Tiering framework and case allocation guidance was not followed, and JJ’s case should have been allocated to a more experienced probation practitioner. The allocated probation practitioner in this case was within their newly qualified probation officer (NQO) period and in allocating the case, the SPO should have been assured that PO1 had the required knowledge, skill, and experience to manage the case effectively. JJ’s tier increased following the initial MAPPA meeting and this should have prompted re-allocation of practitioner in line with the expected practice for NQOs. 

Management oversight 

Management oversight was of an insufficient standard. Staff reported a lack of confidence in decisions made by their line manager, contributing to a reluctance to seek out further management oversight. When sought, decisions made by the probation practitioners would generally be approved without the necessary discussion or scrutiny needed to ensure that the most appropriate course of action was being taken. Opportunities to escalate to HOS1 were also missed. 

Similar to the findings from the Inspectorate’s broader local inspection programme, the workload, and responsibilities of line managers in this Probation Delivery Unit were found to be concerning. SPOs were managing large teams and were expected to provide support and oversight of their staff and manage human resource issues, as well as provide oversight and scrutiny of each probation practitioner’s caseload. SPOs also have additional lead responsibilities, such as MAPPA, which impact on their ability to perform their role to the expected standards. 

Inspectors also found insufficient processes in place to manage staff absence. PO1 was absent from work for a period of three months. While during this time PO2 had maintained contact with JJ on their own initiative, the process for caseload reallocation during an absence was not clear, which resulted in a lack of clear ownership of this case and many of PO1’s other cases during this period. 

Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) 

JJ’s index offence (the last set of criminal actions that brought him into contact with the criminal justice system) meant that he was not automatically eligible for management under multi agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA). Therefore, it was good practice for JJ to have been referred to MAPPA as a Level 2, Category 3 case. However, there was insufficient evidence that this MAPPA referral positively impacted upon the management of the case. 

The MAPPA referral for JJ was completed late, only one month prior to release. To allow effective coordination this should have been done six months prior. In recognition of the complexity of the case and imminency of need, it was positive to see that JJ was listed promptly for discussion once he had been referred. However, the initial delay in referral resulted in little time for MAPPA to effectively contribute to the pre-release planning, with PO1 having already set licence conditions with the prison, without a contribution from the MAPPA panel. 

The minutes from each of the four the MAPPA meetings held to discuss JJ were of an insufficient standard, providing limited evidence that partner agencies were active in supporting the management of risk of serious harm he presented. 

There were missed opportunities for meaningful actions to be set in response to new information, and a lack of oversight of outstanding actions. JJ was de-registered from MAPPA oversight without an adequate rationale, whilst two actions which had already been carried forward remained outstanding. 

Approved Premises 

The Approved Premises (AP) placement was an opportunity to positively contribute to the management of JJ’s risk of serious harm. Key work sessions were held by AP staff which were appropriately focused, with structured sessions on the immediate needs of JJ; exploring issues such as registration with a GP, finance, and education, training, and employment (ETE), which supported his resettlement into the community. However, professional curiosity was not applied during AP staff interactions with JJ. There is no evidence that there was sufficient exploration of his behaviour and movements, which would have aided the probation practitioner’s understanding of how JJ was spending his time away from the AP. 

AP staff should play a significant role, both in providing relevant risk information to the probation practitioner and in contributing to effective risk management. It is essential that they understand the risk of serious harm presented, are actively involved in the delivery of the risk management plan and are part of MAPPA meetings. An AP representative was not able to engage in pre-release planning due to the delayed referral, and subsequently did not attend the MAPPA meetings held, which impacted on pre-release planning, information exchange and the effective risk management of the case.

Mental health 

JJ had been sectioned previously in 2018 and had informed probation practitioners that feelings of anxiety and paranoia were normal for him. Prior to release, JJ’s mental health was described to be stable, and probation practitioners stated that there were no obvious signs of a mental health decline upon release into the community. 

However, he was described by PO1 as presenting as ‘low’ on occasion, which was attributed to boredom and need for structure in the community. Days prior to the SFO, JJ was described as talkative and going off on irrelevant tangents in his conversations with probation staff. Furthermore, JJ informed PSR1 that when committing the further offences on licence, he had been experiencing poor mental health. This was not explored further and there was a lack of significance given to this statement, resulting in no analysis or action. 

Probation practitioners were aware of JJ’s mental health history but lacked any detailed information. They were also aware that he had behaved violently during a period when his mental health was not stable, and JJ himself had reported that random aggression could be a sign of his mental health declining. However, this was not identified as a factor linked to risk of serious harm within OASys assessments. Additionally, the correlation between his continued use of illegal substances and his mental health was not sufficiently explored or responded to. Prior to JJ’s release from custody, information on JJ’s mental health was sent by the prison mental health in-reach team to his registered GP, however they were not aware that the GP had retired. Upon registration with a new GP, this prior information on JJ’s mental ill health was not passed to them. 

There was a reliance on JJ recognising and self-reporting a decline in his mental health and on the one occasion he disclosed such concerns no action was taken. Probation practitioners stated that there was a gap in services available to support those with mental health, particularly if there were also substance misuse concerns. As emphasised by the report published in 2021, A joint thematic inspection of the criminal justice journey for individuals with mental health needs and disorders, mental health can present significant challenges for probation practitioners, and is often characterised by insufficient information exchange and the need for better training and support. Inspectors found during this review that staff felt ill equipped to understand and respond to mental health concerns, with limited training and support being available. 

Substance misuse 

JJ had used cannabis since he was a child and was described to be lacking insight into the harmful effects of his substance misuse. Probation records and a psychiatrist’s assessment indicate a link between JJ’s substance misuse use and mental health, and that JJ’s sectioning in 2018 had been preceded by the consumption of medication, alcohol, and cannabis. Additionally, much of JJ’s offending was linked to substance misuse. 

Probation case records show that JJ was routinely using cannabis while on licence. He had completed substance misuse intervention programmes in custody and his licence contained a condition to engage in a drug abuse intervention on release from prison. However, such an intervention was not organised by probation practitioners, and we could find no evidence of a referral to a drugs agency. 

Inspectors found that probation practitioners did not explore the underlying reasons for JJ’s substance misuse, and minimised and tolerated regular use while he was on licence. This was underpinned by a failure to adequately analyse the impact of substance misuse to the risk of serious harm he posed.

Is Probation Toxic?

I find it an extremely uncomfortable thought, but the response to yesterday's blog post about some research on the role of SPOs has forced me to reconsider the notion that a Service I care very much about has become toxic. The thought did first flash through my mind when hearing of the Casey Review into the Metropolitan Police and the astonishing revelations confirmed by the new Commissioner. Then there was another devastating report on the London Fire Brigade.

We know about the Home Office toxic culture regarding Windrush and more recently the asylum situation, and there's been concern regarding HMPPS. On many occasions I've voiced worries regarding the dead bureaucratic hand of the Civil Service, but never really thought the Probation Service per se and now an enforced bed fellow of the Prison Service has become tainted and well, just plain toxic. But the fact is there are so many worrying stories and views swirling around on here, the 'secret' Facebook group and 'Review' sites such as 'Indeed' that maybe the time has come for a similar independent review of the Service. I regularly hear of bullying, toxic environments and workplace harm and even leading to PTSD diagnoses.    

This is a flavour from Indeed, but sadly much is not readable due to the pathetic practice of insisting readers file a Review first:- 

Poor management and very high sickness levels, due to stress.

Probation Officer (Current Employee) - Bradford, West Yorkshire - 30 December 2021
The most stressful part of working in the Probation Service, is the poor management, of whom are never held accountable to their superiors. A huge caseload and not enough hours in the day to be able to do your job efficiently is a constant daily worry! If you really want a career that you feel makes a positive difference in peoples lives, don't be deluded by thinking you will do this by working in the Probation Service.

Stressful workplace, that can negatively affect your mental health

Probation Service Officer. (Former Employee) - London - 7 November 2022
Impossible to retain staff due to being overworked, underpaid and not a respected profession. Expect a large caseload, to work beyond your contract hours including weekends and to rearrange leave to meet admin deadlines and not to interact with the service users. Impossible to switch off, expect emails after midnight. I was lucky to have supportive colleagues, amazing admin team and managers that don't micro manage.

Poor management. High caseloads

Probation Service Officer (Former Employee) - North West - 25 October 2022

Stressful job that you will take home with you. High caseloads and lack of tools to do the job effectively. Training is given but you are not allocated the time to absorb it.  

--oo00oo--

The Prison Service side of HMPPS is no better:-

Too many cons, not enough pros

Business Administrator (Current Employee) - 1 November 2022

All experience staff leaving means no one to train the newbies. Pay was bad until the pay rise this year, bought the non operational staff wages up a fair amount! Management are terrible, they don't listen or care about staff at all. Don't ever get sick or develop a chronic illness, they will try and get rid of you.

*****
Great people, bad management

Business Administrator (Former Employee) - 16 November 2022

I thought working there is like giving back to the society but I now know that I can give back in many other ways. The place needs a complete overhaul. Very low pay, bad management, bad working environment, sub standard equipment to carry out daily tasks and bullying is regularly overlooked. I'm happy I've moved on in my career and will never ever go near the prison service again.

*****
Corrupt Government Organisation

Business Administrator (Current Employee)  - 7 July 2022

No staff support from senior management. They already know who they are promoting so you'd be lucky if an advert even comes out. If your face doesn't fit you won't get anywhere. If you think logically, it's not a place for you.

*****
Toxic environment

Mechanical Engineer (Former Employee) - 18 October 2022

Shambolic organisation,
Understaffed overworked
Management is clueless
Toxic environment and culture
Nobody has your back when something hits the fan.
Strongly advise anybody to give a wide birth.

--oo00oo--

Whilst rooting around on the internet I came across this which struck me as particularly redolent of the current situation:- 

From Probation Officer to Career Coach

This month, I thought I’d interview...myself! I made a change quite early on in my career. It was a hard decision, having spent two years studying and training for it. However, the experience now helps me empathise with how my clients may be feeling. Here, I share my story and what I learnt along the way. I hope my words inspire you to take action, should you find yourself feeling like I did - stressed and in a career that you see little future in.

1. What work were you doing before?

I studied Psychology & Criminology at University, and went on to train as a Probation Officer after that. This involved a two year training course where I completed a second degree and an NVQ, whilst working with a small caseload of offenders. I worked with offenders in the community and in prison, helping to rehabilitate them by changing their criminal behavioural patterns.

2. How did you know a change was required?

I was quite young when I qualified, with little life experience. I remember one particular Monday morning where I was sat at my desk thinking, “Is this it? Surely there’s got to be more to life than this?” The career path laid out in front of me seemed incredibly stressful, frustrating, and not particularly exciting. I went on holiday around then and the thought of returning to work just filled me with utter fear and dread. I knew something had to change. I came home and handed my notice in on my first day back!

3. What helped you make the decision to finally do something about your situation?

It sounds a bit odd but it was a feeling that took over, more than anything. The career just didn’t feel right anymore. I got to the point where enough was enough, and it just seemed obvious and logical to move on.

I had secured a 12 month temporary contract, through a family friend, doing something completely different (Professional Services Marketing), which meant I had something to go to. I think this helped me bite the bullet and move on, even though I didn’t really know what I wanted to do next.

Having my parents onboard helped too, as they made me realise I could always go back to being a Probation Officer if I changed my mind.

A Disgrace That Needs Sorting

An important report published today on the scandal that IPP sentences have become. Summary here:- 

Justice Committee finds IPP sentences “irredeemably flawed” and calls for comprehensive re-sentencing programme

The Justice Committee has called on the Government to re-sentence all prisoners subject to IPP sentences. In a report published today, the Committee finds that the current regime for managing IPP prisoners is inadequate in supporting their specific needs and calls for swift improvement in the quality of support they are given.

IPP sentences were introduced to prevent serious offenders being released when still a danger to the public. Despite being scrapped in 2012, nearly 3,000 people remain in prison having been given an IPP sentence. In some cases, individuals have been imprisoned a decade beyond the tariff for their original sentence which could be as low as two years or less.

Under the IPP sentencing system, release is based on successful rehabilitation and prisoners no longer being deemed a risk to the general public. However, the Committee has found that inadequate provision of support services inside and outside of prison has led to a ‘recall merry-go-round’, with almost half of prisoners currently serving an IPP sentence having been released previously.

The Committee finds that IPP sentences cause acute harm to those subject to them, with the prospect of serving a sentence without an end date causing higher levels of self-harm as well as a lack of trust in the system that is meant to rehabilitate them.

The report calls for all prisoners currently serving IPP sentences to be re-sentenced, with an independent panel appointed to advise on the practical implementation of what is likely to be a complex task. It further calls for the current time period after which prisoners can be considered for the termination of their licence following release to be halved, from ten years to five.

Chair's comments

Chair of the Justice Committee, Sir Bob Neill said:

“IPP sentences were abolished a decade ago but little has been done to deal with the long-term consequences on those subject to them. They are currently being failed in a prison system that has left them behind, with inadequate support for the specific challenges caused by the very way they have been convicted and sentenced. Successive Secretaries of State have accepted that change needs to happen but little has been done. The decision must be made once and for all to end the legacy of IPP sentences and come up with a solution that is proportionate to offenders while protecting the public.

We appreciate that establishing a resentencing exercise will be administratively complex. That is why we have called for time-limited small expert committee to advise on the practical implementation of the resentencing exercise in conjunction with the senior judiciary.

There must also be adequate support systems put in place to ensure prisoners are prepared for their release and given the right support to reintegrate into the community.

We do not underestimate the complexity of this undertaking, but after a decade of inertia the status quo cannot be allowed to continue.”

IPP Overview

Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences were introduced in 2005 for serious offenders who were deemed to pose an ongoing risk to public safety but did not merit a life sentence. In practice, anyone convicted of any one of 96 serious violent or sexual offences who had also a previous conviction from one of a list of 153 specified offences was liable to an IPP sentence meaning that they could be imprisoned indefinitely beyond their minimum jail tariff.

IPP sentences were abolished in 2012, however there are still 2,926 people imprisoned under IPP sentences, including 1,434 that were recalled to custody having been released. 608 have been in jail for over decade beyond their original tariff, including 188 who were originally imprisoned for two years or less.

IPP prisoners are subject to acute challenges. The psychological impact of an indefinite sentence leads to feelings of hopelessness and despair, resulting in higher levels of self-harm and suicide in the IPP population. Prisoners also feel distrust towards the people and services necessary to support rehabilitation and secure their release.

Current support for IPP prisoners

The Committee is concerned by the lack of impact of the Government’s current action plan for dealing with the unique challenges faced by IPP prisoners. It finds the IPP Action Plan lacks clear strategic priorities and ownership to ensure they are delivered. It calls for a new action plan to be developed to provide greater detail on how IPP prisoners are to be managed and supported, setting out timeframes for delivery and performance measures to ensure standards are met.

At present, provision of offender behaviour programmes and interventions, designed to change attitudes and behaviours that can lead to reoffending, is poor. There is also concern that they are failing to deliver the outcomes they claim and there is a lack of transparency over how these programmes are evaluated. Given the central role successful completion of these programmes plays in the Prison Service and Parole Board assessment of prisoner risk level it is vital that they are accessible and effective.

The Committee calls on the Ministry of Justice to work with the Prison Service to ensure that there are sufficient places on courses to ensure access for all who need them. They should also publish what work has been done to assess the suitability of current rehabilitation pathways, and set out how they plan to improve delivery where inadequate outcomes have been found.

Release and recall

There are concerns that resource issues in the Probation Service and the Parole Board are leading to frequent delays, high staff turnover and inadequate training for board members. There can also be a lack of clarity and uncertainty around next steps following a negative parole decision. The Committee calls on the Parole Board to ensure that people serving IPP sentences are prioritised and only fully trained and experienced board members involved in their cases.

At present, once an IPP prisoner is released they will be subject to licence conditions and risk returning to prison if any of these conditions are breached. The licence term for IPP prisoners is in place for life, but can be terminated at 10 years. It can act as a barrier to the rehabilitation of offenders and be detrimental to their mental health. The length of the licence period may also be disproportionate to the offence for which they were convicted. The Committee welcomes the introduction of an automatic referral for the licence period to be terminated but additionally calls for the qualifying licence period to be halved from 10 years to 5 years.

According to most recent figures, 1,434 of 2,926 current IPP prisoners have been recalled to custody following a release. The Committee finds that much greater priority needs to be given to ending the return of IPP prisoners to jail and ensuring that they are able to live productive lives once they are initially released.

The Government should examine why recalls are taking place and establish a framework that ensures recalls are only used as a last resort. Probation staff should be encouraged to use alternative measures as much as possible, including adjusted reporting requirement, curfews or electronic tags.

Resentencing IPP prisoners

While it is clear that current processes for managing IPP prisoners are inadequate and need to be improved, on their own, the changes the Committee has recommended will not be sufficient to deal with the fundamental problems caused by IPP sentences. The Committee finds that IPP sentences are irredeemably flawed. It calls on the Government to bring forward primary legislation that deals retrospectively with the continued operation of the sentence and initiates a resentencing exercise for all individuals currently subject to them, both in prison and released on licence (except for those who have successfully had their licence terminated).

This will be a difficult, complex exercise and will require care to get right. The Committee recommends that a time-limited small expert committee be established, in conjunction with the senior judiciary, to advise on the practical implementation of the resentencing exercise.

The Committee recognises that resolving the IPP problem will not be easy. It recommends that the approach taken by Government and Parliament should be guided by three key principles. First, it must balance ensuring protection of the public from the risk of further serious offences being committed against ensuring justice for the individual offender. This will require adequate resourcing to be put in place to support offenders’ reintegration into the community. Any measures designed to protect the public from violent or sexual offenders should also follow current sentencing models.

Second, the independence of the judiciary must also be maintained during the resentencing process. Judges must be able to make a fair and independent assessment of the individual circumstances of each case and have discretion to determine an appropriate sentence. Finally, any resentencing exercise must be constrained by the general principle that a person should not be subjected to a heavier penalty than that which applied when they committed the offence.

Read the full report (HTML)
Read the full report (PDF)
Read the report summary
Read the report's conclusions and recommendations
Find all publications related to this inquiry, including oral and written evidence

CJS and Mental Health

Last month a major report was published on mental health issues people had whilst moving through the criminal justice system. No agency came out of this well as the press release outlines:-

Criminal justice system failing people with mental health issues – with not enough progress over the past 12 years

• Thousands of people with a mental illness are coming into the criminal justice system each year but their needs are being missed at every stage.
• “Broken” system for sharing information between agencies, with confusion over data protection rules and incomplete/inaccurate records.
• Shortage of services and long delays to access them – made worse by the pandemic.
• Unacceptable delays in psychiatric reports for court and in transferring extremely unwell prisoners into secure mental health hospital beds for treatment.

A major inspection has found poor support for people with mental health issues as they progress through the criminal justice system in England and Wales.

Inspectors labelled the findings “disappointing” and said too little progress had been made since the last review in 2009.

The inspection was conducted by:

HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services
HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate
HM Inspectorate of Prisons
HM Inspectorate of Probation
Care Quality Commission
Healthcare Inspectorate Wales.

Inspectors looked at more than 300 cases from six regions, interviewed 550 professionals, and heard from 67 people with mental health issues who had been through the criminal justice system.

Speaking on behalf of all six inspectorates, Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell said: “The criminal justice system is failing people with a mental illness. At every stage, their needs are being missed and they face unacceptable delays in getting support. Not enough progress has been made since our last joint inspection 12 years ago to put right these critical shortfalls.

“Police forces, prosecutors, prisons and probation services all assess individuals in different ways, which leads to gaps and inconsistencies. Even when mental health needs are identified, the information is not always recorded fully or used to make effective decisions.

“There are significant problems in the exchange of information in every agency and at every stage of an individual’s journey in the criminal justice system. This part of the system is broken and needs to be fixed urgently.”

The lack of a common definition of mental ill health means nobody has an accurate picture of the numbers of people with mental health issues in the criminal justice system, or the collective needs or risks posed by these individuals.

Inspectors found a myriad of systems are used to screen and assess people as they are arrested, charged, sentenced and supervised. Incomplete or poor records mean individuals might not receive appropriate treatment, charging decisions are affected, and there are delays to court proceedings.

There is widespread confusion over confidentiality and data protection rules – leaving agencies unable to access pertinent information and leading to poorer mental health outcomes.

Inspectors interviewed police officers who said they were unclear when they could share information about an individual’s mental health with the Crown Prosecution Service. This was despite the Data Protection Act (2018) including an exemption for sharing data for justice purposes. This gap means prosecutors, defence lawyers, judges and magistrates can make decisions without crucial details.

Poor information-sharing hampers work in prisons and probation services too. As a result, prisoners transferring in and out of prison do not get seamless support with their mental health needs. Probation practitioners reported their work was often hindered because community mental health services would not allow them to access information about the individuals they supervised – despite the fact these requests are lawful.

The inspection found delays are common at every stage of the criminal justice system. Courts face long waits for psychiatric reports, which are used to make sentencing decisions.

The shortage of good-quality mental health provision leads to “unacceptable delays” for individuals accessing services.

Inspectors found extremely unwell prisoners were often left in prison instead of being transferred urgently to mental health hospitals. Delays were often caused by a lack of medium and high-security beds; the mental health of these prisoners often further deteriorated as they waited.

Inspectors have called for urgent steps to be taken to address the situation, to meet the 28 day targets from first assessment to transfer now laid down in NHS guidelines.

Black, Asian and minority ethnic people are both overrepresented at every stage of the criminal justice system and at comparatively higher risk of mental illness. Inspectors found a lack of specialist services for these individuals.

Inspectors concluded that not enough has changed in the 12 years since the last joint inspection. However, they did note improvements in some areas.

Inspectors welcomed the roll-out of mental health liaison and diversion services in police stations and courts, and recent initiatives to increase the number of Mental Health Treatment Requirements given by the courts. There has also been a significant fall in the use of police custody as a “place of safety” for people in mental health crisis.

Inspectors found police officers had a good understanding that minor crime – particularly crime caused by mental health issues – could be dealt with using a health care approach.

Mr Russell concluded: “Criminal justice agencies need to make major improvements to the way they work with people with mental health issues.

“If someone is charged, they need to understand and be able to participate in the criminal justice process. An individual may need additional support to understand the questions put to them during an investigation or may lack the mental capacity to plead or stand trial.

“The criminal justice process itself can have a severe and negative impact on someone’s mental health, especially if they are already unwell. Justice agencies should act in ways that do not make matters worse, for example they should help to reduce the risks of suicide and self-harm, which we know to be high in criminal justice populations.

“The Inspectorates have made 22 recommendations following our joint inspection. We urge police forces, the Crown Prosecution Service, prisons and the Probation Service to work with the government and NHS to improve delivery for people with mental health issues in the criminal justice system.”

Quotes from people with mental health issues who have been through the criminal justice system (all names have been changed to protect identities)

On arrest:

• Filip said he was left alone for three days in police custody. He spoke to a mental health nurse briefly about having suicidal thoughts. He said: “(Arrest) was the lowest point in my life. (It was) unbearable, shocking… full of worry and fear… I did not understand what was going on in my mind.”

• Marcus found the experience of being arrested: “exhausting, confusing and frightening.”

• Sammy said: “It’s only reflecting back I realised how bad it was… It traumatised me for a long time, how I was handled (in the police station) and treated… I was disassociated, detached and suffering psychosis and anxiety. They (police) didn’t notice… they interviewed me anyway. For months after, I’ve had panic attacks and nightmares.”

On courts:

• George said: “Courts are eerie places, everything feels unnatural and on edge and that doesn’t help with anyone’s mental health, even if you consider yourself to have good mental health.”

• Luke said: “I was on remand for eight months, and going back and forth from court four or five times a month and always ending up with a new pad-mate (cellmate). It was a real struggle, as I didn’t know who I was going to get. It’s the last thing I need after having my life dragged out through court.”

In prison:

• Wilson described informing his block manager that he has Asperger’s syndrome. Wilson said: “They just gave me anti-depressants to shut me up and fob me off.” He wrote to the mental health team and was told he did not quality for help, despite being on medication for anxiety and depression for eight or nine years. Wilson said: “I asked to see a counsellor, which took five months to process – only to have an appointment where they didn’t show up… I sat in my cell full of anticipation and anxiousness.”

• Lilly commented that when a prison officer stopped and talked to them, it demonstrated that someone cared. She said: “Just having a trained officer to chat to for five minutes, to ask how you are doing and to talk to, really does make a big difference. It doesn’t have to be someone from the mental health team even.”

• Steven said: “The constant noise in prison forces tension on you, in an already hostile existence.” He described an incident where he had a mental health crisis: “My cell bell had been going off for over four hours… all I wanted to do was talk to somebody, a listener [this person resides in prison and has been trained by the Samaritans to offer a listening ear]… it was the lowest point of my prison mental health… (I) felt like I have been denied air to breathe.”

On probation:

• Several interviewees reported that they felt the Probation Service was “on their side”. Filip said: “She (probation practitioner) has taken into consideration my view and has given me the feeling that I have a voice… (this) impacted massively on my mental health”.

• Brian said: “Probation knew my struggles with drink and have played a key part in helping me stay sober and finding a healthier way to deal with my mental health.”

• However, others felt talking about their background with a probation practitioner could cause trauma. Cooper said: “There is no point bringing up shit from when I was a kid… this causes mental health problems.”

• Jakob said: “I have been moved from probation officer to probation officer and I sit there wondering if the (criminal justice) system has given up on me. I have no belief in the system or believe there is genuine care there for me and my mental health.”

--oo00oo--

From the report:-

Probation practitioners are not mental health experts, but they do need transferrable skills that they can use to help individuals turn their lives around. We found that there were significant gaps in the knowledge and understanding of mental health work among probation practitioners and managers. In our survey, 70 per cent (38/54) of practitioners interviewed reported that they did not have access to effective mental health learning.

From our case reviews, we concluded that management oversight was either absent or ineffective in 64 per cent (34/59) of the inspected cases.

We found that senior leaders in the NPS were familiar with the overarching national strategy and priorities. In our opinion, however, this knowledge and intent was not actively driving local policy.

We found that just under half of the cases reviewed did not contain a comprehensive analysis of mental health needs. Practitioners need to be better equipped to talk to individuals about their mental health problems and understand their specific needs.

The cases reviewed showed that intervention plans needed significant improvement.

Individuals were not always given the opportunity to contribute and their diversity needs were often overlooked... We were not satisfied that enough time had been spent with individuals to help them to fully understand the requirements of their licences or community orders.

Inspectors from HM Inspectorate of Probation reviewed 60 pre-sentence reports prepared by NPS court staff in the inspected areas; 48 reports were on men and 12 were on women. The vast majority (83 per cent, 50/60) of the reports reviewed were short format reports completed without a full OASys assessment. The mental health conditions identified were assessed as having a considerable impact on day-to-day functioning in just over half of the reports reviewed. Almost a quarter of reports were prepared on the same day as the plea or
finding of guilt.

Overall, the quality of reports was insufficient.

--oo00oo--

This was a recent blog contribution in response:-

For me this is an issue of poor investment in professional development and learning which probation has sorely devalued. In London prior to the pandemic we were subjected to "risk is everyone's business" sessions followed by even more sessions on risk assessment...then of course they invested in time and effort in OASYS QA which focused solely upon "what did you put in each box," prescribed guidance...then the focus has been on "outsourcing", getting your head around this new CRS referral process to outsource mental health work via "personal wellbeing services".

The mantra right now always seems to be about "referring people out"...we've been reduced to referral agents. The recent HMIP inspection on drugs pretty much mirrors the one on mental health. We don't know enough about these issues, how to asses them, or how to directly address them, because the organisational structure hasn't empowered us to address these problems..."refer substance abusers and those with mental health problems to another agency" is basically the bedrock of risk management plans. 

Do they equip and encourage us to deliver meaningful work to tackle these issues directly when confronted with them? Nope! Meanwhile the person is caught between attending a plethora of disparate agencies who each deal with their one issue badly, forced to attend under threat of recall. I'm frankly disgusted by how the service has denigrated the role of probation officer and those responsible in "the centre" don't see how responsible they have been for such poor HMIP inspections. We, the staff, shouldn't feel the burden of criticism here.

And another:-

70% staff lacking appropriate training
60+% cases without management oversight
~50% cases had no analysis of mental health needs

And these were cases prepared for & presented to the inspectors?!

Every time there's an inspection the lack of quality, competence & effectiveness never ceases to astound, yet nothing changes. It's as if operating at somewhere between 30%-50% efficiency/quality/competence is regarded as a triumph for which so-called 'leaders' are rewarded for their 'achievements'. Its shocking. And all paid for by the taxpayer.

Future of Prisons

I note imminent departure hasn't prevented Frances Crook from having a go at taking on the new Justice Secretary:-  

A 10-point action plan to change prisons and build safer communities

I have written to the new Secretary of State for Justice, Dominic Raab, with ideas for a radical plan of action, as we understand he is preparing for publication of a White Paper on the future of prisons. Change is needed in a system that is antiquated and failing victims, the taxpayer and perpetrators.

The deprivation of liberty is the most serious punishment available to the state. The removal of civil rights as a consequence of incarceration is a profound action. The practical ramifications of imprisonment are immense, from the cost to the public purse to the damage to families.

Prisons have failed by any measure. They have fed the crime problem, they have not solved it. It is time to rethink the purpose, use and experience of prisons so that we do not continue to harm individuals and society. Prison has been used profligately and inappropriately. This needs to change.

The Howard League seeks to abolish prisons as they are. Prisons should be a smaller part of the system, serving a focussed role within a wider structure aimed at creating a safer community. Prisons should not be used for people with mental illness, people who are merely annoying or different, or people facing immigration issues.

Prisons should be run on principles of justice and fairness, treating people with consistency, impartiality and respect. Instead, prisons today are places which embed injustice. Treating people in prison with justice and fairness would have a ripple effect and help to build safer and fairer communities.

Prisons are part of the community. Families, voluntary organisations and visitors should have easy access to, and relationships with, people in prison.

The Howard League has developed an outline plan and we will build on the ideas in a series of blog postings over the coming weeks:

• Stop the prison expansion programme, put legal limits on the population each prison can hold, and end the use of prisons for profit, so that we can reinvest in existing prisons within the public sector
• Reduce the prison population by at least a half and start planning for reintegration immediately with families and purposeful activities
• Stop the use of prison for people with serious mental ill-health and improve the health and well-being of people who are detained. Drive down self-injury and deaths in custody
• Reduce the number of Black and ethnic minority people in the penal system. Equality of outcomes should be rigorously monitored and pursued across the penal system
• Close the failed young offender institutions and secure training centres and use only local authority-run secure children’s homes for the very few children who require custody
• Close women’s prisons and introduce small local residential units for the tiny number of women who commit crimes serious enough to merit a custodial sentence
• Curtail the power to remand people to prison and introduce the possibility of individuals applying to court for compensation if found not guilty
• Abolish unfair and inconsistent practices, such as the imposition of additional days of imprisonment and arbitrary recalls
• Reform the prison officer role so that it is a profession with a proper career path, qualifications and training
• Introduce real work opportunities in prison for long-term prisoners, bringing businesses into prisons to train and employ prisoners and have them paying tax and national insurance.

I appreciate that this requires considerable change, but after more than a century of a failing system, it is time to take action.

Frances Crook

Therapy - There's a Novelty

I find this opinion piece from the Guardian resonates with much of my own practice over the years and particularly the difficulty in accessing psychiatric and psychological provision for clients. As is becoming routine now, Probation doesn't get a mention and I've absolutely no confidence things will improve, not least due to our changed training, role and experience.   

Why we should be giving therapy to violent offenders

As a forensic psychiatrist I have learned that helping prisoners confront their offences is best for them, and for society.

Throughout my career, people have asked me why I do what I do. I’m a forensic psychiatrist and psychotherapist; I’ve spent three decades working with people in prisons and secure hospitals who have committed violent offences. I give therapy to those struggling to articulate unspeakable things and come to terms with their new identities as offenders.

This means listening without judgment to things that in any other circumstances would produce horror and revulsion. For example, a man’s account of how he killed four people and severed one of their heads to make disposal of the body more manageable, or a woman’s insistence that the victim she stabbed was possessed by a demon. A man who insists his ex-lover made him jealous relates how he strangled her; a young mother blames “useless” medical professionals for her baby’s multiple trips to the emergency room. Why should we help “those people”? Aren’t our resources better spent helping their victims or other law-abiding citizens who need treatment? Such questions reveal a great deal about the society we have created.

“Why wouldn’t we help?” is my usual reply. There is a nuance here that some people may not wish to acknowledge: in prison, the identities of victim and perpetrator are not always distinct. Most of our prison population qualifies as both; recent studies in the UK and the US confirm that most convicted offenders have an experience of trauma, abuse and violence at least four times higher than the general population.

The way a society treats the least of its members is a kind of barometer of justice. In the UK, as in many other countries, the punishment for criminal rule-breaking is deprivation of liberty. Once someone is incarcerated, we have committed to helping them change and become less risky. Aside from a small subset of extreme cases, it is reasonable to believe that most offenders can return to the community after serving their time and live productive, crime-free lives. This is a concept enshrined in UK law since the Penitentiary Act of 1779, which made the rehabilitation of prisoners a function of all prisons.

But that mission is not always accomplished. Our justice system and the programmes in prisons designed to reduce recidivism often fall short. Resourcing is insufficient; the most recent survey from the National Audit Office indicates that among prisoners in England and Wales, as many as 90% have poor mental health, including PTSD and depression. Perhaps only 10-20% of the most acute cases will ever get seen by a forensic professional like me. On release, ex-offenders contend with economic and social problems that can quickly drive them back inside. Within the female prison estate, for example, more than half of women face homelessness when released.

People grow out of violence on what is known as the “age-crime curve”: most violent offenders will desist over time, with rule-breaking and harmful behaviours dropping off rapidly after 35. Treating younger people effectively in prison makes it less likely that they will return in later life. And given the costs of keeping someone incarcerated (around £40,000 per year), providing therapy is time and money well spent – practical and compassionate in equal measure.

In my role as a forensic psychiatrist, I coordinate medical treatment within secure psychiatric hospitals, including Broadmoor, where I’ve spent much of my career. I also offer therapy, individually and in groups, to patients willing to look at how their minds work. The process can be halting and difficult. Many of my patients lack emotional vocabulary and struggle with trust.

But often there is progress, however subtle, and there is hope. I have known a jealous man who strangled his lover move from self-righteousness and suicidality to acceptance and a willingness to take responsibility for his actions. I have watched a woman go from being a victim of her mental illness to someone who reduced her risk by gaining a new understanding of her “demons”. Taking agency is the first step towards recovery, and I am constantly humbled when I see the changes that can follow.

Sometimes I work with legal colleagues to assess a person’s state of mind for the family or criminal courts. In cases before the family court, like the young woman who blamed doctors for her baby’s “mystery illness”, I will recommend treatment. But it is often unavailable for mothers who need it – another sad indicator of our society’s priorities. In criminal cases, the psychiatric evidence I provide doesn’t get people a more lenient outcome or a “cushy” transfer to secure psychiatric care. The notion that a secure hospital is better than prison reflects how little many of us know about the double stigma of being both an offender and mentally unwell.

I can attest that most prisoners recoil at the prospect of being “nutted off” (sent to psychiatric care from prison or directly upon conviction) because of the stigma this involves and because they have more autonomy in prison. Prison may be by turns boring and terrifying, but you’re generally left to think your thoughts alone. When I have run group therapy sessions for homicide perpetrators, prisoners have spoken about watching the TV show Big Brother and likened it to their lives in the secure hospital. Their time is highly structured, and people like me scrutinise their every move and thought. I wonder if that “cushy” notion derives from a general belief that anything must be better than prison. Or perhaps the word “therapy” is associated with coddling, like a massage at a spa, rather than a hard and painful look at parts of your mind that you’ve been avoiding your whole life.

Doctors go toward suffering without judgment. We do not deal in absolutes but attend to what we can discover through listening, observation, and testing. Although there will be people who can’t or won’t change their minds for the better, I’ve found that most violent offenders are interested in understanding how they got into this mess and how they can do better in future. We know so much more today about the miraculous capacities and plasticity of the mind, particularly the still-developing young mind. We also have a wealth of research evidence about what types of therapy can make a difference. Failure to use such knowledge would be a kind of madness on our part. We all want the world to be a safer place. I suggest the pressing question about the treatment of violent offenders is not “Why bother?” but “Can we afford not to?”

Dr Gwen Adshead is a forensic psychiatrist and psychotherapist, and co-author, with Eileen Horne, of The Devil You Know: Stories of Human Cruelty and Compassion (Faber)

Big New Idea

"Ground breaking" news. The wheel can be reinvented, even if reluctantly, and ever so slowly. Who would have thought that a social work, rehabilitation approach may have an impact on reoffending? 'Getafix

Just announced by MoJ and NPS:- 

£3 million pilot to reduce reoffending by young adults

Young adults supervised by the probation service will receive specialist drug and mental health support at a new £3 million centre to reduce reoffending.

• Specialist support for 18-25 year olds under probation supervision
• First hub to be based in Newham, London
• Range of specialist services, including drug and mental health support, will based under one roof

The hub, the first of its kind, will be based at Newham Probation Office and has been developed by the Ministry of Justice and the Mayor for London’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC).

Young adults have a particularly high risk of reoffending and are more likely to carry out drug, robbery and possession of weapons offences, and be caught up in gang crime.

Mental health and substance misuse experts will work alongside National Probation Service staff, as part of an innovative new approach ensuring vulnerable young adults, many of whom had troubled upbringings and poor education, receive the enhanced support they need to avoid a life of crime.

Offenders released without a home or a job are significantly more likely to reoffend, so accommodation, training and employment services will also operate from the hub to help cut crime.

This support is already available but bringing this range of services under one roof and tackling these complex issues together at an early stage can prevent thousands of people becoming victims each year and save some of the £18 billion annual cost of repeat crimes.

Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, Robert Buckland, MP, said:

"This ground-breaking new model will help offenders get their lives back on the straight-and-narrow before it’s too late and they become career criminals. It will mean less reoffending and fewer people becoming victims of crime while also giving these young adults all the tools they need to make the most of their lives."

London’s Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime, Sophie Linden, said:

"It’s vital we do everything we can to prevent reoffending and give young people who have been through the criminal justice system the support they need to turn their lives around. We know the pandemic has meant fewer jobs and opportunities for our young people and that is why this new hub in Newham is so important. It will give us the platform to make vital interventions and deliver specialist support to vulnerable young people, helping them turn away from crime and rebuild their lives through access to housing, education and job opportunities."

The pilot will launch in July and run until March 2023 for 18-25 year olds who are assessed as having low levels of maturity and 17 year olds transitioning from the Youth Offending Service to adult probation. It will then be externally evaluated and, if a success at reducing reoffending and improving outcomes for this cohort, rolled out across the country.

All staff will receive specific training in the brain development of young people. Young adults have distinct needs, which are different to both older adults and children and treating them as a specific group will ensure the root causes of their offending are spotted and addressed earlier on in their development.

This £3 million of Government funding follows a £148 million investment to protect people from the scourge of illegal drugs and a £70 million package to support offenders into temporary accommodation upon release.

Taken together, this £220 million of funding highlights the Government’s commitment to tackling crime.

Women and Prison

Yesterday the Justice Committee took evidence from a number of people, including Dr Kate Paradine CEO of the charity Women in Prison. This from Huffington Post:-

 
Investing In Ending Women's Reoffending Would Save Money - And Families

Investing in solutions that will ensure that women and their children are supported to break the vicious cycle of offending, saving millions to the public purse in the process

Today, I am giving evidence to MPs on the Justice Select Committee who are investigating the unprecedented crisis in our prisons and what can be done about it over the next five years.

I am keen to convey the overwhelming evidence showing that prison doesn’t work and that a change of approach is needed. It fails to deliver justice or reduce re-offending and increases trauma and harm to some of our most vulnerable and disadvantaged citizens.

Most of the 3,800 women in prison (5% of the overall prison population) have been victims of violence and abuse as children or adults. A third grew up in care. The vast majority are serving short sentences for low level non-violent offences, mostly theft (including shoplifting) – usually linked to mental ill health, substance misuse, poverty and domestic violence. Women are often a family’s primary carer and in nine out of 10 cases when a mother goes to prison her children will have to leave home to live with relatives or go into the care system.

The Government’s new ‘Female Offender Strategy’ reflects some of the blueprint for change set out in Baroness Jean Corston’s ground-breaking 2007 report. The strategy includes a welcome end to plans to build new women’s prisons and a commitment to reduce the women’s prison population by focussing on diversion and community alternatives to custody.

At the heart of delivering the strategy sit a network of local women’s centres providing services to address the root causes of offending – mental ill health, domestic violence, substance misuse, debt and homelessness. In Manchester, such services have helped to reduce imprisonment of women by 35%. A recent evaluation shows that for every £1 spent on women’s centres, £4.68 is saved in other areas of public spending.

The strategy could mark the beginning of a long-term cross-party plan to drastically reduce re-offending, whilst saving millions of pounds spent on counterproductive and harmful prison sentences. If a national network of women’s centres delivering holistic services was funded to demonstrate its effectiveness – a similar model could be rolled out to reduce the male prison population and to tackle high rates of men’s re-offending.

However, the desperate reality for such centres suggests that we are a long way from making this a reality. The disastrous ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ reforms that privatised the probation service and brutal cuts to public services have taken their toll on women’s centres. Those that have managed to remain open endure an unsustainable ‘hand to mouth’ existence, with staff routinely at risk of redundancy and services diminished or threatened with closure.

Aside from funding linked to tackling domestic violence, a pitiful £1.5million has been allocated over two years for running services linked to the government’s new strategy across England and Wales. This compares to £342million additional funding found for private companies delivering the failed reforms to the probation service. It is despite the fact that millions were earmarked to build new women’s prisons, and many more millions will come from the sale of HMP Holloway – the women’s prison in London closed two years ago and now sitting empty on acres of valuable land.

The direct costs of women caught up in the criminal justice system largely fall to the Ministry of Justice and policing, but locking up women with complex needs is also a public health issue. Funding needs to come from across government departments to reflect the causes of, and solutions to, women’s offending. It is an affront to justice that where a woman lives influences whether or not she receives community support or a prison sentence and this postcode lottery needs to be urgently addressed.

Our shamefully high imprisonment rate, the highest in Western Europe, can only be reduced if we increase the confidence of police, the courts and the public in community alternatives to prison that deliver justice and address the causes of crime. Adequately funded women’s centres, offering proven constructive long-term solutions, working collaboratively with police, local authorities, health providers and probation, could have a central role in halving the women’s prison population by the next decade.

For the first time, a cross-party consensus exists that there is a more effective way to administer justice and that the answer to the catastrophe in our prisons, lies in our communities. What is needed now is urgent action: Investing in solutions that will ensure that women and their children are supported to break the vicious cycle of offending, saving millions to the public purse in the process.

Dr Kate Paradine 

Dr Kate Paradine is Chief Executive of the national charity Women in Prison. Kate has led various change initiatives in the public and charity sectors on issues including domestic abuse, child abuse, substance misuse and mental ill health including publishing national policy and strategy documents. She led the project to transfer staff and services from the National Policing Improvement Agency to the College of Policing and was previously National Quality Lead at CRI (now Change, Grow, Live). Kate has been chair of trustees for a group of women’s refuges and for national theatre company Clean Break.

No Prison Reform Without Probation Reform

As every day goes by, more and more attention turns to the effects of Grayling's disastrous TR and prison policies and we know the government cannot ignore things for much longer. There continues to be much discussion as to how the prison population can be reduced, but nothing will work unless the damage inflicted upon the probation service is rectified. So, while we continue to await an 'announcement', here is the Criminal Justice Alliance with some suggestions for Rory Stewart:- 

HOW TO START REDUCING THE PRISON POPULATION

Dear Rory, 

Thank you so much for coming to speak to CJA members in May and articulating your determination to address some of the prison service’s most pressing operational challenges. The present level of the prison population in England and Wales is clearly one of the most significant of those challenges. 

We are encouraged by the recent small reduction in the prison population. Increasing the Home Detention Curfew caseload has been an effective way to start to reduce some of the pressure on our heavily overcrowded prison system and providing a managed transition for prisoners into the community. But more must be done. 

You said at our recent Members Meeting that you’d be happy to receive suggestions on how the prison population might be reduced, without compromising public safety. Possibilities for this in eight areas are enclosed. None of these proposals is revolutionary. 

They’re almost all both pragmatic and incremental. Many could be effected without legislation. Their implications for a reduction in the prison population of some 12,000 during the lifetime of this parliament are based on conservative assumptions. 

Any such reduction in the prison population also offers the possibility - based on similarly cautious estimates – of saving £900m of public money. The attached schedule details these savings. 

We hope these suggestions – based on knowledge shared by many of the CJA’s member organisations – will be helpful. Thank you for asking us to share them with you. We look forward to continue working with you to support efforts in reducing the prison population. 

Yours sincerely, 

Nina Champion Director, CJA

1. IPP Sentences 

The current IPP (Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection) population stands at nearly 2,900. Almost 90 per cent of these prisoners have served beyond the tariff deemed necessary as appropriate punishment for their offences. Without further intervention, the Parole Board acknowledges this figure may reduce to 1,500 by 2020. But this number remains unacceptably high, and the Government could be more ambitious in its approach, ensuring the IPP prison population reduces to less than 500 prisoners by 2022. (Net saving allowing for costs of external supervision £202.2m.) 

In our view, the Ministry of Justice should consider legislative intervention to convert posttariff IPP sentences to determinate sentences – a simple solution providing firm release dates. As CJA member Prison Reform Trust highlights, people serving IPP sentences have one of the highest rates of self-harm in the prison system. Providing a clear release date may help reduce this rate. 

As a minimum starting point, the 459 IPP prisoners serving tariffs of less than two years could have their sentences converted, expanding to the 1,176 IPP prisoners with tariffs of less than four years, then scaled up appropriately. A ‘sunset’ provision could also provide a release date for some or all post-tariff IPP prisoners by a particular year or by a number of years post-tariff. 

In the meantime, the availability of courses conditional for the release of IPP prisoners must continue to be prioritised. 

Once IPP prisoners are released, much more needs to be done to ensure that they do not return to prison. There is growing concern about the number of people serving IPP sentences who are recalled following release – currently over 800 prisoners. Nearly two thirds of those currently recalled are re-released following review by the Parole Board.This may necessitate a review by the Ministry of Justice of the licence conditions in the Prison Instructions. Further, people serving IPP sentences are often deeply institutionalised and require intensive independent advocacy support to facilitate their resettlement in the community. Many CJA members provide this type of support, but further investment is needed.

2. Recall 

On any given day in 1995, there were fewer than 200 people in prisons for recalls. In March 2018 there were over 6,000. 6 Over half – 58 per cent – of these had not been charged with a further offence, and were instead recalled for other licence breaches, such as failure to keep an appointment on time, or drugs and alcohol issues. And many people ‘recalled’ to prison did not receive a custodial sentence in the first instance.

There is little doubt that the extension of post-sentence supervision to those sentenced to less than 12 months has contributed to the rise in the recall population. Further, new Sentencing Council guidelines for sentencing breaches (effective from1 October 2018) will have custody as a starting point for even minor breaches. It is recognised that this ‘could have an impact on the prisons, with more offenders being sent to custody than at present’.

Recalls are costly interventions that interrupt the effective reintegration of former prisoners. The Ministry might review both the standard and extra licence conditions that Offender Managers can impose, as well as the mechanism for recalling a person following breach, emphasising that recall should be preserved for those presenting a serious risk to the public or genuinely failing to progress towards reintegration. 

But the best way to prevent an unnecessary recall is to ensure there is no breach in the first place, by providing effective rehabilitative support. Unfortunately, as highlighted in the Justice Committee’s recent review, probation services are critically underperforming and the effectiveness of Transforming Rehabilitation is in serious doubt. Securing accommodation is particularly problematic, especially for young people leaving custody, and recalls cause critical disruption to an already challenging process. 

Recognising that there will be some situations where someone may need to be recalled where there has been no further offence, keeping even 3,000 people out of prison and in the community where productive rehabilitation can take place could save £231.8m net over four years. 

3. Remand 

Those on remand – 9,200 people – now represent over ten per cent of the prison population. One in seven – nearly 1,400 – go on to receive non-custodial sentences. Ensuring this cohort is not needlessly kept in prison could save £39.9m annually.

The numbers are particularly stark for those remanded in custody and tried in the Magistrates’ Courts – of the 22,300 defendants annually, a quarter are acquitted and a third receive a non-custodial sentence. 

The Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 properly introduced a test of ‘no real prospect’ where remand should not be sought for an un-convicted defendant where there is no real prospect of a custodial sentence. CJA Member Transform Justice has noted that the law is largely satisfactory and compliant with international standards. However, in practice its implementation results in many defendants being remanded when other alternatives are or should be available. The Crown Prosecution Service, defence advocates and judges should ensure this test is applied much more rigorously. Greater use of electronic monitoring might also be considered as an alternative to remand.

4. ‘Sentence Creep’ 

Average sentence length for prisoners held for indictable offences is 30 per cent higher than ten years ago, up from 15.2 months to 20. There is no firm evidence that this ‘sentence creep’ has had any deterrent effect. 

If average sentence lengths had remained the same as in 2007 just for drug offences, fraud and theft, there would be approximately 2,000 fewer people in prison, saving £57m annually. (Research by data analysts Justice Episteme suggests that had sentencing policy for serious offences remained the same since 2003, there would be 16,000 fewer people in prison.) 

Change in this area will need to be incremental and the effects are unlikely to be seen immediately (unless changes are applied retrospectively to those already serving inflated sentences, such as an early release to electronic monitoring for low-risk prisoners). But without changes to sentencing practices, there seems little prospect of the vast bulk of the prison population reducing. 

More scrutiny could usefully be applied to the creation of sentencing guidelines by the Sentencing Council in the context of stretched prison resources and the effectiveness of custodial sentences. For instance, sentencers might be encouraged to sentence more creatively, restricting the requirements to use the upper limits of guidelines and allowing them to sentence below the lower limit. 

In 2017, the Sentencing Council admitted that increased severity of sentences for nondomestic and aggravated burglary offences ‘may be attributable’ to the introduction of the guideline for these offences. The Council has committed to reviewing this guideline, but as a priority, it should also commit to greater investment in assessing the impact of all guidelines, particularly those for high-volume crimes. 

5. Short Sentences 

At March 2018, 5,340 prisoners in England and Wales were serving sentences of less than 12 months. Short sentences are demonstrably less effective than community sentences at reducing recidivism (and more costly). Justice Secretary David Gauke has recently recognised this, stating that short sentences should be a last resort. Short-Sighted, a campaign by CJA member Revolving Doors, highlights that half of all people sentenced to custody are serving sentences of less than 6 months. 

Scotland introduced a presumption against custodial sentences of three months or less in 2010, and last September announced plans to extend this presumption to sentences of less than 12 months. Other countries with similar provisions include Belgium and Germany.

There may be certain instances for which this presumption against a custodial sentence would not be deemed appropriate given the interests of, and risks to, the victim and wider community. But if reductions occurred at a similar rate as in Scotland, there would be 2,000 fewer people in prison. Introducing a presumption against short sentences of less than 12 months could save £57m annually. 

6. Mental Health 

There is currently insufficient data to accurately measure the number of people in prison suffering from poor mental health. But as recently as 2016, the Centre for Mental Health estimated that 90 per cent of the prison population have mental health problems, personality disorders, or substance misuse problems. 

The 2009 Bradley Review found an estimated 2,000 prison places per year could properly be saved if individuals who receive short custodial sentences and who may be experiencing mental health problems were instead given a community sentence. This would save £57m. For many people with mental health issues, a community order with a Mental Health Treatment Requirement (MHTR) would be transformative and the prison estate, in any case, is all too often entirely inadequately equipped either to treat them or address their offending behaviour. 

In order to effect any such change, sentencing guidelines on MHTR would need to be strengthened. CJA member JUSTICE has also called for a Sentencing Guideline on mental health and vulnerability to be created. Despite revised guidance issued by the Ministry of Justice four years ago, there has not yet been a significant increase in the use of MHTRs, so there is still significant scope for further uptake. As identified by the Offender Health Research Network, the purpose, process and eligibility for MHTRs should be described by the Ministry of Justice and Department of Health in collaboration.

Magistrates and judges might also require additional training to raise awareness of the use of MHTRs attached to community sentences, though emphasis should be on their availability and inclusion in pre-sentence reports. 

7. Women 

At the end of March 2018, 1,250 women were in prison for non-violent offences - either theft, fraud or drug offences.23 Serious concerns have properly been raised about the necessity of custodial sentences for such women, when the vast majority could serve a sentence in the community without posing a threat to public safety. It is alarming that any woman is imprisoned in 2018 for TV licence non-payment. 

Of the 852 women sentenced to prison for drug offences since 2016, 240 were sentenced to three years or more.24 This small group aside, there remain 1,000 women imprisoned for non-violent offences whose sentence could better be served in the community, saving £28.5m.

CJA member Women in Prison’s 2020 campaign – to halve the women’s prison population to 2,020 (or fewer) by 2020 – highlights how alternatives to custody such as Women’s Centres and community support services result in lower reoffending rates than prison. Further, sending a woman to prison for a short period of time can have a significant impact not only on the woman herself, but also on any dependent children, which in turn can lead to additional costs needing to be funded by the state, such as foster care. 

In order to effect this change, sentencing guidelines would need to be amended and steps taken to address funding of women’s services, particularly Women’s Centres. We welcome the pledge in the Female Offender Strategy to commit £5 million to community provision for women to address offending behaviour.

However, there are serious concerns that this is an insufficient amount to achieve the strategy’s aims. Moreover, it is a pittance in comparison to the £50 million originally earmarked for the now scrapped plan to build five community prisons. 

As of March 2018, there were 500 women serving sentences of less than 12 months.26 These women would almost certainly be better rehabilitated in the community with access to appropriate treatment and without disrupting existing housing or childcare arrangements. This would save £14.3m. 

8. BAME people 

If the demographic of the prison population reflected that of England and Wales, there would – as noted recently in David Lammy’s review of black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) representation in the Criminal Justice System – be 9,000 fewer BAME people imprisoned, the equivalent of 12 average-sized prisons. If just ten per cent of these were diverted, this would save 900 prison places with (net) savings of £25.7m. 

As highlighted in the Review, one of the reasons for this disproportionality may be the association between ethnic group and likelihood of receiving a custodial sentence. Black people are 53 per cent more likely than white people to be sent to prison for an indictable offence at the Crown Court.

Lammy also highlighted the need for increased trust in the criminal justice system amongst BAME defendants, who were found to be more likely to opt for trial in Crown Court due to their higher confidence in the fairness of juries than in the fairness of the Magistrates’ Court. It recommended sensibly that all sentencing remarks in the Crown Court be published, to make justice more transparent and comprehensible, thereby building trust. Similarly, CJA member Centre for Justice Innovation advised that to improve the criminal court experience for BAME defendants, judges, magistrates and court staff should be trained in better courtroom engagement. 

Other recommendations in the Lammy Review include the CPS considering its approach to both gang prosecutions and to how Modern Slavery legislation could be used to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable young people and for identifying information to be redacted from case information passed to the CPS by the police to allow for ‘race-blind’ decisions. The 35 recommendations of the Review, if implemented, could significantly reduce the numbers of BAME people in prison.