CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.1.1 Reducing reoffending is a priority
for the Government as a whole. This is reflected in the publication
by the Social Exclusion Unit of its Report Reducing re-offending
by ex-prisoners and in the Public Service Agreement target
for the Prison Service, along with the National Probation Service
and Youth Justice Board, of reducing the predicted rate of re-offending
by 5% by April 2004 and again by 5% by April 2006.
1.1.2 The Prison Service is committed to
the rehabilitation of offenders. This is reflected in the Prison
Service objective to:
"Reduce crime by providing constructive
regimes which address offending behaviour, improve educational
and work skills and promote law abiding behaviour in custody and
after release."
The Criminal Justice Bill includes "reform
and rehabilitation" among the statutory purposes of sentencing.
1.1.3 Reducing re-offending by released
prisoners is central to reducing crime and is therefore part of
the Prison Service's core business of protecting the public, together
with the National Probation Service and Youth Justice Board.
1.1.4 The Social Exclusion Unit Report Reducing
re-offending by ex-prisoners and the joint Prison and Probation
Inspectorate Report, Through the Prison Gate, also published
in 2002, recognised the particular challenges presented by offenders.
Many offenders have a range of social exclusion problems, including
basic skills deficits, drug misuse, unemployment and exclusion
from school. As these reports brought out, a wide range of factors
can impact on the likelihood of re-offending.
1.1.5 Further background information may
also be found in the National Audit Office Report Reducing
Prisoner Re-offending, published in January 2002, and the
Public Accounts Committee Report Reducing Prisoner Re-offending,
published in September 2002.
1.1.6 What is done in prisons is part of
a wider package of increasingly joined-up action across departments
and agencies; the Government is currently finalising an action
plan setting out how this wider package will be taken forward.
1.1.7 For the Prison Service, there will
be an increasing emphasis on securing maximum impact by joining
up, both in the sense of strengthening partnerships with other
agencies and of managing coherently the impact of different interventions.
The Prison Service now has a wider range of partners making most
of opportunities prison provides to make an impact in individual
cases and make a bridge to provision outside.
1.1.8 As the Prison Service Annual Report
for 2002-03 spelt out, despite another year of, at times, severe
population pressures, the Service made a major contribution to
the ongoing push to reduce re-offending and still managed to improve
further on its already impressive security record.
1.1.9 Given the population pressures on
the Prison Service, the failure to achieve the Key Performance
Indicator (KPI) target for purposeful activity was expected. The
average number of purposeful hours fell towards the end of the
year, resulting in an outturn of 22.6 hours, on average, spent
by prisoners in purposeful activity, compared to a national target
of 24 hours.
1.1.10 There were only five escapes from
prisons in 2002-03, compared to 15 escapes in the previous year.
All of the education targets were achieved, as was the target
for resettling prisoners back into the community. The overall
target for offending behaviour programmes was met and although
the target for mandatory drug tests was not met, the outturn for
the year was still encouraging.
1.1.11 The continuing rise in the prison
population has placed considerable pressure on the operational
service. The increase has been significantly higher than statistical
projections and, between July 2002 and December 2002, necessitated
use of police cells to help accommodate prisoners.
1.1.12 The pressures the Prison Service
is under has prevented us doing more. For example, proper sentence
management and an effective personal officer scheme are difficult
to operate given the high turnover of prisoners through local
prisons. And it has not been possible to improve on the distance
from home many prisoners have to be kept. This factor and widely
scattered catchment areas for prisons make it more difficult to
develop effective release plans and build better resettlement
partnerships.
1.1.13 Although we cannot quantify statistically
the effects of overcrowding on rehabilitation, the high prison
population makes it inevitable that prisoners are moved more rapidly
around the estate (with an impact on family ties and disruption
to education and other programmes). Opportunities for constructive
work with prisoners is reduced as staff are required for other
duties.
1.1.14 Against this background, Home Detention
Curfew (HDC) is increasingly important as a means of providing
prisoners with a smoother transition to life in the community
as well as reducing some of the population pressures. It is not
simply an early release scheme but contributes to resettlement
by enabling prisoners to be released from prison, while still
being subject to restrictions on their liberty. HDC allows prisoners
to resume family life, gain employment or training at an earlier
stage and so break the cycle of social exclusion.
1.2 JOINT WORK
WITH THE
PRISON AND
PROBATION SERVICES
1.2.1 The Prison Service has an increasingly
close partnership with the National Probation Service, for example
on the new offender assessment system OASys, and in joint planning
for the new sentencing structure and work on case management.
Probation work in prisons
1.2.2 Probation staff are seconded to work
in prisons on a short-term basis (usually three years). The work
which they will do in a prison will depend on the nature of the
prison: each seconding governor will negotiate an arrangement
with their local Probation area. The work may include delivery
of treatment, management of programmes (including the resettlement
work), preparing reports for the Parole Board or other bodies,
and sentence planning.
Probation work with prisons
1.2.3 There is a significant and radical
programme of joint work with prisons that has been expanding steadily
since 1998. This includes:
— the development and introduction
of a joint offender assessment and sentence/supervision planning
tool (OASys);
— joint development and accreditation
of programmes;
— a common approach to drugs and alcohol
problems;
— a common approach to education training
and employment;
— the development of a common case
management system; and
— legislative proposals contained in
the Criminal Justice Bill to introduce new sentences (custody
plus, custody minus etc).
Structural change
1.2.4 Martin Narey took up the new role
of Commissioner of Correctional Services and Permanent Secretary
Human Resources in March 2003. Although the Probation and Prison
Services have been working in partnership both formally and informally
for many years, the Commissioner will oversee this work by identifying
and responding to the major strategic policy issues facing the
correctional services. A major review of Correctional Services
will be delivered in the coming weeks and will inform future strategy
and direction.
Common case management system
1.2.5 There is a close link between OASys,
dealt with later in this memorandum, and case management. In simple
terms this can be understood as OASys being about producing a
plan and case management about carrying it out (though there is,
in practice, rather more to it than that).
1.2.6 Unlike the Prison Service, the NPS
already case manages offenders. The challenge now is to ensure
a consistently high standard of case management across the NPS
so as to improve overall performance and help address problems
in particular areas—for example reducing the number of offenders
failing to complete programmes (known as programme "attrition").
1.2.7 Case management is the glue that holds
everything together. It is the NPS's core process and touches
everything it does. The case manager is responsible for the offender
throughout his/her time under supervision or on licence and has
a key role in ensuring access to suitable interventions and in
motivating the offender to stick with those interventions. Work
is well advanced on the development of a new national case management
model that will be rolled out across the Service, though implementation
planning has yet to begin in earnest.
1.2.8 Two reports concerned with the effective
resettlement of ex-offenders—"Through the Gate",
the report of a joint thematic review by the Prison and Probation
Inspectorates; and "Reducing Prisoner Re-offending",
a report by the Social Exclusion Unit—recommended the development
by the NPS and HMPS of a common case management framework. This
common framework will be delivered by means of the prison/probation
case management project that is being run under the auspices of
the Sentence Implementation Programme Board. Taking the NPS model
as its starting point, the aim will be to ensure that there is
consistency between the Prison Service's approach to handling
offenders in custody and the NPS's approach to offenders released
on licence.
1.2.9 Clearly, the transition from prison
to community needs to be as seamless as possible. But by stressing
the importance of case management we recognise that there is much
more to successful rehabilitation than, for example, ensuring
that a prisoner's treatment for drug misuse is continued after
release, vitally important though that is. The point is that in
order to achieve maximum impact interventions need to be delivered
in the context of a firm but supportive offender focused case
management framework that provides consistency and continuity
and is responsive to the needs of the individual.
New sentences
1.2.10 The prison and probation services
have established a joint programme board to oversee the design
and implementation of the new sentencing framework. This will
comprise a number of strands, including custody plus and intermittent
custody, the longer custodial sentences and dangerousness, as
well as the new community orders. Part of the design work will
address the provision of case management, which is important in
ensuring that the right offenders attend programmes, and that
their learning is applied and consolidated afterwards.
Correctional services programme board
1.2.11 The Commissioner for Correctional
Services chairs a Programme Board which draws together agencies
across government with a contribution to make to reducing re-offending.
In addition to the Directors General of the Prison and Probation
Services, the Board also includes the Chief Executives of the
Youth Justice Board, JobCentre Plus and the National Treatment
Agency, as well as the Directors General of Lifelong Learning
(DfES) and of Housing, Homelessness and Planning (ODPM). The Board
is responsible for monitoring progress towards meeting the PSA
target and for considering how to further improve the joined-up
delivery of services across the agencies in order to increase
their effectiveness. See also paragraph 1.3.4 below.
1.3 DELIVERY
PLAN
1.3.1 The Prison Service, along with the
National Probation Service and Youth Justice Board, have been
set a PSA target of reducing the predicted rate of re-offending
by 5% by April 2004 and again by 5% by April 2006.
1.3.2 Key interventions under the headings
Offending Behaviour Programmes, Drug Rehabilitation Programmes,
Basic Skills provision and prisoners into employment are leading
the push towards the challenging target.
1.3.3 With the expansion of delivery in
the field we are confident the delivery target can be achieved,
despite huge population pressure. The table below shows the current
targets, compared to last year, for delivery of the key strands
to the Delivery Plan:
|
| Strand | 2002-03 Target
| 2003-04 Target |
|
| Basic Skills Awards | 28,800
| 36,631 |
| Drug Rehabilitation Entrants | 5,000
| 5,700 |
| Offending Behaviour Programme Completions |
7,100 (includes 950 Sex Offender Treatment Programmes)
| 8,900 (includes 1,240 Sex Offender Treatment Programmes)
|
| Prisoners into Employment, Training or Education on release
| 28,200 | 31,500
|
|
1.3.4 The Director General of the Prison Service chairs
the monthly meeting of the Delivery Plan Monitoring Group for
Reducing Reconvictions. It ensures all key issues on delivery
are managed effectively. The reporting system for each strand
of the Delivery Plan is detailed and covers performance against
target, operational and policy milestones, delivery owner's statements,
and management of risks. See also paragraph 1.2.11 above.
1.3.5 Research, Development and Statistics Directorate
(RDS) are also involved in the delivery plan, attending all key
meetings. RDS will ensure that proper evaluation is undertaken
to prove the impact of the interventions in achieving the overall
Delivery Plan target.
1.3.6 The five main strands, which include better sentence
management, monitored monthly, are not the only areas that contribute
to reducing re-offending. There are many local examples of good
practice that also have an impact. All areas are encouraged to
research their interventions' effectiveness in order to further
build our knowledge of what works.
1.3.7 Details of additional investment in regimes, which
will contribute to achievement of the delivery plan target, are
included in an annex at the back of this memorandum.
1.4 SOCIAL EXCLUSION
UNIT REPORT
1.4.1 The Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) published its report
Reducing Re-Offending by Ex-prisoners in July 2002. This
report found that the cost of recorded crime alone to the criminal
justice system, committed by ex-prisoners, was at least £11
billion per year.
1.4.2 These costs are only a fraction of the overall
cost of re-offending. First, recorded crime accounts for between
only a quarter and a tenth of total crime, and ex-prisoners are
likely to be prolific offenders. They may, therefore, be responsible
for a large proportion of unrecorded crime and its costs as well.
Second, there are high financial costs to the police and the criminal
justice system more widely; the victims of the crimes; other public
agencies who also have to pick up the pieces; the national economy
through loss of income; the communities in which ex-prisoners
live; and, of course, prisoners themselves and their families.
1.4.3 The report identified nine key factors that can
have a huge impact on the likelihood of a prisoner re-offending:
— Education and Training.
— Mental and Physical Health.
— Attitudes and Self-Control.
— Institutionalisation and Life-Skills.
1.4.4 These factors are mutually re-enforcing, and in
the majority of instances, several will be experienced in combination
by the individual prisoner. This creates a formidable barrier
to their chances of going straight on release.
1.4.5 The SEU report found growing recognition within
Government of this problem, and steady improvement in service
delivery. However, it found that considerable further ground needed
to be covered, if there was to be a step-change in re-offending
rates:
"Although the Prison and Probation Services have improved
their focus on reducing re-offending, the current balance of resources
still does not enable them to deliver beneficial programmes, such
as education, drug and mental health treatment, offending behaviour
and reparation programmes and many others, to anything like the
number who need them."
"The availability of positive initiatives [. . .] is
patchy, and the majority of prisoners, particularly those serving
short sentences, receive little practical support, before release
or afterwards."
1.1. "In addressing the factors that contribute to
re-offending, correctional services often have to remedy a lifetime
of combined service failure, often unaided. And when prisoners
are released, agencies are far from pro-active in identifying
them, and indeed there is evidence that prisoners are actively
de-prioritised. Many experience real obstacles to re-engaging
in learning or drug programmes on release; but these pale into
insignificance compared with their difficulties in accessing housing
and benefits."
"No-one is ultimately responsible for the rehabilitation
process at any level—from national policy, to the level
of the individual prisoner. Responsibility and accountability
for outcomes can be very unclear. The problems in prisoners' lives
are often highly complicated and inter-related. They require a
co-ordinated multi-agency response, within prison, across the
crucial transitions between community and custody, and sustained
long after release. Without this, they are likely to fall into
the gaps between services. This task is made more complex by the
need to assess the risk posed by released prisoners to public
safety, and in some cases, to manage any potential threat across
a number of areas, including housing and employment. However,
joint working mechanisms are not robust, and are not backed by
shared targets, leverage, or a up to date management information."
"For those workers involved in the prison or in the community,
the opportunities and rewards for innovation in rehabilitation
work are currently far too limited."
"In prisons, processes on reception and release could
be much better designed to promote rehabilitation and to identify
and tackle factors influencing re-offending. Prisoners are losing
housing and employment and accruing debt for want of basic procedures,
dedicated resource and expertise. Good practice is not well enough
articulated, and the process needs more resource and management
priority."
"For those who do increase their employability, the requirement
to disclose their convictions to a potential employer can be a
significant barrier, resulting in discrimination. The current
arrangements do not get the balance right between the need to
protect the public and the importance of enabling those who do
not pose a significant risk of harm to move into legitimate employment."
"There is no requirement on the Probation Service to
supervise short-term prisoners—those sentenced to less than
12 months—aged over 21. As a result, they are released in
a completely unmanaged fashion, nothing is done with them on release,
and indeed because there is no responsible agency to which they
are handed over very little is done in preparation for release.
Yet short-term prisoners have the highest re-offending rates."
"Not enough has been done to engage prisoners, their
families, victims, communities, and voluntary and business sectors
in rehabilitation."
"The system is not always geared up to deal with the
different factors affecting the re-offending of certain groups
of prisoners, particular women, young adults, black and minority
ethnic groups, and remand prisoners."
1.4.6 The SEU recommended that:
"the Government should develop and implement a National
Rehabilitation Strategy, based on [the] report, involving all
relevant departments and led by the Home Office."
1.4.7 Since publication, there has been further investment
across Government in some services that can aid rehabilitation
(as this memorandum will make clear), further investment is planned,
but there are also continuing resource constraints that can only
be addressed in the long term.
1.4.8 In the last year, inter-departmental groups of
officials and Ministers from the Home Office, Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister, and Departments of Health, Education and Skills,
Constitutional Affairs, Work and Pensions, and Trade and Industry
have been set up to respond to the SEU report. Their aim is to
develop and deliver an action plan, for completion by the end
of the year.
1.4.9 The aim of the action plan is to put in place improvements
that will help the range of service delivery already in place
to cohere better. This work is still in development, but it is
likely to include measures to:
— address significant gaps in service delivery;
— improve continuity of support through-the-gate;
— remove institutional barriers to rehabilitation;
— improve information exchange throughout the system;
— strengthen partnership working at a regional level;
and
— focus efforts on short-term prisoners.
1.4.10 Some of these actions will make a difference in
the short term. Most will necessarily set in train longer-term
activity. The pace of implementation of a national rehabilitation
strategy is dependent on the availability of the necessary resources.
|
