39. Memorandum submitted by
Serco
1. Serco is one of the leading providers
of private sector custody and electronic tagging in the UK. We
operate prisons at Doncaster, Lowdham Grange, Dovegate and Kilmarnock
and Youth Offenders Institutions/Secure Training Centres for younger
offenders at Hassockfield and Ashfield. Serco provides electronic
tagging for offenders in Scotland and a large part of England
and Wales. Serco is also operating the pilot for the support of
offenders on release through the provision of employability training
and job placement for released offenders in the east of England.
2. Through these roles Serco is in the rare
position of having an end-to-end view of the offender's experience,
from entry into custody through to resettlement and rehabilitation.
This role provides an excellent perspective from which to understand
what forms of sentencing work for which kinds of offender from
the perspective of rehabilitation and the role of resettlement.
SUMMARY
3. From our experience, we believe that
there continue to be instances of offenders who are offered short-term
custodial sentences where a community sentence would be more appropriate
from the perspective of reducing recidivism. More important, there
is insufficient attention paid to the resettlement of the majority
of short-term prisoners. In particular, there needs to be more
attention paid to the integration into the community through treatments
for health and drug misuse, provision of accommodation and assistance
into work.
4. We believe that more sophisticated use
of both resettlement services and greater use of a range of community
sentences would allow for more flexibility in sentencing, greater
confidence in the system and would allow for improved targeting
of sentences and interventions that are appropriate to the rehabilitation
of the offender.
5. It is also apparent that a number of
discrepancies are arising within the system that erode the credibility
of sentencing in the minds of offenders. For example, where robbery
leads to a longer custodial sentence than that prescribed to sex
offenders, or where (on occasion) younger offenders are particularly
likely to receive custodial sentences, this tends to detract from
the credibility of the sentence.
SENTENCING AND
RESETTLEMENT FROM
THE PERSPECTIVE
OF REHABILITATION
6. Short-term sentences create particular
problems from the perspective of rehabilitation. This is because
within short-term sentences there is rarely the scope for focused
interventions to address real problems (to deal for example with
behavioural or drug issues). Instead short custodial sentences
serve to uproot the offender from any existing support networks
and relationships and place them into a situation that may do
little to help them address their underlying issues. Within short-term
custody they will be passed fairly rapidly between institutions
with little scope to develop an understanding of, nor address,
their core needs. For this reason, resettlement is particularly
critical for these offenders. However, because of the brevity
of the sentence they will often be passed back out into society
without the long-term resettlement planning that is feasible within
longer sentences. The need is therefore to use community sentencing
wherever possible rather than short-term sentences and where,
because of repeat offending or the severity of the offence, a
short-term custodial sentence is unavoidable there needs to be
a much greater focus on how to resettle the prisoner.
7. Some of the case studies attached give
good examples of where custodial sentences have been applied where
it seems likely that a targeted community sentence would have
been more appropriate. There is also statistical evidence from
Scotland that short sentences are peculiarly ineffective there—a
situation which is likely to be mirrored in England and Wales.
In Scotland reconviction rates for those leaving prison after
a short term sentence are higher than the national average for
all prisoners of 67%.[151]
8. In some of these instances community
sentences might have offered a better chance of rehabilitation.
Our experience is that in many cases community sentences help
offenders to place order into their lives. For example, the use
of electronic monitoring can not only act as an effective sanction
but also create discipline around offenders' lives. Family units
are often reunited as the son, brother, father, daughter or mother,
is obliged to stay in during curfew hours. We are frequently told
when delivering this service that it is the first time in a long
while that the family have been together. The tag can give stability
to previously disorganised lives: the subject must prepare for
each daily curfew period by arranging their domestic circumstances,
they must plan in advance and have sufficient consumables such
as food. They also have to plan their out-of-curfew times, to
ensure that they have sufficient time to return home to start
the curfew. Quite apart from this the tag will often enable the
breaking away from habits of behaviour and from relationships
with other offenders that may lead them astray. Often, at the
completion of the order, offender's families will thank us for
our work- because they have been able to observe the improvements
in the behaviour of the offender.
9. Unpaid work would provide similar opportunities
for introducing discipline and structure into offenders' lives.
It would also create an opportunity for offenders to create demonstrable
impact on their local community—thereby removing any sense
that they are benefiting from a "soft option".
10. This is not to argue for blanket use
of specific community sentences. The offenders with whom we work
are hugely varied and respond to a variety of types of sentence
and intervention. Nor is it to argue for light sentencing. We
believe that many community sentences, appropriately enforced,
could offer genuinely tough sanctions. Moreover, custodial sentencing
certainly has a place with repeat and severe offenders. We do
encounter examples where custodial sentences, or the threat thereof,
are the key to encouraging the offender to reform (see Client
5 below). Sometimes a short-term sentence, combined with appropriate
after-prison care can be effective in providing short-term stabilisation
for those with chaotic lifestyles. However, too often the level
of care in prison, and more importantly the level of after-care
is insufficient to make this a reality.
END-TO-END
APPROACHES TO
REHABILITATION
11. Sentencing can only form part of the
overall solution of reducing recidivism. There are also a range
of interventions that need to take place during the course of
the sentences and after their completion. We believe that a significant
amount of further work will be required in this area to ensure
that the appropriate changes are made. Particular focus will need
to be placed on:
— Correct risk assessment of those
prior to sentence and developing better statistical analyses of
likely risks.
— Early intervention on entry into
prison.
— Addressing the problems with "hand-offs"
within the system as rehabilitation effort is diluted as prisoners
are passed between institutions.
— Continuity, accountability and flexibility
of Information Advice and Guidance.
— Improved multi-agency working—internal
and external.
— Allocation and Relocation of prisoners
within an area to allow for more local intervention.
— More effective resettlement in coordination
with local voluntary groups (our work at Doncaster has demonstrated
major improvements through this route).
CASE STUDIES
Inappropriate use of custodial sentences
Client 1: Client 1 was aged 17 years old.
His first offence was when he walked into newsagent in a local
town with a friend and said "this is a hold up—no only
joking" and walked out. He was arrested, charged and received
a four year sentence for Robbery. He got parole after serving
two years but spent almost 12 months of the two years he served
out on Release on Temporary Licence, community work and weekend
home visits. He could have been dealt with by a community disposal,
reparation or restorative justice as his risk assessment was low.
Client 2: Client 2 entered our youth offenders
institution aged 16 years old. He served six months for criminal
damage—throwing stones at a shop window. It was relatively
easy to diagnose his problem. He was mentally ill, homeless and
behaviourally extremely volatile. He had no one at court with
him and ended up in custody as a place of safety. At the end of
his sentence he was released into foster carers who were unable
to cope with him and he returned to custody on and off. He is
now in the adult prison estate. When he first came into to custody
he would have benefited from supported housing and an Intensive
Surveillance and Supervision Plan (ISSP) with intensive supervision
in the community. This would have cost £16,000 not the £55,000
it cost to place him in juvenile custody—and at the end
of it he might have stayed out of custody.
Client 3: Client 3 was remanded in Ashfield
for assault. He was a difficult young man with unmanaged epilepsy
and brain damage. His offence had occurred when during "horseplay"
with others he pushed an old lady over a wall onto the beach.
He had no idea of what he had done and was classed as unfit to
plead. He was remanded into custody but was fortunately correctly
diagnosed within Ashfield and the staff there pushed to get him
put into a secure hospital so he could access the treatment he
needed and be more suitably cared for. He was later declared unfit
to plead again and has since been released without charge.
Need for improved resettlement
Client 4: Client 4 was in prison ready
to be released. His biggest worry was that he was going to a hostel
and he needed help with his previous drug problem. He told staff
that rather than going into the hostel he would rather stay in
prison. Leeds based Agency DISC (Developing Initiatives Support
in the Community) were supporting Client 2 in prison prior to
release. DISC contacted Statutory Services to help him. Probation
insisted Client 4 went into a hostel which was in a location that
would be difficult for liaison with DISC/DIP. Consequently when
he went into the hostel he ran away within two weeks without any
of the support that had been arranged for him by Resettlement/DISC
and DIP.
Using custodial sentencing as part of a range
of interventions
Client 5: Client 5 had a troubled family
background and since the age of nine years old had been living
in care and had 67 different placements throughout her childhood.
At the age of 12 she committed her first offence and was subsequently
arrested around 80 times for various offences including drugs,
theft, shoplifting, ABH and assaulting Police Constable.
Client 5 had been given two Supervision Orders
with curfews throughout her criminal life, neither of which were
completed successfully. She was later made subject to an Intensive
Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP) which included a
curfew as well. This order was breached and Client 5 was returned
to court with the realisation that the only option left for the
court, due to her consistent non-compliance with community based
penalties, would be to impose a custodial sentence. This harsh
realisation altered Client 5s attitude and prompted her to express
her regret, fear and emotions to the judge. The District Judge
at her breach hearing was impressed with her reaction gave her
a final chance and ordered that she was made subject to a further
ISSP programme which included a curfew.
Determined to change her life around Client 5
worked hard at the programme. She did not breach her curfew which
gave her a structure for a previously chaotic lifestyle and prevented
her from spending time in detrimental company and situations.
Client 5 has since led a law abiding lifestyle
and is currently working in a café to earn an honest living.
In her spare time she volunteers to assist the Youth Offending
Team and other agencies involved in the intervention, supervision
and rehabilitation of young offenders.
Comments from Offenders who have experience community
sentencing in the form of electronic monitoring
— "I found it hard to be consistently
on time, week after week".
— "Spending time with my daughter
while on the tag [was the best thing about it]; I couldn't remember
sitting down with her and doing anything like homework or just
talking before I was on the tag."
— "My anger has been brought under
control better, and it helped reduce my dependency on drugs."
— "It's better than Jail and gives
you a chance to prove yourself".
— "Kept me out of the cycle of
staying out all night when I usually get into trouble."
— "The whole family get affected
by it."
— "Since M has been tagged he's
really changed a lot for the better." (From the mother of
an offender).
— "This has given me the chance
to do things about working, seeing my family and getting my life
in order."
— "Having the tag put some sort
of discipline in my life which was needed."
— "Keeps me off the streets and
under control."
— "Made me closer to my parents,
kept me in and made me behave."
— "The tag has helped S get a
job and back to work again." (From the mother of an offender).
8 March 2007
151 Source: Dr Andrew McLellan, Chief Inspector
of Prisons, Scotland. Back
|
