34. Memorandum submitted by
Rainer
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Rainer is a national voluntary organisation
working with 14,000 under-supported young people and young adults
each year. Those we work with haven't always had the best start
in life and may face challenges with education, social care, housing
or within the criminal justice system.
1.2 We were founded over 200 years ago and
today Rainer's 550 staff and 500 volunteers work in 115 communities
across the country. Approximately half of the people we support
are caught up in the criminal justice system in some way.
1.3 This paper draws on learning from RESET
(Resettlement, Education, Support, Employment and Training). RESET
is a Rainer led national partnership aimed at re-engineering the
resettlement process for young offenders. RESET draws together
59 partner agencies including HM Prison Service, the Youth Justice
Board, and the Metropolitan Police.
1.4 For further information on Rainer's
work visit www.raineronline.org
1.5 Within this submission we have limited
our comments to areas where we have specific evidence or expertise.
We would be happy to elaborate on these examples if further information
is required.
2. SENTENCING
AND THE
USE OF
CUSTODY
2.1 The dramatic increase in the prison
population over recent years has arguably been driven mainly by
changes within sentencing practice—particularly the increasing
severity of sentences (particularly the use of "indeterminate"
sentences) and the reluctance to use non-custodial sentences.[122]
2.2 Custody is extremely costly to the individual,
the community in terms of re-offending and to the tax-payer. A
place in a youth offending institute costs an average of £53,000
per year whilst a secure training centre costs an average of £160,000.
Despite such investment in custodial sentencing, high re-offending
rates are currently one of the biggest challenges facing the criminal
justice system, and reconviction rates are particularly high for
young people leaving custody. Nearly 69% of sentenced young adults
are reconvicted within two years of release.[123]
2.3 This suggests that, in the long term,
at least two of the objectives behind the 2003 Criminal Justice
Act—the reform and rehabilitation of offenders and reducing
crime—are not being met.
2.4 This may be particularly true for those
young people on short custodial sentences.
2.5 Commonly young offenders enter custody
with a history of complex problems including family disruption,
poor parental supervision and misuse of drugs and or alcohol.[124]
Many have poor literacy and numeracy skills and 63% were unemployed
at the time of their arrest.[125]
2.6 At 3 November 2006 there were 9,136
young people aged 18-20 in prison in England and Wales.[126]
For the two thirds of young people sentenced to less than 12 months,
the average time spent in custody is eight weeks and one day.[127]
Custodial staff report that there is simply no time to properly
engage with young people or young adults when they have such a
short window of opportunity to work with them. This situation
is then exacerbated by the increasing numbers moving through the
system.
2.7 Overcrowding undermines the good work
that prisons can do in improving the education, health and welfare
of juveniles in custody. The sheer pressure on the current system
creates time constraints that mean staff that could be offering
training and support to prepare young people for release and addressing
their support needs, have little time for anything but security
considerations.
2.8 Overcrowding also means effective sentence
planning is extremely difficult. Many young people are held long
distances from home. At July 2006 more than a third (35%) of all
18-20 year olds were being held more than 50 miles away from their
home and more than one in 10 (12%) were being held over 100 miles
away.[128]
The distance young people are being held from home due to population
pressures impacts on the ability of families to visit, and of
professionals (including resettlement mentors) from the home community
to establish and maintain relationships prior to release. Evidence
from RESET suggests that if relationships can be established several
months prior to release, resettlement will be more effective and
sustainable.
2.9 Effective resettlement is dependent
on partnerships which take time to build. As more young people
are being held further away from their home areas, increasingly
home agencies find they cannot rely on the relationships, procedures
and protocols they have in place with their nearest establishment(s).
2.10 Pressures on the prison system means
that young people can be repeatedly moved around the system. In
RESET's experience, information gets lost, and frequently young
people are unable to complete education or training courses. Similarly,
agencies working within custody to link young people back to their
home communities can be frustrated by these frequent moves and
planning for release can be disrupted.
2.11 And failure to properly address resettlement
needs can have an almost immediate impact on prison population.
Young people who breach licences are increasingly boosting the
numbers of young people in custody. Around 20% of convictions
resulting in custody are for breach of a statutory order—amounting
to 5% of all known offences by young people, and a further 9%
are for breach of a conditional discharge.[129]
2.12 In short, too many young people and
young adults are being set up to fail on release from custody
because effective sentence planning, including planning for resettlement
is not possible.
3. ALTERNATIVES
TO CUSTODY
3.1 Alternatives to custody such as community
sentences and Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programmes
(a combination of intensive education and training with electronic
tagging) are vital. Such schemes provide community-based support
for persistent and serious young offenders and are a genuine alternative
to custody for children and young people who would otherwise be
locked up.
3.2 However, as noted above, there is a
reluctance to use custodial sentences as a genuine alternative
to custody and, in Rainer's experience, there is a real danger
that young people are "up-tariffed" onto intensive community
sentences even where their crimes would not be deemed serious
enough for a custodial sentence.
BAIL AND
REMAND MANAGEMENT
3.3 One group that adds to the numbers in
custody unnecessarily is the remand population. Remand prisoners
account for around 20% of under-18s in custody and 17% of adult
prisoners. Only half of remand prisoners go on to receive a prison
sentence (Home Office, 2005).
3.4 Two-thirds of people received into a
prison on remand are accused of non-violent offences. As with
all custody, secure remand can have a dramatic impact on young
people; breaking down relationships with family, jeopardising
accommodation placements and so on. Wherever possible young people
should be put on remand within the community. Rainer was instrumental
in developing community bail and remand management services that
are now run by Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) across the country.
3.5 Rainer believes that effective remand
management can reduce the use of custody, increase rates of attendance
at court, reduce delays caused by non-appearance, fast-track appropriate
cases and prevent offending whilst on bail. Remand Management
schemes can work to retain young people's links to education,
housing and family support—all of which are lost if they
are taken into custody.
3.6 A greater focus on remand management
is one clear way that non-violent offenders could be kept out
of custody and re-offending rates could be reduced. It should
be a key priority in attempts to address the current prison crisis.
CASE STUDY—RAINER
NORTHAMPTON
3.7 Rainer's service in Northampton works
with 400 young people a year, including persistent young offenders.
The service aims to support young people who are awaiting a court
appearance, preventing further offending. It provides an intensive
support and monitoring programme as an alternative to custody
and is highly valued by the courts and other statutory partners.
3.8 Workers represent them at court and
tailor the package of care they receive according to individual
needs.
3.9 Over the last year the service achieved
a startling rate of success, preventing offending whilst on bail
amongst 93% of the young people it supported. This was achieved
at a fraction of the cost (both social and financial) of the young
person being remanded into custody.
3.10 "Court representatives viewed
the bail team as providing an indispensable service, and the remand
carer team as a valuable resource" HM Inspector of Probation
Report on Northamptonshire Youth Offending Service, 2006.
4. ABOLITION
OF THE
SENTENCE OF
DYOI
4.1 The special protection offered to young
adult prisoners aged 18-21 allowing for their detention in a Young
Offender Institute rather than an adult prison was removed in
the 2000 Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act although these
changes have not yet been implemented.
4.2 Problems with the legislation as drafted
have seen additional amendments proposed as part of the Offender
Management Bill currently before parliament. Meanwhile, a review
of the support needs of young adult offenders is currently being
led by the Home Office.
4.3 Young adult offenders experience higher
rates of re-offending, self harm and mental ill health than other
age groups[130]
As the Chief Inspector of Prisons noted in her recent report,
the abolition of this sentence:
4.4 "Leaves young adult prisoners very
exposed ... If the sentence of DYOI disappears there will be no
restrictions on holding over-18 young men in any prison in the
country."[131]
4.5 She goes on to warn:
"...what will not work is simply to decant
young adults into the mainstream adult prison population. That
will not provide environments that meet standards of safety and
decency—or, crucially, that are able to make a real difference
to reducing re-offending among this age group."[132]
4.6 Rainer maintains that young adult offenders
require a specific sentencing regime that distinguishes them from
adult offenders. We do not want to see the current protection
offered to this age group abolished before the policy review is
completed and an effective alternative is in place.
5. CONCLUSION
5.1 This is an important inquiry at a time
when given the pressure on the prison system, the effectiveness
of sentencing seems more critical than ever.
5.2 As sentencing becomes more punitive,
and increasing numbers of young people are being dealt with in
the criminal justice system, we need to look carefully at the
evidence on what custodial sentencing can achieve. The vast majority
of the Youth Justice Board's funding (70%) is spent on custody
which prevents funds being spent on more constructive, diversionary
measures.
5.3 Projects like Rainer Northampton's Bail
and Remand Service achieve many of the goals of custody, preventing
re-offending and engaging young offenders in positive diversionary
activities, without the social and financial costs generated by
locking up young people.
5.4 As noted, the importance of considering
resettlement as a core part of sentence planning cannot be overstated.
Unfortunately, current sentencing policy and pressures within
the system make this extremely difficult and it does not happen
in too many cases.
March 2007
122 Newburn, T Crime and Criminal Justice Policy
chapter 7 2003. Pearson. Back
123
Shepherd, A, Whiting E (2006) in Young Adult Male Prisoners:
A Short Thematic Report, HM Inspector Prisons, (2007). Back
124
Communities that Care, Risk and Protective Factors, (2005)
Youth Justice Board. Back
125
Solomon, E (2004) A Lost Generation: the experiences of young
people in prison, London: Prison Reform Trust in Prison Reform
Trust (2006) Bromley Briefing. Back
126
Home Office (2006) Population in Custody, London, Home
Office in Prison Reform Trust (2006) Bromley Briefing. Back
127
Solomon, E (2004) A Lost Generation: the experiences of young
people in prison, London: Prison Reform Trust in Prison Reform
Trust (2006) Bromley Briefing. Back
128
Solomon, E (2004) A Lost Generation: the experiences of young
people in prison, London: Prison Reform Trust in Prison Reform
Trust (2006) Bromley Briefing. Back
129
Youth Justice Annual Statistics, 2005-06, Youth Justice Board. Back
130
Prison Reform Trust (2006) Bromley Briefing. Back
131
HM Inspector Prisons, Young Adult Male Prisoners: A Short Thematic
Report, (2007). Back
132
Ibid. Back
| 
