Race in Probation Achieving better outcomes for black and minority ethnic users of probation services Dr. Theo Gavrielides, IARS Founder & Director IARS – London Probation Trust Conference London, 5 th June 2013

2 Spot the white elephant! The criminal justice system – including its agencies – is a reflection of society. All recent reviews (e.g. Equalities Review 2007, EHRC Human Rights Inquiry 2009, EHRC Human Rights Review 2012), Public Inquiries (e.g. St. Lawrence Inquiry, Scarman Inquiry) and Government Surveys (e.g. British Crime Survey, NOMS stats) conclude that there are persistent inequalities within society and hence the CJS. Race always comes first as a driving factor.

3 A quick snapshot Population in England & Wales: 54,809,100. BME groups account for 6,620,200 i.e.12.07% (ONS 2009). Prison population in England & Wales: 85,002. BME groups account for 23,801 i.e. 28% (MoJ, 2012). (36% of young people in custody were BME). London’s population: 7,753,600. BME groups account for 2,347,600 i.e % (Office for national statistics, mid 2009). In London, 49.1% of prisoners are BME (MoJ, 2012). In London Probation, 50% are BME users (LPT, 2012) 90% of prisoners have one or more mental health issue (Bradley Report, 2009). The 2007 ‘Count me in’ survey showed 40% of BME groups access mental healthcare through CJS.

4 A quick snapshot Per 1,000 of the population, Black persons were Stopped and Searched 7.0 times more than White people in 2009/10 compared to 6.0 times more in 2006/07. Across England and Wales, there was a decrease (just over 3%) in the total number of arrests in 2009/10 (1,386,030) compared to 2005/06 (1,429,785). While the number of arrests for the White group also decreased during this period, arrests of Black persons rose by 5% and arrests of Asian people by 13%. The CPS and the Probation Service appeared to have the highest proportion of BME staff (of those considered), with more than 14% of staff in each from a BME background in the most recent year available. The Police and the Judiciary appeared to have the lowest proportions with fewer than 5% from a BME group.

5 A quick snapshot

6 Getting certain truths out of the way … If we are honest about our intentions to tackle persistent race inequalities within the criminal justice system and beyond, then we have to accept the evidence, and focus on improving our practices and attitudes.

7 So, we know there is a problem … lets improve practice! Are there any government studies on the matter? What are the specific issues impacting on BME service provision? How do we improve BME confidence & engagement? What is the role of the community sector? Can BME victims be better involved/ served? How can we improve outcomes in BME resettlement?

8 The IARS project in brief! Phase 1: Review of the literature (academia, policy, legislation, voluntary sector, think-tanks, national & international) Phase 2: Talking to LPT staff! 15 th November event. Phase 3: Reviewing best practice case studies Phase 4: Analysis – advice Phase 5: Publication & Public Event (5 th June 2013) Project Objective To review existing practices and create an evidence- base that will allow London Probation to achieve better outcomes for its BME service users

9 Some key definitions Who is the user and who is the customer of probation services? What constitutes as evidence Let’s talk about race when we talk about race Race vs ethnicity Race vs BME Analytical context to refer to the power that racialises groups and identities - The trigger for understanding society’s reaction to diversity and cultural difference.

10 Key Drivers & Levers: Living in the real world! NOT an “academic” review! The review is directly linked with LPT’s Strategic Objective: “Deploy research and evidence based practice” the outcome of which is identified in LPT’s Business Plan as to “Develop an evidence- based approach to the delivery of services”. The project also aims to support LPT’s objective for “Offender Engagement” as well as “Engagement with Strategic Partners at a local level”.

11 Time for “doing” - but, why now? 1.Living in a competitive world! The need for a “business case” for probation services. Are services fit for purpose? The privatisation of probation. Are services responding to users’ needs and circumstances? How do they compare to other services? Do services give value for money? 2.Communities are speaking up! They have to be heard. 3.Economic and social benefits that are to be gained for: London Probation – the criminal justice system – society. 4.The system can no longer cope. In particular: Full & stretched capacity (e.g. see prison population) Effectiveness (e.g. see re-offending rates) Costs (e.g. see average cost of one prisoner per year).

12 Time for “doing” - but, why now? 5. Changes in legislation & policy. The need to comply, e.g. Ministry of Justice (2012). Punishment and Reform: Effective Probation Services (consultation paper) Ministry of Justice (2012). Punishment and Reform: Effective Community Sentences (consultation paper) NOMS Commissioning Intentions document Equality Act 2010 Payment by results 6. Moving away from process driven practices to outcome focused monitoring, e.g. see Race Relations (Amendment) Act vs. Equality Act The “Locality Agenda” and the “Big Society”.

13 Findings – Our baseline LPT user survey – “Your Views Count” (x3)/ 3245 responses o 71.2% of users reported a positive experience o Asian & White users are more likely to be more satisfied o Mixed race users are least likely to report that their time in probation will lead to reduced reoffending Working with the community o LPT Serious Group Offending Forum o User Voice – Offender Engagement Project – Community Councils Staff training o Diversity in Action o Human rights o Engagement with the community.

14 Findings – Our baseline In the last 12 months, 29 Equality Impact Assessments Targeted initiatives o Faith Champions o Community in Action project o Work with the Association of Black Probation Officers o Work with the National Association of Asian Staff o Foreign Nationals Unit.

15 Targeted Areas 1.Dealing with user confidence and engagement Maximising existing infrastructures within the BME sector Embedding a human rights culture Delivering an individualised service Addressing cultural preconceptions Develop further initiatives such as the SGOF Develop a more strategic approach to working with the VCS Collect users’ voices directly. 2.Resettlement & Recidivism Accessing informal support networks (family – faith structures, community) Employment – accreditation Housing (location, community, support systems) Self-image and positive thinking.

16 Targeted Areas 3.Mental Health Early assessment/ Understanding risk Issues around medication 4.Substance abuse & addiction Culture – stigma Tailored drug treatment programmes 5.Foreign national offenders (9,000 in 2012 (22% of LPT users) Support systems Immigration status – criminal/ immigration laws 6.Working with victims Restorative Justice (NOMS – MoJ – CJJI) EC Victims’ Directive

17 Measurable outcomes 1.Customer (service user) satisfaction 2.User involvement 3.Community proofed practice (a ‘community standard’) 4.Legal compliance 5.Procurement & service agreements 6.Workforce development & employee satisfaction 7.Value for money & competition 8.Changes in public confidence 9.Human rights indicators – a corporate approach 10.Celebrate & Reward (beacon practice).

18 Dr. Theo Gavrielides Founder & Director, IARS 159 Clapham Road, London SW9 0PU, UK Dr. Gavrielides is also an Adjunct Professor at Simon Fraser University (Canada), a Visiting Professor at Buckinghamshire New University (UK), a Visiting Professorial Research Fellow at Panteion University (Greece), and a Visiting Senior Research Fellow at Open University (UK). Questions & Contact details