1. Shared Lives for Offenders? Professor Chris Fox Manchester Metropolitan University

2. Chris Fox Professor of Evaluation at Manchester Metropolitan University Director: Policy Evaluation and Research Unit Interests include: Criminal justice reform Payment by Results Social Innovation Young people’s economic and political participation Advisory roles Home Office Economic Research Advisory Group Ministry of Justice Evaluation Consultation Group Greater Manchester Reducing Re-offending Steering Group Advisor to Interserve (FTSE 250 company)

3. OverviewOverview The Criminal Justice System Offenders Opportunities for Shared Lives Commissioning

4. THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

5. Custodial sentences Standard Determinate Sentences 12 months plus Half in community / half in prison License condition includes probation supervision Determinate Extended Sentences 48 months plus Judge sets length of time in prison and on license Imprisonment for Public Protection Parole hearing for release License is for 10 years Life imprisonment Tariff set by court Released on life license – sentence never revoked

6. Sentences which include supervision Community Order (Criminal Justice Act 2003) Compulsory (unpaid) work Participation in any specified activities Accredited programmes aimed at changing offending behaviour Prohibition from certain activities Curfew Exclusion from certain areas Residence requirement Mental health treatment (with consent of the offender) Drug treatment and testing (with consent of the offender) Alcohol treatment (with consent of the offender) Supervision Attendance Most common requirements in red

7. Reconviction rate The latest adult reconviction rate for adults discharged from custody or who start a court order is 36.2% reconvicted within 12 months (Ministry of Justice 2011) The reconviction rate for all custodial sentences is 44.8% (Ministry of Justice 2011) The reconviction rate custodial sentences less than 1 year is 56.8% The reconviction rate for Community Orders is 36.8% (Ministry of Justice 2011)

8. The rising prison population Total Prison Population (per 100,000) and Total Offences (per 100,000)

9. Cost of prison £45,000 per prisoner per year plus £170,000 to build and maintain each new place (Prison Reform Trust 2010) Total penal expenditure increased from £2.843bn in 1995 to £4.325bn in 2006 (all at 2006 prices) (Prison Reform Trust 2010) In 2009-10 it was £4.385bn

10. Cost of community sentence National Audit Office estimated that in 2008: A highly intensive 2 year community order, involving twice-weekly contact with a probation officer, 80 hours of unpaid work and mandatory completion of accredited programmes would cost £4,200 per offender. The estimated cost of a more typical one-year order involving probation supervision and drug treatment was £1,400. A six-week stay in prison cost, on average, £4,500

11. OFFENDERSOFFENDERS

12. PrisonersPrisoners Average age of those sentenced to custody in 2006 was 27 A quarter was aged 21 or under 30th June 2009: 7,532 prisoners aged over 50, including 1,999 aged between 60 and 69 and 539 over 70. 20–30% of offenders have learning disabilities or difficulties that interfere with their ability to cope with the CJS 72% of male and 70% of female sentenced prisoners suffer from 2 or more mental health disorders. All figures from Prison Reform Trust (2010)

13. Short-term sentences Over 60,000 adults per year receive custodial sentences of less than 12 months On any given day they make up around 9% of all prisoners But account for some 65% of all sentenced admi Majority of short sentences are for 3 months or less (only 10%) are for more than six months. Therefore most serve less then 6 weeks as automatically released when they have served half their sentence National Audit Office 2009

14. Short term prisoners Short-sentenced prisoners are most commonly convicted of theft and violence offences. On average, they have 16 previous convictions (more than any other group of offenders). They are also more likely to re-offend than any other group leaving prison National Audit Office 2009

15. The problem Homelessness, unemployment, substance abuse, mental health and other problems affect short- sentenced offenders more than other prisoners and they are the group leaving prison most likely to re- offend, but: Unless they are 18 – 21 they receive no statutory supervision on release The majority spend 45 days or less in custody and wait, on average, for 26 days to get access to a resettlement activity National Audit Office 2009

16. OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED LIVES

17. Specified activity A ‘specified activity’ requirement in a community sentence West Yorkshire Probation Trust Pilot Rather than probation staff presenting pre- sentence report to court the court specifies one of 3 levels of punishment but doesn’t specify the actual elements of the sentence. Probation staff then assess offenders after sentencing to determine the activities which will be required as part of their community sentences.

18. Housing provision Housing regularly cited as a factor in re-offending for offenders leaving prison and on community sentence. Social Exclusion Unit (2002) Reducing Re-offending by Ex- Prisoners: “Research suggests that stable accommodation can make a difference of over 20 per cent in terms of reduction in reconviction.” Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR) 37% of all prisoners stated that they would need help finding a place to live when released. Of those offenders who needed help with finding a place to live after custody, 65% were reconvicted within one year of release, compared with 45% who did not feel they required help.

19. Vision Housing History Set up in January 2007 and pan- London A London-based housing charity and social enterprise. Set up by ex-offenders and many of the staff and volunteers involved are ex-offenders. Referrals come from local authorities, the prison service, probation trusts, third sector organisations and self-referral. Has housed and supported over 650 clients since 2007. Clients Clients typically have multiple problems including debt, substance misuse, domestic violence, involvement with gangs and poor mental and physical health. Vision Housing’s service starts with an offer of housing and it is often able to provide accommodation on the day of release. It provides housing and unlimited on-going support.

20. MethodologyMethodology The evaluation design compared expected re-offending rates after one year calculated using Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS3) with actual reoffending rates after one year based on data from the Police National Computer (PNC). ‘Proven re-offending’ in line with MoJ definition: “[A]ny offence committed in a one year follow-up period and receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow up or a further six months waiting period.” (Ministry of Justice 2011: 3) Analysis of 400 clients referred to Vision Housing between 2007 - April 2011 and who had a previous conviction.

21. FindingsFindings Headline finding: Nine per cent reduction in one year re-offending rates for whole cohort. Profile of client group: Four fifths of client male and a fifth female. Almost half were aged between 20 and 29. At the point they were referred to Vision Housing average predicted reconviction rate of 41 per cent.

22. IOM builds on and expands current offender- focused programmes, such as PPO, MAPPA and DIP IOM provides a local framework for agencies to come together to ensure that the offenders whose crime causes most damage locally are targeted in a co-ordinated way, It manages a selected and locally defined cohort of offenders Regardless of whether they are under statutory supervision or not. Integrated Offender Management

23. “All partners tackling offenders together - local partners, both criminal justice and non- criminal justice agencies, encourage the development of a multi- agency problem-solving approach by focussing on offenders, not offences. Delivering a local response to local problems - all relevant local partners are involved in strategic planning, decision-making and funding choices. Offenders facing their responsibility or facing the consequences - offenders are provided with a clear understanding of what is expected of them. Making better use of existing programmes and governance - this involves gaining further benefits from programmes such as the PPO programme, DIP and Community Justice to increase the benefits for communities. This will also enable partners to provide greater clarity around roles and responsibilities. All offenders at high risk of causing serious harm and/or re-offending are ‘in scope’ - intensity of management relates directly to severity of risk, irrespective of position within the criminal justice system or whether statutory or non- statutory.” (Ministry of Justice 2010a) 5 IOM Principles

24. COMMISSIONINGCOMMISSIONING

25. MarketisationMarketisation “We will introduce a ‘rehabilitation revolution’ that will pay independent providers to reduce reoffending, paid for by the savings this new approach will generate within the criminal justice system.” (HM Government 2010 Coalition Agreement) “The Government … intends to use the scope provided by the 2007 Act to open significantly more probation services to competition, including some aspects of offender management.” (MoJ (2012) Punishment and Reform: Effective Probation Services)

26. Payment by results Payment by results “will link payment to the outcomes achieved, rather than the inputs, outputs or processes of a service” Cabinet Office (2011: 9) Payment by results allows the government to pay a provider of services on the basis of the outcomes their service achieves rather than the inputs or outputs the provider delivers.

27. Social Impact Bonds In PBR payment arises after outcomes are known, which might involve substantial time delays. Key challenge is that of raising working capital (Mulgan et al. 2010). The Social Impact Bond will be used to raise capital for social projects. A branch of national or local government will agree to pay for a measurable, social outcome and this prospective income is used to attract new funds to meet the up-front costs of the activity (Mulgan et al. 2010). The new funds could come from the public sector, the private sector or a social investor (ibid).

28. Potential benefits Greater Efficiency By focusing reward on outcomes, and providing minimal prescription on how these should be achieved PbR will drive greater efficiency in tackling social problems. Greater Innovation Focus on outcomes and reduced focus on commissioners ‘micro- managing’ delivery processes will encourage greater innovation. Transfer of risk and deferred payment PbR transfers risk away from the branch of government commissioning the service and towards the service provider. Payment is also deferred. New market entrants PbR can provide opportunities for new market entrants (particularly from the private and not-for-profit sectors) to enter the market for provision.

29. Community Budgets