Upload
dominicwilliamson
View
180
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
Stopping the revolving door for short sentenced prisoners
Blenheim CDP seminar 22 April 2013
Dominic Williamson - chief executiveRevolving Doors Agency
Outline
• About Revolving Doors Agency• Policy context• Why focus on short sentenced prisoners?• Multiple and complex needs• What works? Services and systems• Discussion
What Revolving Doors is for
Our mission is to change systems and improve services for people with multiple and complex needs who are in contact with the criminal justice system.
We demonstrate and share evidence of effective interventions and promote reform of public services through partnerships with national and local political leaders, policy makers, commissioners and other experts and by involving people with direct experience of the problem in all our work.
What Revolving Doors does:
Development & partnerships
Policy and communications
Service user involvement
Policy contextCoalition Agreement 2010• “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”
• Deficit reduction – MoJ 23% cut in this spending round• Cuts to council budgets• Localism• Reform and structural change across health, policing, etc• Focus on integration – Health & wellbeing boards, JSNAs, directors of public health,
Police & Crime Commissioners (MOPAC in London)• NHS mandate and public health outcomes framework• IOM and liaison and diversion• Community budgets, PbR and Social Impact Bonds
• Cost of re-offending – £9.5 – £11 Billion per year
Policy contextDavid Cameron, prime minister, October 2012:
– “Today rehabilitation just goes to those who have been inside for a year or more. But that misses all those who go in for short sentences yet reoffend time and time again. So I want to look at making them part of the rehabilitation revolution too.”
Chris Grayling, justice secretary, January 2013:– “Offenders often lead chaotic lives: Broken homes, drug and alcohol
misuse, generational worklessness, abusive relationships, childhoods spent in care, mental illness, and educational failure are all elements so very common in the backgrounds of so many of our offenders. And right now, we are failing to turn their lives around. In fact, those released from short-term sentences, who have the highest reoffending rates get no support on release at all.”
Short sentenced prisoners are majority of those entering and leaving prison each year
6%3%
64%
19%
8%
Prison population 31 Dec 2012(excl remand)
Short sentenced - less than 6 monthsShort sentenced - 6 - 12 months4 years or more (exclud-ing indeterminate sen-tences)Indeterminate sentencesRecalls, fine defaulters & others
48%
10%
40%
1% 1%
Prison receptions in year to Oct 2012 (excl remand)
Short sentenced - less than 6 monthsShort sentenced - 6 - 12 months4 years or more (exclud-ing indeterminate sen-tences)Indeterminate sentencesRecalls, fine defaulters & others
SSPs make up 9% of prison population but 58% of receptions into prison
Re-offending rates are highest for SSPs
All offenders All finishing prison sentence
Domestic burglary
Reoffending by drug misusers
Short sentenced prisoners
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Proven one year re-offending rate
Proven one year re-offending rate
Trends in re-offending by sentence length
What’s going on?
In 2011 we reviewed the evidence of the needs of short sentenced prisoners
• Three-pronged approach:– Literature review; Interviews with key stakeholders– Focus group
• Large-scale prison surveys:– e.g. Stewart (2008); Niven & Stewart (2005)
• Data from resettlement projects:– e.g. Resettlement Pathfinders (Lewis et al, 2003); West Mercia
Connect Programme (Leary & Thomas, 2007)• Other research on short-term prisoners:
– e.g. Brooker et al, (2009); Maguire et al (2000)• Wider research on the needs of all prisoners.
This concluded that SSPs have multiple needs
Prisoners surveyed for the SPCR had an average of three needs, while clients of the pathfinders averaged six problems, four significant (Stewart, 2008; Lewis et al, 2003).
• Practical – housing, debt etc• Family, relationships and social networks• Health and disability• Substance abuse• Underlying emotional problems and poor mental health resulting from
history of being in care as a child, abuse, neglect, violence, bereavement, isolation and self harm
• Behavioural and attitudinal problems, including anger management, hopelessness, institutionalisation, impulsivity.
Structural / environmentCommunityOpportunitiesQuality services
Public attitudesMedia
Multiple needs: understand the dynamic
Self : MindResilience
Cognitive abilityThoughts /
emotionPerceptions
/beliefsChildhood
ContributionInvolvement
LearningWork
Basic needsHousingMoneySafety
HealthMentalPhysical
Treatment
SocialFamilyLove
FriendsGroup identity
Multiple needs: negative dynamic
Structural / environmentPovertyUnemploymentQuality of services
DiscriminationStigmaNegative media
Self – MindMental / physical
painNegative self
imagePoor cognitive /
social abilityComplex trauma
ContributionExclusion
UnemploymentCrime - prison
Basic needsRent arrears
EvictionHomelessnessRough sleeping
Poverty
HealthCommon MH
problemsPoor physical
healthNo contact with
GP
SocialFamily
breakdownIsolation
Negative peer groups
No trusted relationship
Outsider identity
Multiple needs: negative dynamic
Structural / environmentPovertyUnemploymentQuality of services
DiscriminationStigmaNegative media
Self – MindMental / physical
painNegative self
imagePoor cognitive /
social abilityComplex trauma
ContributionExclusion
UnemploymentCrime - prison
Basic needsRent arrears
EvictionHomelessnessRough sleeping
Poverty
HealthCommon MH
problemsPoor physical
healthNo contact with
GP
SocialFamily
breakdownIsolation
Negative peer groups
No trusted relationship
Outsider identity
Drug & alcohol
dependency
Interaction between multiple & complex needs and services
Chaotic lives, challenging behaviour,
disengagement
Multiple &
complex needs
Poor service
response
The research literature also confirms what service users tell us: that when they have multiple needs people experience a poorer
response from services
• Complex Responses (2011) identified a number of negative elements in their experience of frontline services
• Driven by
Mismatch in expectations
Poor quality of staff-client relationship
Fragmented Service response
Complexity
Delay
Service exclusion/denial
Limited Resources
Limited Resources
Inadequate Staffed Services
Inadequate Staffed Services
Strategic PrioritisationStrategic Prioritisation
Inadequate Provision of Services
Inadequate Provision of Services
What works / what doesn’t?
Community police Custody Court
Probation
Prison
CJ Liaison & diversion
Link worker or similar role
Primary health care
Psychiatric hospital IAPT
Drug & Alcohol
treatment
Benefits, money &
debt advice
Secti
on 1
36
Integrated Offender Management (IOM)
CMHT HousingA & E
Chaos, crisis, crime
Community Sentence
Place of safety
Recovery
Where do we find the solution?
• Combining evidence from:– Desistance theory and research from criminology – Recovery agenda in mental health– Drug treatment and recovery– Psychology, person centred counselling and psychotherapy– Homelessness – e.g. resettlement– Evaluation of projects and programmes, e.g.
• Linkworker schemes• Adults facing chronic exclusion pilots• Elmore project, Oxford etc
Desistance theory – Fergus McNeill
Age and Maturation
Subjectivities, Narratives, Identities
Interactions/
Relationships
Life Transitions,
Social Bonds
So, what does works?• Building a relationship
– ‘Someone on your side’ - A trusted relationship within a team – Assertive, persistent outreach and engagement, choice of worker?– Promoting hope, motivation and agency, building on assets and strengths, building self-
efficacy– Clinical supervision for caseworkers – support around difficult emotional response /
‘projection’– Consideration of case loads – intensity of work
• Understanding the individual– Applies a holistic, psychosocial understanding of multiple and complex needs, including
impact of complex trauma and centrality of relationships / family.– Package of support tailored to individual’s needs, capabilities, gender and culture– Flexible approach, responsive in crisis and relapse– Personal budget / spot purchase of additional support?– Co-produced with service user – ownership of outcomes and plan– Case management with key service providers – planning / troubleshooting
So, what does work?• Service design
– Community based but linked to each stage of criminal justice system– Coordination of services, brokering access and creating integrated pathways especially
treatment and housing– Requires capacity to work with local commissioners and service providers to negotiate
new pathways into services.– Links with communities – goal is integration and connection in community
• Service user involvement– Arnstein’s ladder of involvement– Peer involvement in delivery – peer mentors? – drawing on experience of recovery– Peer research and evaluation
• Strategic– Supported by strategic stakeholders and commissioners– Gathers data to demonstrate impact, including cost benefits
The building blocks of change
Emergency – Crisis and crime, sleeping rough, arrested, in A&E, leaving prisonOutreach, engagement, immediate access to accommodation
Stabilizing – supported accommodation, basic needs met, building trusting relationship, assessment care pathway
planning, harm minimisation
Change – motivation, treatment, identity, building self-efficacy, user involvement
Consolidation– preparing for work, volunteering, training
Initial difficulties
Problems accumulating
Imminent crisis
Community Resilience through
relationships
Self efficacy – Albert Bandura
Self efficacy
Mastery experience
(Been there, done that)
Vicarious experience (modelling)
Somatic & emotional states
(anxiety / depression etc)
Discussion
• Does the concept of multiple needs that I have outlined correspond to your experience?
• What knowledge and competencies would be needed in a team delivering this sort of service?
• What are the similarities and differences between what you do now and what would be involved in this kind of service?
Into the future...
• Justice reforms• Justice reinvestment• Troubled families programme• Greater integration – JSNAs, MOPAC etc• Big Lottery Fulfilling Lives programme
• Tri-borough community budget
Thank you
www.revolving-doors.org.uk
https://twitter.com/RevDoors