Posts Tagged ‘Community programme’

Response from Mark Field, MP

Thursday, April 15th, 2010

Mark Field, MP sent a prompt response dated 12 April 2010 to the e-mail quoted in the previous post on this blog.

According to his letter, another constituent contacted him in March 2010 regarding the Howard League’s excellent work in prisons. Mr. Field in the past has written to both the government and his own front bench to highlight projects within prisons to get prisoners involved in interesting and productive work and to foster relationships with business.

He also feels that an imbalance exists in our justice system which we must address if we are serious about breaking the cycle of crime. As such, should the Conservative Party win the upcoming election, it has pledged to introduce a range of measures including:

  • replacing the automatic release scheme with earned release;
  • making community sentences tough and effective, and withdrawing any benefits for those who fail to attend;
  • ensuring that offenders compensate victims through a victims’ fund – those serving custodial sentences will pay into the victims’ fund through work in prison;
  • accelerating the deportation of foreign national prisoners; and
  • introducing honesty in sentencing so courts set a minimum and a maximum period of incarceration.

These all seem like pragmatic policies – in particular withdrawing benefits for those who fail to attend community sentences. It would be good if the next government would also consider re-aligning incentives in the justice system along the lines mentioned in an earlier post on this blog to encourage less re-offending.

What would be your top priority for reform of the justice system if you were in charge – let readers know by commenting below.

Open e-mail to Mark Field, MP

Monday, April 12th, 2010

Dear Mr. Field,

Re: Finding better solutions for society than prison

As the local representative for Cities of London & Westminster, I hope
that in this election you will lend your broad support to the Howard
League for Penal Reform’s Take Action 2010 campaign.

As you know, the English and Welsh prison system is in crisis, with a
prison population that has more than doubled since the early 1990s.  It
has become too easy to talk about being tough on crime and simply
increase the number of prison places but all the evidence tells us that
this does not work.

Around two thirds of those receiving short sentences go on to re-offend
within two years of release and this rises up to three quarters for
children leaving custody.  Locking up children and vulnerable people
with mental health needs does not make our community much safer and
will not do much to cut crime.

Instead of simply accepting that each year the prison population will
hit record levels, it seems high time for a different vision.

I have a particular interest in the field of investment in the
community and feel that local justice problems should be tackled
locally. Bureaucratic targets dictated from Whitehall are all very well
but the best way to increase public confidence in the criminal justice
system is to bring it closer to the people.  I think investing in
amenities for the community and schemes to protect local vulnerable
people – particularly addiction treatment programmes – would prevent a
lot of crime from happening in the first place.

It seems to me that a government priority should be ending the use of
short-term prison sentences. In 2008, around two thirds of those
sentenced received a jail term of less than 12 months. Such sentences
are a waste of taxpayers’ money and do very little to stop
re-offending. The re-offending rate of those leaving prison after
sentences of a year or less is 60% within two years of release,
compared to 38% for those completing community orders. There has to be
a better way to tackle petty crime than a short and inefficient spell
in prison.

As my local representative I would really like you to consider the
scandal of how we treat children in the criminal justice system. I
believe we are far too punitive on some of our youngest and most
vulnerable people. England and Wales jails more children than any other
region in Western Europe. 76% of these children re-offend within one
year of release. Since 1990, 30 children have died in custody. I think
such a deliberate policy of incarceration of children is morally
questionable and practically inefficient. I would really like to know
your views on how we can better support our vulnerable young people.

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the Howard League’s
radical new approach to providing real work in prison. The Howard
League for Penal Reform believes prisoners should be introduced to the
world of real work and its responsibilities. Real work requires an
employment relationship between an external employer and the prisoner,
in order to create a meaningful and realistic employee-employer
relationship. The work should be suitably meaningful to inspire pride
in the work done and should be fairly paid for the task undertaken to
create an incentive to work. I think this is exactly the sort of scheme
we need in English and Welsh prisons that could help turn people’s
lives around.

This election I hope you will make a priority the Howard League’s
campaign promise to fight for “less crime, safer communities, fewer
people in prison”.  It is a promise not to take the soft option on
crime by simply increasing the number of prison places but to think
about how certain individuals might be better catered for in the
community and how the justice system can do more to tackle the
underlying causes of crime.  It is a promise to make our community
safer and it is a promise to use taxpayers’ money wisely on a system
that can justify the expenditure with results.

If you feel you can support this campaign, then please sign up at
www.howardleague.org/takeaction.

Thank you for taking the time to consider backing this campaign.

Yours sincerely,

Justin Atkinson.

PS This email has been published on my blog, Just & Reasonable™, which
you may be interested to read at www.justinatkinson.com/blog/.

Criminal waste of money

Friday, April 2nd, 2010

Yesterday’s Independent reported that the Rt Hon Jack Straw intends to increase the prison capacity in England and Wales to 96,000 from its current level of about 86,600. What a criminal waste of taxpayers’ money!

Each new prison place costs around £170,000 excluding running costs according to the Prison Reform Trust. The average burden to the taxpayer of keeping someone in prison is around a further £40,000 each year according to the Howard League for Penal Reform. Based on these estimates, the 9,400 new prison places would cost around £1.6 billion to build and a further £376 million per year to run.

Given that there’s little benefit to the taxpayer of imprisoning someone who doesn’t pose a threat to public safety (including many of the existing prison population), it seems outrageous to build more prison capacity at such colossal expense.

Do you think we need more prison capacity when around 7 out of 10 prisoners are back in prison again within two years of their release? Or should we make more use of alternative sanctions to prison, including community payback programmes and addiction treatment? Have your say by posting a comment below today.

Community Payback Programmes

Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010

Why not join the discussion about community payback programmes at http://jailhouselawyersblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/moj-abused-community-payback-scheme-for.html

A proposal for a more cost-effective sanction than prison

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

There’s been much comment recently about the ineffectiveness of prison sentences – in particular short sentences of a year or less. The Howard League for Penal Reform reports that it costs about £40,000 per year to house the average prisoner in England and Wales but that nearly two thirds of prisoners re-offend within two years of release from prison. To put this figure into context, £40,000 is nearly twice the pre-tax salary that the average employee earned in the United Kingdom in 2008 according to the Office for National Statistics. As the Rt Hon John Redwood recently noted in his blog, a victim of a theft not only suffers loss of property but has this loss compounded by having to pay for the convicted thief to spend time in prison.

Although there’s a growing number of alternatives to prison sentences (such as community programmes), many people – including many sentencers – still think that non-custodial sentences are too much of a light touch.

If we want to reduce the waste of taxpayers’ money on ineffective prison sentences, we need to develop more alternatives which the public and sentencers will be happy with. With this in mind, another string to the sentencer’s bow could be the ability to deny a convict the right to receive state benefits in cash.

Any cash benefits to which the convict is entitled would be received for a given period of time by means of a card.

It would not be possible to withdraw cash from the card or go overdrawn and the card would be non-transferable (i.e. it could only be used by the convict). It would be illegal for retailers to allow people to pay for products like alcohol and cigarettes using such a card, in much the same way that it’s illegal for retailers to sell alcohol to children. In this way, users of the card would be encouraged to spend state benefits on the things for which they are intended.

The card would also make it much harder to spend state benefits on illegal drugs because few street drug dealers are set up to accept plastic. In this way, the card would help to reduce the current outrageous redistribution of wealth from hard-working taxpayers to illegal drug dealers via the benefits system depicted in television programmes like The Wire.

Given that life in prison is often perceived to be more comfortable for prisoners than life on the outside, loss of liberty may not be seen as adequate recompense for many crimes. Accordingly, the ability to deny a convict the right to receive state benefits in cash for a period of time could be a further useful sanction for sentencers.

Those of a more liberal persuasion may say that it’s bad for someone’s self-esteem to have to use a card which identifies them as a convict. But is this any worse than the stigma attached to a prison sentence or a community sentence?

On the contrary, the card might help to improve self-esteem by discouraging spending on addictive substances like alcohol, cigarettes and illegal drugs. Indeed, the card could be a helpful reinforcement to addiction treatment programmes. Again, compare this to prison where illegal drugs are often readily available.

In small ways, the card could also help to improve financial literacy. For example, managing the account and calculating how much money remains available on the card. Improved financial literacy could also help to build self-esteem.

One day we might consider extending this use of card technology to the whole cash benefits system. In the same way that chip and pin cards helped to reduce the level of credit card crime, this card system could help to reduce benefit fraud, for example by a combination of chip and pin technology and having a photograph of the holder on the card.

If you think any of this sounds like a good idea, please let me know by posting a comment. Any improvements on the idea will also be gratefully received. If there’s enough of a positive response, I’ll be encouraged to write to the Ministry of Justice about the idea.


“Community Programmes Handbook” Book Review

Monday, January 11th, 2010

The Howard League for Penal Reform’s “Community Programmes Handbook” is a useful reference book about award-winning community programmes in the United Kingdom. The Howard League for Penal Reform (the Howard League) published the book in 2008 to bring together the lessons from the first two years of its Community Programmes Awards. Barbed, a social enterprise staffed by prisoners and run by the Howard League inside Her Majesty’s Prison Coldingley (until bureaucracy sadly killed the project), designed the book including its striking cover.

Following the foreword by Frances Crook OBE, Director of the Howard League, the book opens with different perspectives from members of the judging panel of the Community Programmes Awards, including representatives from the International Centre for Prison Studies, the National Offender Management Service, the probation service and the judiciary. One of the key messages these opening pages convey is that there is still some work required to convince the public – and sentencers – of the merits of community programmes compared to other sanctions.

The remainder of the book should help to convince its readers that community programmes are often a better solution than, for example, short custodial sentences of under a year. It describes some of the successes achieved by award-winning community programmes in the following categories: early interventions with young people; dealing with factors that contribute to offending; restorative justice and mediation; young people; education, training, employment and mentoring; unpaid work and training; high-risk offenders; and resettlement.

The descriptions of the community programmes generally start with a real life example of how the community programme helped a participant to take responsibility and make amends for what s/he did and return to living a law-abiding life in the community. These stories are followed by details about, among other things: the origins of the community programme, what it aims to achieve, how it is funded, who it is targeted at, how effective it is, who it is staffed by, how many participants it serves, and the benefits it provides.

These details make the “Community Programmes Handbook” a useful reference book, especially for organisers of community programmes and for sentencers. Contact details are also provided regarding each of the award-winning programmes for anyone requiring further information. Why not follow the link below for your own copy now.

Shantaram

Monday, December 28th, 2009

One of the most memorable parts of Gregory Roberts’ enthralling novel “Shantaram” is when the head man of the Mumbai slum, Qasim Ali Hussein, neatly resolves a fight about religion between two neighbours and friends from the slum – one Muslim and one Hindu.

In front of the crowd of neighbours that had assembled around the scene of the fight, he orders the two men to work for the rest of the day cleaning the slum latrines. He then binds the two men together at the ankle using his scarf around one’s right and the other’s left leg “to remind you that you are friends and brothers, while cleaning the latrine will fill your noses with the stink of what you have done to each other today.” That evening, having convened a council of Hindu and Muslim friends and neighbours, he requires each man to learn one complete prayer from the religious observances of the other as their punishment for fighting about religion.

“In this way justice is done, because justice is a judgement that is both fair and forgiving. Justice is not done until everyone is satisfied, even those who offend us and must be punished by us. You can see, by what we have done with these two boys, that justice is not only the way we punish those who do wrong. It is also the way we try to save them.”

Qasim Ali Hussein’s wise solution seems to meet the five purposes of sentencing described in the Criminal Justice Act 2003: punishment (cleaning the latrines); reduction of crime and deterrence (cleaning the latrines in public and tied together); reform and rehabilitation (learning a prayer from each other’s religion); protection of the public (via the deterrence and reform mentioned above); and reparation (cleaning the latrines for the community’s benefit).

Why not compare this with a prison sentence under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006?

Punishment (prison – arguably more comfortable than cleaning latrines); reduction of crime and deterrence (sadly there are some people for whom prison is not a deterrent, whereas there are very few people for whom cleaning the latrines in a Mumbai slum would not be a deterrent); reform and rehabilitation (prison – yet approximately 65% of all prisoners released were reconvicted within two years according to a 2007 Home Office study); protection of the public (prison); and reparation (prison – at a cost to the taxpayers in the community of approximately £39,000 per prisoner per year).

Some of you may say, “Ah, but Qasim Ali Hussein only has to serve justice to a tiny city of around twenty-five thousand people compared to tens of millions of people in, say, England. No wonder he can tailor his solutions so well.”

Yet he didn’t have policemen or courts to assist.

Don’t you think that we could spend £39,000 per prisoner per year on something which addresses more effectively the five purposes of sentencing described in the Criminal Justice Act 2003?

A good start might be to channel more resources to community programmes such as those highlighted by the Howard League for Penal Reform’s Community Programmes Awards. Why not read more about the awards – and nominate for the 2010 awards right now – at http://bit.ly/9Cnybn.