T RANSFORMING R EHABILITATION Professor Chris Fox @MMUPolicyEval C - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

T RANSFORMING R EHABILITATION Professor Chris Fox @MMUPolicyEval

C ONTEXT

N ATIONAL O FFENDER M ANAGEMENT S ERVICE CUTS  NOMS saw £900m cut from its budget in four years Figure from Prison Reform Trust 2016, based on NOMS/MoJ data

Between P RISON POPULATION • 1995 and 2014 the prison population in England and Wales grew by more than 40,000 or 91%. Growing • problem? Static since • 2010 Graphic from Prison Reform Trust Bromley Prison Briefing, Autumn 2016

O VERALL CJS POPULATION DECLINING ?  Total number of individuals dealt with formally by the CJS in England and Wales has been declining since 2007 Ministry of Justice (2016) Criminal Justice Statistics Quarterly Update to June 2016

F IRST T IME E NTRANTS FALLING  The number First Time Entrants to the criminal justice system has continued to fall since its peak in 2006/07.  Decline much sharper for juveniles.  But, around 2 in 5 adults convicted of indictable offence had long criminal record compared to just over quarter 10 Ministry of Justice (2016) Criminal Justice Statistics Quarterly Update to June 2016 years ago.

R EFORMS SINCE 2010 CONTRADICTORY ON LOCALISM / DEVOLUTION Towards devolution/localism Away from devolution/localism  Police Crime  Transforming Commissioners Rehabilitation  Community Rehabilitation  Justice Reinvestment Companies Pilots  Larger geographical areas  Reform prisons  Commissioned nationally  Concentrated ownership  National Probation Service

O PPORTUNITIES

M ORE INTEGRATED , LOCAL PROVISION Greater Manchester Combined Authority 2016  A greater role in the commissioning of offender management services, alongside the National Offender Management Service (NOMS).  Linking adult education and skills training provision in the community with education provision in prisons.  Potential for a new resettlement prison to serve the Greater Manchester area.  The government, Youth Justice Board and Greater Manchester working together to better align, commission and deliver services for youth offenders and developing plans for a more devolved youth justice system, including the creation of new models of secure schools for under 18s in the region.  Exploring options for regional pilots of GPS and sobriety tagging to improve supervision of offenders.  Greater flexibility over the funding of victims’ services.  Greater involvement in future plans for the local courts estate possibly including more innovative use of venues and testing of problem-solving court approaches.  Considering options to devolve custody budgets for female offenders, young offenders, and those sentenced to fewer than two years in prison.

C HALLENGES

D EVOLUTION DEALS IN GENERAL House of Lords Committee on the Constitution in The Union and Devolution  increasing complexity of bespoke ‘devolution deals’,  asymmetry across the country  pace at which they are taking place  lack of public and community engagement: “ The lack of public and community engagement around the ‘devolution deals’ is a weakness in the current policy for the governance of England. There should be a requirement for informing and engaging local citizens and civil society in areas bidding for and negotiating ‘devolution deals’. Local politicians seeking ‘devolution deals’ should lead this engagement.” (Select Committee on the Constitution 2016: 105)

1. C OMPLEXITY  ‘For the first time Greater Manchester will take on a greater role in the commissioning of offender management services, alongside the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), to allow more local flexibility, innovation and better coordination with other local services including healthcare and accommodation. This will include giving Greater Manchester greater influence over probation and the Manchester division of the Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) (emphasis added)”. (Greater Manchester Combined Authority 2016: 6).

2. M ANAGERIALISM  Example: Justice Reinvestment started with as progressive movement with aim to deliver social justice  Has come to focus more narrowly on system ‘ re- engineering’ (Fox et al. 2013)  Has lost its focus on local neighbourhood reinvestment in favour of “predominantly back-end efficiency reforms to parole and community corrections aimed at reducing recidivism and revocation rates” (Brown et al. 2016: 13).

3. C OMMUNITY  Top down rather than bottom up?  Positive interpretation  A form of ‘localism’, which might focus attention on local multi - agency working and local administrative reform and innovation, but at the expense of engaging communities in local decision making.  Negative interpretation  A form of ‘ responsibilisation ’ (Garland 2001 Culture of Control )  Justice Reinvestment:  “may simply serve as a guise to further extend the scope of criminalisation by greater targeting of ‘problem’ communities and further surveillance through increased policing and substantially expanded community corrections supervision”. (Brown et al. 2016: 102)

4. ‘W HAT WORKS ’  Within Justice Reinvestment there is tendency to focus on reducing demand in the system through the adoption of a particular ‘what works’ approach to evidence linked with the Risk Needs Responsivity model (Andrews and Bonta 2006).  Brown et al. concerned this approach  Draws too heavily on the psychology of individual differences  Too much emphasis on individual agency rather than structural factors  Insufficient attention to early intervention:  “a social justice -oriented justice reinvestment requires a different approach that is more holistic, reaches beyond the criminal justice system, with different measures of success that would include attention to ‘pre -habilitation ’ “. (Brown et al. 2016: 164 )

C ONCLUSION

 Justice Devolution has potential to:  Be a positive disrupter  Help re-frame complex problems  Make case for early intervention  Challenges around:  Complexity  Community engagement  Managerialism

R EFERENCES

 Brown, D., Cunneen, C., Schwartz, M., Stubbs, J. and Young, C. (2016) Justice Reinvestment: Winding Back Imprisonment London: Palgrave Macmillan,  Fox, C., Albertson, K. and Wong, K. (2013) Justice Reinvestment: can it deliver more for less? London: Routledge  Ministry of Justice (2016) Criminal Justice Statistics: Quarterly Update to June 2016: England and Wales  Prison Reform Trust (2016) Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile: August 2016  Redgrave, H. (2016) Examining the Case for Justice Devolution, GovernUp  Select Committee on the Constitution (2016) The Union and Devolution , London: House of Lords  Tucker, S. and Cadora , E. (2003) ‘Justice Reinvestment’, Ideas for an Open Society, Vol.3(3) New York: Open Society Institute