A new report on the over-representation of young black and/or Muslim men in the criminal justice system says that critically high numbers have been reached.  The Young Review, led by Baroness Lola Young of Hornsey, found that despite knowledge and understanding of this problem at the highest level, there has not to date been sufficient leadership or concerted effort to address this over-representation.  The report found that black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) offenders are more likely to serve a prison sentence and receive harsher treatment in  prison than their white counterparts.  It argued that if the Government is truly committed to reducing reoffending, making communities safer and reducing victims of crime, then the disproportionate outcomes experienced by young black and/or Muslim male prisoners and offenders in the community must be tackled.

The review highlights the specific experiences and needs of young black and/or Muslim men in the criminal justice system, whose lives are often characterised by a complex mix of educational, employment, health and social inequalities. It sets out a series of recommendations that aim to ensure that action takes place – in what will soon be a newly-configured Criminal Justice System under the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms – to address unequal outcomes from prison to resettlement.

The Young Review recommends that mechanisms must be developed to incentivise criminal justice agencies and the new providers of probation services to meet the specific needs of these young men. The outcomes achieved by these providers must be rigorously monitored on how they tackle inequality- and not just reduce reoffending.

Representatives and organisations from BAME communities, working in partnership with the criminal justice system, were found to improve prisoners’ perceptions of and relationships with institutions. The review calls for an emphasis on dedicated resources for community engagement. Organisations and individuals including offenders and ex-offenders themselves, with an understanding of the lived experience of this group, should also play an integral role in the planning and delivery of services.

Read a copy of the report here

The High Court has declared that the Government’s ban on sending books to prisoners in England and Wales is unlawful.  The ban on sending books into prison was brought in in November 2013, as part of the Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) scheme, which stated that prisoners are not allowed to receive parcels unless they have “exceptional circumstances” such as a medical condition.  The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has said that the thinking behind the changes was to crack down on the amount of drugs getting into prison.

Prisoners had argued that books sent to them in parcels could contribute to rehabilitation.  A judicial review of the rule was brought by prisoner Barbara Gordon-Jones, a life sentence prisoners at HMP Send, near Woking in Surrey.

Mr Justice Collins ruled that there was “no good reason in the light of the importance of books for prisoners to restrict beyond what is required by volumetric control and reasonable measures relating to frequency of parcels and security considerations.”  There is no specific ban on  books in the IEP but the severity of the restrictions could clearly prevent acquisition and possession.   Whilst Mr Justice Collins acknowledged that in some prisons there is good access to a well-stocked prison library, he also recognised that this is by no means the case for all prisoners and commented that “to refer to them as a privilege is strange”.

The restriction was declared unlawful by Mr Justice Collins because the policy’s effect was contrary to what Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, said he intended.

Youth Justice Minister Andrew Selous, appeared recently before the Justice Select Committee, revealing that NOMS is in the process of developing a tool to assess the maturity of offenders.  He said: “sometimes I think we focus on the actual age in years, but … there is a serious piece of work to be done about the level of maturity with these people we are talking about”.

View here (from 10.30.20) http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=16663

MPs at the Justice Select Committee had been told by Michael Spurr, chief executive of NOMS (National Offenders Management Service) that the Government is considering creating prisons for 18-30 years as part of attempts to improve the secure estate.  Spurr told the Committee that the change was one of a number of possible arrangements being considered in the wake of the Government shelving plans to place 18-21-year-olds with the general prison population.

Proposals unveiled in November 2013 recommended that any young person aged over 18 sentenced to custody, including those who turn 18 while in youth custody, should be sent to an adult prison.  However, the Government stalled the plans following consultation which found strong opposition to the plans from the YJB, and the voluntary sector, and is now delaying making a final decision until the Harris review into self-inflicted deaths of 18-24-year-olds is published in Spring 2015.

Michael Spurr told MPs that although he would personally support the move towards ending the distinction between 18-21-year-olds and adults, he is not necessarily keen to move away from having “specialist establishments for younger people”.  He told the Committee that trials are currently taking place in establishments where younger adults are held alongside the general adult population, including creating prisons for 18-30-year-olds, but that no final decision had been made about what arrangements are the most effective.

T2A Chair, Joyce Moseley, gave evidence to the Justice Select Committee’s inquiry into prison planning and policies on 24 November, alongside Lin Hinnigan, Chief Executive of the YJB, Gareth Jones, Chair of the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers, and Penelope Gibbs, Chair of the Standing Committee on Youth Justice.

The panel responded to questions from MPs on a range of issues related to youth justice, including the proposals for a Secure College, youth to adult transitions and allocation of resources.

You can watch it here. 

In his speech today to the Youth Justice Board convention, Shadow Justice Minister Dan Jarvis says the remit of the Youth Justice Board should be extended to cover offenders up to 20-years-old. Mr Jarvis (pictured) has previously visited T2A Pathway projects in Rotherham and Barnsley. 

In the Q&A following a speech at the thinktank, CentreForum, yesterday, Justice Minister, Simon Hughes MP, said that the Liberal Democrats would do the same.

In his speech Dan Jarvis said:

We also need a specific approach for young people. There is currently no distinct plan for young adults – even though the peak age of offending is 19 and offenders in their early 20s are among the most prolific. 

Currently the youth justice system provides mentoring and support up until the age of 18, but this then falls off a cliff when a young person enters into the next age bracket. 

Sadiq Khan and I are committed to changing this. 

So if elected in six months’ time, the next Labour government will explore how we can expand the remit of the Youth Justice Board and Youth Offending Teams to cover 18, 19 and 20 year olds. 

We will look at ending the sudden break at the age of 18, and give young adults access to the same multi-agency support that has already proved so successful with younger age groups. 

The most serious crimes will always need a custodial sentence. But if we achieve just a fraction of the success our Youth Offending Teams have achieved in recent years, it could help lead to fewer criminal offences, smaller prison numbers, fewer victims of crime, greater public safety and savings for the public purse. 

It’s an idea I want to see succeed. 

It’s smart, pragmatic, evidence-based and builds on the foundations of already successful policies”

Dan Jarvis is the Labour MP for Barnsley Central and the Shadow Justice Minister with responsibility for Youth Justice

The Ministry of Justice has announced its preferred bidders for Transforming Rehabilitation (TR), including sixteen charities and voluntary groups, four probation staff mutuals and seven private companies.

Sodexo Justice Services in partnership with Nacro will be the preferred bidder for:

Northumbria
Cumbria and Lancashire
South Yorkshire
Bedfordshire, Northants, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire
Norfolk & Suffolk
Essex

Purple Futures, an Interserve-led partnership formed of: Interserve Plc, 3SC (social enterprise), Addaction (charity), P3 (charity) and Shelter (charity) is the preferred bidder for: Humberside, Lincolnshire & North Yorkshire West Yorkshire Merseyside Cheshire & Greater Manchester Hampshire & Isle of Wight The Reducing Reoffending Partnership (RRP – an equity joint venture) formed of: Ingeus UK (private organisation), St Giles Trust (charity), and Crime Reduction Initiatives (CRI) (charity) is the preferred bidder for:

Staffordshire & West midlands
Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland

Working Links – a public, private and voluntary company in strategic partnership with Innovation Wessex, a probation staff mutual is the preferred bidder for:

Wales
Bristol, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire
Dorset, Devon and Cornwall

MTC Novo, a joint venture involving MTC (Management Training Corporation), a private company, Novo – a consortium with a number of public, private and third sector shareholders including, but not limited to RISE – a probation staff Community Interest Company (CIC), A Band of Brothers (charity), The Manchester College (TMC) – a public sector education provider, Sanctuary Supported Living (SSL) – a registered social landlord, Thames Valley Partnership, Amey (a private landlord) is the preferred bidder for:

London Thames Valley

ARCC (Achieving Real Change in Communities CIC) a joint venture involving Changing Lives in Durham Tees Valley CIC, a probation staff CIC, Thirteen (formerly Fabrick Housing Group) a registered social landlord, The Wise Group (social enterprise), Safe in Tees Valley (charity), Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust (TEWV) (public), The Vardy Foundation (charity), Stockton Borough Council (public), Darlington Borough Council (public) is the preferred bidder for:

Durham Tees Valley

Geo Mercia Willowdene, a joint venture involving Mercia Community Action Limited, a probation staff mutual, Willowdene Rehabilitation Limited (social enterprise), The GEO Group UK Ltd (private) is the preferred bidder for:

Warwickshire and West Mercia

Seetec (private limited company) is the preferred bidder for:

Kent, Surrey and Sussex

Experts have called for increased awareness in the criminal justice system of how brain injuries are linked to offending. The British Psychological Society says the “hidden” nature of brain injuries and neurodisabilities means many offenders experience discriminatory treatment when entering the system.

MSPs at the Scottish Parliament’s Holyrood Justice Committee took evidence from a panel of doctors and academics on the issue.

Research has shown that the level of brain injuries among offenders in custody is much higher than in the general population.

Professor Tom McMillan, professor of clinical neuropsychology at Glasgow University, told MSPs that a study of three prisons in the Glasgow area showed 23 per cent of prisoners had suffered a head injury in their lives, with 50 per cent of these classified as severe.

A report by Professor Huw Williams, of the Centre for Clinical Neuropsychology Research at Exeter University, found that despite the higher prevalence among offenders, it was rare for criminal justice professionals to consider whether an offender may have a brain injury, or for appropriate rehabilitation services to be offered.

His report suggests the need for increased awareness of brain injury throughout the criminal justice process and in related areas such as health and education.

Dr Oliver Aldridge, a committee member of penal reform charity Howard League Scotland, said there was a “subset” of offenders who had experienced significant levels of head injury.

He said: “I think there is a pool of unmet need of people with very, very significant head injury that we could serve better if we could have an outreach and a service going into criminal justice facilities.”

Beyond Youth Custody’s research report, “Resettlement of girls and young women”, addresses a worrying gap in the knowledge about the effective resettlement of girls and young women. Reviewing research literature in a number of relevant areas, it cross-references evidence of what works in the resettlement of young people with what we know about the wider need of girls and young women. This iterative synthesis approach thus provides a gender-sensitive approach to inform policy and practice development in resettlement for this specific group.

Recent years has seen an increasing focus on the resettlement of young people after custody, with a number of initiatives designed to address stubbornly high reoffending rates. However, the specific needs of girls and young women have received little attention in policy and practice. This is worrying gap because research with adult female offenders consistently warns that what works with male offenders is unlikely to work with females.

The resettlement needs of girls and young women have been ignored partly because they make up a small proportion of the custodial population, and partly because they usually offend less frequently and seriously than young males.

Academics have also largely ignored the needs of this group in resettlement. This is reflective of relatively limited numbers of studies on women in the criminal justice system more generally, but with even less known about younger females, and less still around custody.

This report provides gender-sensitive perspective of the established gender-neutral principles of what works in resettlement with young people. The report first considers the contemporary policy context for the resettlement of girls and young women, specifically in relation to Transforming Youth Custody. Literature searches then focused on reasons behind female youth offending, reviews judicial responses to this group, details the characteristics of young females in custody, and reflects on lessons from interventions with older females. Finally, the report draws on any resettlement studies or interventions that have previously included some focus on girls or young women’s specific needs.

The full research report “Resettlement of girls and young women” is now available to read.

Prison inspectors have today reported major concerns with HMYOI Glen Parva in Leicestershire, with Nick Hardwick (Chief Inspector) noting that “This is a model of custody that does not work”.

He states in the foreword to the report that this is “one of a sequence of reports (Aylesbury, Brinsford, Feltham and Isis) which my inspectorate has produced that reveal serious concerns relating to young offender institutions (YOI) of this type.”

Frances Crook, Director of the Howard League for Penal Reform (a member of the T2A Alliance) called the findings more akin to a description from the novel ‘Lord of the Flies’. Among the findings of the prison, which holds nearly 700 18-21 year olds, were:

• Almost half of the young men held told us  they had felt unsafe in the establishment
• Recorded levels of assaults on other  prisoners and staff had risen by about a quarter over the last year and we were not assured that all  incidents were recorded.
• Evidence of prisoners charging ‘rent’ for cells with the threat of violence if this was not paid.
• An unacceptable attitude among some staff that this poor behaviour by detainees was  an inevitable and normal part of life in a prison holding young adults
• Some staff did not adequately  challenge poor behaviour, and their own behaviour and offensive language set a poor example an over-reliance on force and formal disciplinary measures. Levels of use of force, including full control and restraint, were high and even though some recording was poor
• The use of the segregation unit was also high and the regime was inadequate. The high use of segregation reflected an increase in serious incidents such as barricades, hostages and ‘incidents at height’.
• Many had committed their offences to get themselves placed in segregation where they would be away from the wings and safe.
• Prisoners at risk of suicide or self-harm had increased by 32% over the last year and was high. TheYOI itself had identified that many of the self-harm threats were a direct result of bullying. Two young men had killed themselves in 2013 and there had been two serious near misses in 2014.

T2A believes that the management of young adults in custody requires urgent reform, but does not agree with Ministry of Justice proposals of last year that the correct response would be to scrap distinct provision for young adults. Three quarters of deaths of 18-24 year olds occur in adult prisons, which suggests that simply mixing young adults within the general prison estate would exacerbate the problems that exist.

Rather, YOIs should be reconfigured to be well-resourced, smaller, dedicated institutions. Recently, following the successful reduction in numbers in the youth estate (from a peak of 4,000 children in custody 5 years ago to just over 1,000 now), it has also been suggested by a range of organisations and individuals that serious consideration should be given to the devolution of these institutions to the control of the Youth Justice Board and local authorities.

Read more about T2A’s research on the management of young adults in custody in the report ‘Young Adults in Custody: A Way Forward’ by Rob Allen.

Pete Judd, Probation Service Officer, for the National Probation Service Court and Offender Management Team, Portsmouth recently completed his work based learning project as part of the probation qualification framework. The project was based on his experiences as an offender manager (OM), working with two young adult offenders (YAOs) (aged 18-24) in supporting the process of desistance and decided to write this blog to give readers some insight into some of the challenges OMs face in supporting processes of desistance.

Bottoms and Shapland (2011, p.43) highlight the challenge of successful desistance amongst YAOs through consideration of the ‘age-crime curve’. Evidence suggests in England and Wales that between the age of 17-19 for males, and 14-18 for females, criminal convictions peak before there is a decline (sharper for males) (Farrall, 2002, p.5). It should be noted that not all individuals follow the same trajectory over their lifetime, although such a curve suggests that the criminal justice system (CJS) could be influential in helping or hindering the movement towards desistance for YAOs (Shapland, Bottoms and Muir, 2012, p.128) in different ways over the course of their lives. McNeill (2003, p.160) states that being desistance focused within probation practice requires an understanding of three key areas; maturational reform (levels of maturity), social bonds (personal history and current social circumstances) and narrative theory (subjective narratives around change, motivation, views and attitudes). Maturational reform is the explanation offered for having stopped offending in relation to age and level of maturity (McIvor, Murray and Jamieson, 2004, p.187). The concept of maturity is currently not assessed within probation practice, and the probation offender assessment tool OASys only has the partial means of assessing maturity in offenders. The assessment of YAOs is therefore largely based on professional judgement, which brings about issues of subjectivity and inconsistency (Prior et al., 2011, pp.30-31). In 2013, the Taking Account of Maturity: A Guide for Probation Practioners (T2A, 2013, p.3) was issued within my local probation trust and offered guidance on how maturity impacts at different stages of the criminal justice process. By understanding how maturity impacts on offending behaviour it is hoped that the service can respond more effectively in facilitating the design of individually tailored assessments and interventions. The current Risk Need and Responsivity (RNR) framework of offender assessment requires the sentence plan to be formulated to address the legal requirements of the order and to address risk. Ward and Brown (2004, p.245) argue that the RNR approach to treatment goals focuses on the negative, rather than promoting pro-social and personally more satisfying goals. Pete found that by giving YAOs positive future objectives helps motivate them to engage with the other sentence plan objectives and having future goals is one way of promoting positive futures with YAOs (T2A, 2012, p.6).

McNeill (2003, pp.156-157) also highlights the importance of personal histories and how current social circumstances can aid desistance. This is inherently difficult to achieve within current probation practice, due to targets in relation to the completion of initial assessments. Initial assessments for offenders assessed as medium or low risk of serious harm need to be completed in ‘sufficient time’ within the Practice Framework – National Standards for the Management of Offenders for England and Wales (NOMS, 2011, p.21). The term ‘sufficient time’ is open to interpretation, however the probation trust Pete works for introduced guidance stating that assessments needed to be completed within twenty working days (HPT, 2011). Pete has often found that the twenty day target is problematic as offenders often live disorderly lives which they struggle to make sense of (Maruna, 2001, p.7). This then makes it difficult to fully understand what may have led to particular behaviours which are important in understanding how an individual’s previous experiences have helped to shape later life decisions (Laub and Sampson, 2003, p.58).

An offender’s narrative around change, motivation, views and attitudes is important in the assessment phase (McNeill, 2003, pp.157-158). Motivation is pivotal to desistance (Farrall, 2002, p.99), as it is important in determining the structure and content of interventions. However, it is one element within OASys that is only briefly assessed (Lancaster and Lumb, 2006, p.286). To address this, motivation within probation practice is widely assessed using Prochaska and Di Clemente’s (1982) ‘Cycle of Change’. Being able to identify where an individual is on the cycle of change enables OMs to be able to use appropriate skills to take interventions forward (Fuller and Taylor, 2003, p.15). If an offender is assessed as being in the ‘pre-contemplation stage’ or “contemplation stage” of change they may be less likely to complete offending behaviour programmes. Work needs to be done to build a positive working relationship in order to deal with the more practical obstacles that were present and resolve ambivalence around his offending behaviour. By using a motivational approach and listening to the barriers to change, the offender may gain the confidence to change and move forward to the action stage of the cycle in time, with perseverance.

Once an offender has moved to the ‘action stage’ of the cycle, evidence from ‘What Works’ suggests that structured programmes based on cognitive behaviourism have a greater effect on reducing recidivism amongst YAOs (Losel, 2012, p.88) and help build ‘human capital’ amongst individuals. Pete often finds that cognitive behavioural programmes focus on the negatives aspects of an offender’s lives and McNeill (2009, p.34) highlights the importance of expressing optimism rather than focusing on the negatives. In order to achieve this in practice, Pete focuses on the positive aspects of skills practice from work undertaken such as self talk, time out and safe negotiating, in order to build the confidence of those he works with. For an individual who may have suffered rejection as a child, it is hoped that building confidence in using these skills would develop encouragement and optimism for the future and help reduce the risk of further offending. Throughout the course of the programme there was an improvement in insight into previous behaviour and a more optimistic outlook on a future self. Thinking behaviour and a desire to change may not be sufficient if social problems are overwhelming or excessive (LeBel, Burnett, Maruna and Bushway, 2008, p.154). It is vital that attention is given to improving employment opportunities and family formation to significantly impact on desistance process (Farrall, 2002, p.145).

Evidence within desistance research suggests that the mobilization of social capital (Burnett and McNeill, 2005, p.237), around ties to family, employment and education are significant in explaining change in criminal behaviour (Weaver and McNeill, 2007, p.5). Funding cuts to education training and employment (ETE) budgets have impacted on resources available within Pete’s local probation trust. Funding is available for offenders who are subject to unpaid work requirements because ETE contracts for this particular offender group have been contracted out to external companies. At this particular time Pete was aware of Pompey in the community (the charity arm of Portsmouth Football Club) operating ‘the respect programme’ that was aimed at young people and crime (Pilmoor, 2013). The initiative helped one of his case studies secure the required certificates to secure work in the demolition industry that had been a goal of his for a period of time, although Pete believes the way resources are allocated is problematic as this offers opportunities to certain offenders based the type sentence they have received rather than targeted at offenders who are motivated to address social difficulties. This situation highlighted to Pete that he needs to be more aware of different initiatives available to me in the local community, particularly as the future brings a host of services that operate and run in different ways.

Moving forward, the introduction of a maturity assessment tool, a relaxation in local policies in relation to timeliness targets, along with alterations to OASys, to focus more on motivation and strengths would assist OMs in creating desistance focussed assessments and collaborative sentence plans. This would then lead to more accurate, individually tailored interventions that focus more on what the YAO has to offer going forward rather than focussing on the negatives of the past.

(The article “Working with young adults in supporting processes of desistance” was originally published ‘Discovering Desistance: An ESRC Knowledge Exchange Project’ on July 2nd 2014, and is available here)