Women in Prison. Budget representation submission

Transcription

1 Women in Prison Budget representation submission 22 September 2017 About Women in Prison Founded in 1983, Women in Prison (WIP) aims to reduce the number of women in prison and prevent the damage done to women and their families by imprisonment. Women in Prison s proposals are based on experience of delivering gender-specialist support services in prison and the community for women affected by the criminal justice system. For more information see 1

2 Introduction: About Women in Prison (WIP): Women in Prison (WIP) is a women-only organisation that provides holistic genderspecialist support to women affected by the criminal justice system. We work in prisons, in the community and through the gate, supporting women leaving prison. We run three women s centres (in Manchester, Woking and Lambeth, London) including diversion schemes for women involved in the criminal justice system. Our combined services provide women with support around advocacy, complex needs, domestic and sexual violence, education, training and employment, mental health, parenting and substance misuse. We advocate for a significant reduction in prison sentences and for strengthened community support services. Our policy and campaigns work is informed by our frontline support services for women, delivered at every stage of a woman s journey through the criminal justice system. The experience and knowledge of staff working directly with women affected by the criminal justice system enable us to see first-hand how well policy is implemented in practice. About this consultation response: Our response to this consultation is concerned specifically with women involved in the criminal justice system. 2

3 Our proposal A significant reduction in the female prison population, twinned with an investment in community services for women, would deliver significant financial and social benefits to the government. In fact, we understand that the Treasury and Ministry of Justice have conducted unpublished research that confirms the significant sums of public money that would be saved by investing in community alternatives to prison and diversion from the criminal justice system rather than funding prisons and prison sentences. This simply confirms an overwhelming weight of long-standing empirical evidence which points to the same conclusion. Community alternatives, in themselves, are significantly cheaper than custody, delivering an instant cost saving. Women who are able to tackle the root causes of their offending in the community are also more likely to desist from future offending. A reduction in offending has significant broader costs savings in the areas of policing, courts and probation. Prison sentences also lead to harm which have economic consequences for the state and individuals including loss of housing, jobs and the other disruption caused to families through loss of primary carers (predominantly mothers) which often results in a need for social care intervention. We urge the Treasury to use this year s budget as an opportunity to help address the prisons crisis and save vast sums of public money by investing in community support services for women. A new central government funding strand could provide core funding for strategically positioned women s centres so that these can build up services to meet local needs. Leaving the provision of such services to local decisions has resulted in a postcode lottery of sentencing which results in significant injustice to women and their children. Like refuge provision, services for women affected by the criminal justice system often cross geographical boundaries. For example, women s services near the 12 women s prisons often provide services to women from a wide range of geographical locations. There is a strong case for central investment in services to address this issue and provide a funding core on which local authorities, police and independent funders can build. The evidence is clear that whilst new prisons have been built the prisons crisis has worsened. The money currently earmarked for building five new women s community prisons would be better spent on community alternatives to custody in the form of women s centres and linked supported housing. This would enable a significant strand of funding to support a Female Offenders Strategy which could result in the halving of the women s prison population in the next three years. Not only would this be a better use of public money in the short-term but it would also have a long-term impact on local communities increasing human and social capital by supporting women to turn their lives around and those of their children. There is a desperate need in communities for capital and revenue investment in women s services, which have been neglected over a number of years, especially since the initial investment prompted by the Corston Report published 10 years ago. Likely effectiveness Ministry of Justice Data Lab Re-offending analysis i of women s centres in England has shown that women s centres are effective at reducing reoffending. This analysis was based on information supplied by 39 women s centres nationally. As more figures become available, it will become easier to analyse the effectiveness of women s centres on reoffending levels. 3

4 Our own internal figures from the women s centres we run are consistent with the Justice Data Lab overall finding. Above all, we find from working with women that our services result in a number soft outcomes. Each of these soft outcomes are valuable in their own right and, when combined, they increase the likelihood of desistance. Support services to women also result in outcomes in highly valuable distance travelled. Milestones include women accessing substance misuse support services, getting stable housing, accessing work and education, improving their mental health and being reunited with children. As discussed in the Justice Data Lab report, frequency of reoffending and the average time elapsed before an individual first reoffends are important measures to consider when assessing the effectiveness of any support intervention as they can be a long-term measure of likelihood of future reoffending. Value for money: Prison The average cost of holding one woman in prison is 42,766 per annum, based on the most recent figures ii. This cost does not take into account the broader impact of imprisonment on women and their families. Women are more likely to be primary carers of children. Research suggests that when a child s mother is imprisoned in nine out of ten cases the child will need to leave their own home to go into foster care or to live with relatives. There is also a longerterm aspect to the impact on children; children with a parent in prison and children in care are much more likely to get caught up in the criminal justice system themselves. One third of women in prison have experience of the care system. Any move towards preventing childhood trauma associated with parental imprisonment is therefore a direct financial investment. The effectiveness of prison in providing rehabilitative services and reducing the risk of reoffending is highly questionable with reoffending rates being higher for custodial sentencing than for any other alternative, whether caution, discharge, fine, court order, community order or suspended sentence order iii. Moreover, the rate of reoffending goes up with each custodial sentence iv : Whereas 16% of individuals with no previous custodial sentences reoffend, 68.2% of individuals with 11 or more previous custodial sentences do so. Reoffending rates also vary according to sentence length, with short-sentenced individuals being much more likely to reoffend: 59.7% of individuals sentenced to less than 12 months in prison reoffend. This is particularly pertinent in the case of women as women tend to commit les serious and lower-risk offences and therefore tend to serve short custodial sentences: 70% of women sentenced to custody in 2016 served 6 months or less v. Many women end up in this revolving door between short custodial sentences, where support is not available to them, and chaotic situations in the community, where community support and housing is lacking. Prison is a very expensive and harmful default option and one for which a business case is impossible; more cost-effective options are available and the current prisons crisis makes investment in these a necessity. Value for money: Women s centres WIP as an organisation runs three women s centres and like other women s centres they are able to provide community support to women at risk of offending, in prison, on release (through the gate) or on probation. We know from our direct experience of running women s centres the powerful impact they have on women s resettlement, rehabilitation and 4

5 desistance from future offending. Women s centres can also play a central role in the delivery of community sentencing options or through liaison and diversion schemes. The holistic support services provided at women s centres can be provided at a fraction of the price compared to prisons. Women in Prison and our partners hold detailed accounts and reports which set out precise costs of services delivered in women s centres. We would be pleased to work with the Treasury to provide more detailed information on costing and funding. Women s centre services differ depending on sources and levels of funding and location but all share the ability to provide services that are significantly less costly than prison and more effective. Funding can come from a variety of sources, including from Local Authority, Police, Public Health partners and independent funders such as trusts and foundations. A women s centre in a London Borough can be run on an annual budget of 300, ,000. This enables support at that centre for between women per year. The average annual cost for services at such a centre thus equates to approximately 1,000 per woman, compared to 42,766 per woman in prison. One women s centre in Manchester combines funding of approximately 170,000 from a range of funders and provides services to approximately 350 women per year. This equates to an average support service cost of approximately 500 per woman per year, compared to 42,766 per woman in prison. In an independent evaluation of the Whole System Approach, the average reoffending rate for women in Manchester is noted as 20%; for one women s centre there it is 10% (based on a statistically significant, but relatively small sample and one year of data). This data is currently being followed-up for a further year. A women s centre in the south of England receives funding from a variety of sources to run support programmes. Services are housed rent free in a council property which includes a community café funded by the council. With a combined funding for services totalling less than 300,000 annually, the centre provides support to approximately 300 women, averaging a cost of 1,000 per woman compared to 42,766 per woman in prison. Women s centres are rarely purpose built but tend to occupy spaces such as disused churches, warehouses or empty high street shops, with location and transport links often being more important than the nature of the property. Most women s centres have converted their surroundings to a welcoming and trauma-informed space with very limited resources. Most centres attract significant investment of time from volunteers. For example, in one area the police funding pays for a volunteer counsellor co-ordinator to ensure a strong women s counselling service. Policy rationale; Administration and compliance costs and issues; Operational requirements The policy rationale for a move towards an increased use of community services and alternatives to prison is clear. In terms of logistics and administration, excellent voluntary sector support, with skilled staff who are experts in their field, is already in place in different parts of England and Wales. This existing model can be easily expanded to provide a wider range of support and to reach a larger number of women, but some of these services currently face closure due to lack of core funding. The women s centre model for support to women affected by the criminal justice system is well-established and has delivered clear results over many years. Due to persistent underfunding which has been further reduced in recent times, partially as a result of the privatisation of the probation service, this network of services is currently over-run, 5

6 geographically inconsistent, and unable to meet the high levels of need. However, with adequate funding, women s centres and the voluntary sector could quickly expand as they are already fully established and entrenched in local communities. Women s service providers have proven their resilience, innovation, track record of delivering under pressure and a trust-worthiness that stems from a genuine commitment to the work they undertake to support women in turning their lives around. A commitment of dedicated funding to locally run voluntary sector services could be set up and result in near instant delivery which would immediately lift pressure from the prisons crisis. The funding administration to the voluntary sector can be direct and transparent via local authorities and PCCs. It would not require any prime contractors or other intermediaries to function, thus removing costly and time-consuming administrative or operational barriers and centrally managed bureaucratic contracts. Business case for community housing and wider macroeconomic implications One of the increasingly serious and entrenched barriers to resettlement after prison and a common reason that magistrates and judges give for resorting to prison is that there simply aren t enough housing options for women in the community. The Supreme Court ruled in May 2017 that the distribution and provision of Approved Premises is an issue of discrimination because women do not have the equivalent access to premises close to home as men. A lack of bail hostels means that not all women get to take advantage of early release on Home Detention Curfew and therefore remain in prison for longer than necessary. The majority of women prisoners are single. As a result, women often lose their homes when in prison and it is estimated that as many as six out of ten women leave prison without a home to go to. The cost of the impact on families and children is enormous. On release, many women do not qualify for temporary or permanent accommodation through their local councils, despite being homeless and vulnerable. Many women affected by domestic violence are turned away due to a lack of bed spaces at refuges. Availability of housing is at extremely low levels for women affected by the criminal justice system and this lack of secure and stable housing is a significant contributory factor for women s offending. Currently, prison is effectively being used as a housing option, which is costly, inefficient and harmful especially when compared to the possibilities for constructive interventions presented by housing in the community. Excellent alternatives exist, but these are scarce and under-funded: Some women s centres, such as the Nelson Trust, are closely linked to supported housing, including for those tackling addiction. Others, such as Anawim in Birmingham, have developed housing on women s centre sites. When women are housed in communities rather than prison, many are able to pay their own rent as they have the opportunity to work. An investment in community housing for women affected by the criminal justice system will have wider macroeconomic implications in terms of a reduction in reoffending and the associated police, court and prison costs. Justice Reinvestment: Sectoral and distributional impacts It is clear that the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms and privatisation of the probation service and introduction of CRCs have not worked. The relatively low numbers of women who offend compared to men (women make up 5% of the prison population) make it viable 6

7 to pilot new delivery models with minimal impact on the CRC contracts in order to test alternatives to the CRC model. A Justice Reinvestment approach would enable funding to be devolved to local authorities and PCCs in order to invest in specialist women s services providing diversion, specialist supported housing, substance misuse and mental health services. Such an approach could include a recharge mechanism so that local authorities were charged when the use of central prison resources were required for a particular individual. This would provide a constructive long term incentive to tackle problems early on and ensure sufficient local services. Sadly, the current centralised system of prisons estate management means that local areas are not incentivised financially to prevent imprisonment. Indeed, perversely, when a woman is failed by her local community and her problems are allowed to escalate, responsibility passes to central government and the prison service. vi The work undertaken by the House of Commons Justice Committee in 2009 into Justice Reinvestment vii examined whether the large sums of money being spent on prisons could be used more effectively. We suggest this approach is given a renewed focus. In recent years, we have seen significant developments in youth justice, with vital learning from Youth Offending Teams and initiatives to reduce the number of children and young people in prison. A focus on prevention and community has seen the youth custody population plummet from 148,000 to 38,000 (a 64% decrease) in a decade, saving millions to the treasury. We now need to see the same developments in the adult prison population there is no better place to start than with the 5% of the prison population that is made up of women. This 5% is a group in prison that is particularly vulnerable when using a number of key measures mental ill health, experience of childhood abuse, sexual and domestic violence, experience of trauma, experience of the care system, substance misuse and risk of self harm and suicide. We need to start in November s budget to recognise where the solution to the current prison and criminal justice crisis lies and how we can invest in community solutions which will have immediate and lasting impact. We and our women s sector partners would be please to speak further and support you with any information you need to reinforce the strong business case for investment. Recommendations That the MoJ and Treasury publish their cost analysis of women s imprisonment and the cost-effectiveness of investing in alternatives to custody. That the MoJ and Treasury continue to have an open a dialogue with the women s voluntary sector in order to work out a delivery model for community alternatives, the investment needed and cost/benefit evidence. That the Treasury and the MoJ invest in these community alternatives to custody through a coordinated, joined-up approach that includes local authorities, Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) and public health commissioners where possible building on established examples of whole system best practice such as Manchester and Surrey. That the Treasury allocates specific ring fenced funding to local authorities for supported housing, refuges and permanent, affordable accommodation for women including those affected by the criminal justice system. 7

8 That the MoJ and Treasury agree a proposal whereby the sum of money allocated for the building of new women s prisons (or an equivalent sum) from the budget is dedicated to an evaluated trial of justice reinvestment, or a similar approach, focused on community alternatives to custody which work alongside the existing women s prison estate. This should be focused on high custody areas and learning lessons from areas where the whole system approach has been invested in by local partners. 8

9 Further Information This consultation response was prepared by Sofia Gullberg, Policy and Information Coordinator at Women in Prison. For further information please contact Women in Prison Ltd. 2 nd Floor, Elmfield House, 5 Stockwell Mews, London, SW9 9GX t: Charity number: Company number: i Ministry of Justice, Justice Data Lab Re-offending analysis: Women s Centres throughout England, 2015 ii Ministry of Justice, Cost per place and cost per prisoner by individual prison, NOMS annual report and accounts , management information addendum iii Ministry of Justice, Proven Reoffending Statistics, 26 January 2017, Table C1a: Adult proven reoffending data, by index disposal1 iv Ministry of Justice, Proven Reoffending Statistics, 26 January 2017, Table A6a: Adult proven reoffending data, by number of previous custodial sentences v MoJ, Prison receptions: 1990 to 2016, table A2.1 vi Laming, Loader & Muir (2011) Redesigning Justice: Reducing Crime Through Justice Reinvestment (IPPR), vii House of Commons Justice Committee (2009) Cutting crime: the case for justice reinvestment, First report of session