Mentoring for Progression: Prison Mentoring Project – Assessing Strengths, Outcomes and Roll-out Potential.
Prison is a one size fits all response that comes close to fitting nobody. Crime and social disorder are complex problems that need to be tackled with reference to the local community and circumstances of the individual. We need a problem-solving justice approach where sentencers must provide a solution that tackles an individual’s offending behaviour efficiently and for good, while doing more to explain their decisions to the public. Howard League of Penal Reform, May 2010.
Richard Huggins, School of Social Sciences and Law, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, OX3 8AH.
[email protected] 1
Summary This document tells you about a mentoring project that works and has demonstrated sustained success at reducing re-offending rates to less than 10% among the project’s graduates. The project works for the following reasons. •
The project is proactive inside prison and reactive outside. •
• •
It gives clear focus to an offender’s time in prison.
Critical elements of the project are peer-led and delivered.
It provides offenders with a positive and achievable plan to take away from prison.
This project offers clear potential to deliver significant outcomes across a range of institutions and offender profiles.
Key Contact Details: The Learning Ladder Ltd., Monument Park, Warpsgrove Lane, Chalgrove, Oxon., OX44 7RW
Aimhigher Milton Keynes Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire, c/o Open University, Foxcombe Hall, Berkeley Road, Oxford, OX1 5HR
0844 561 0921 or 01865 893354 Karyn Buck
[email protected] Sven De Cauter
[email protected]
01865 487607 Jan Martin Sally Cushing
[email protected] [email protected]
2
Mentoring for Progression: Prison Mentoring Project – Assessing Strengths, Outcomes and Roll-out Potential. 1.
Project Overview.
1.1
Origins and Development.
The Mentoring for Progression: Prison Mentoring Project has been operating since 2006 in a small number of prisons and Young Offender Institutions in the Thames Valley. The project is based on established peer mentoring best practice and builds on the expertise Aimhigher MKOB and a key partner organisation - the Learning Ladder Ltdi - have developed in the last ten years. Originally, members of staff from the Learning Ladder Ltd were invited into HMP Grendon to work with one individual. This was successful and Learning Ladder staff were invited into HMP Springhill, a Category D Open Prison in Buckinghamshire, to work with another individual. The demand for mentoring within Springhill was such that the project team developed a scheme for mentoring for progression in the prison and, subsequently, the project has been rolled out to a further four institutionsii. 1.2
Project Outline.
The programme of activities is based around a close working relationship between the mentor and mentee. Originally, the project relied on external staff but successive funding and development has allowed for roles to be embedded within the prison and delivered by current prisoners. For example, the Aimhigher Coordinator for the project, who oversees the scheme and allocates mentors, is a prison orderly and all peer mentors are currently serving prisoners. The process of recruitment and selection of mentors is rigorous. All mentors have been mentees and have to meet a set of selection criteria, including a role and person specification and receive the endorsement of peers, prison officers and Learning Ladder staff. Their extensive training by the project team includes on-going mentoring skills development. They are regularly given the opportunity to share issues, questions and concerns arising from their work with external project team members. Every prisoner entering the prison is introduced to the project by the project team and given the opportunity to sign up. Currently around 10-15% of prisoners do so. Those who sign-up are allocated a mentor and together the mentee and mentor work together to develop a Personal Development Plan (PDP). This is an extensive document that encourages the mentee to explore ideas for their future, their existing strengths and weaknesses, their skills and experiences as well as future goals and the steps needed to achieve them. Importantly, the PDP not only focuses on what the individual might wish to do or the skills they might want to develop, it also ensures that the mentee develops an action plan of how these objectives can be achieved. After the PDP has been completed the mentor completes an information request form and Learning Ladder
3
staff put together a personalised information pack for the mentee based on their aspirations and on their specific circumstances. The mentor then uses this to help the mentee start to formulate practical steps towards achieving their goals. The discussions between mentor and mentee are confidential (unless the discussions have security or safety implications) but once education and/or training targets are agreed these are shared with the Aimhigher Coordinator who is also then able to support the mentee’s plans and objectives in relation to identifying suitable courses, training and funding opportunities. 1.3
Impacts and Outputs.
From discussions with Aimhigher and Learning Ladder staff, mentors and mentees, prison officers and other stakeholders it is clear that the project has had extremely beneficial impacts on those involved. In addition to the headline statements at the beginning of the report and the detail provided in Section 4 it is helpful to summarise some of the key impacts and benefits that have been identified. • • • • • • •
2.
The scheme builds bridges between the prison and outside world. It supports offenders to set realistic and achievable goals, aspirations and expectations. It provides informed, relevant and valued practical support. The scheme is owned by the participants and, consequently, encourages buy-in by those who participate. The scheme supports the development of positive role models, commitment, motivation and credibility. Although Prison staff at all levels provide important support and encouragement, they cannot themselves (for a variety of reasons) deliver the same type of scheme. Offenders are able to set themselves short, mid and long-term goals and the creation of an action plan to reach them.
Context, Prison Populations, Re-Offending and Policy.
Here we present an overview of offending and re-offending patterns and a review of significant policy development in response to these trends (Ministry of Justice, 2008, 2009, 2010, Solomon and Garside, 2008). This section locates the Aimhigher Prison Project within existing research and evaluation literature covering re-offending rates in general and specific interventions designed to reduce re-offending amongst offenders (for example, Social Exclusion Unit, 2002, Carter, 2003, Lewis, et al, 2003, Leeuw, 2005, Dawson and Cuppleditch, 2007, Jolliffe and Farrington, 2007, Lawlor et al., 2008, Knuutila, 2010). In addition, this section locates the project within current debates about the size, nature and efficacy
4
of prison as a means of dealing with crime and the search for sustainable alternatives that effectively support the reintegration of offenders into productive and stable lifestyles, work and community. 2.1
Prison Population Data.
Recent political and media attention has focused on the significant rise in the prison population in the last twenty years. In August 2010, National Prison Administration data demonstrated that the prison population for England and Wales (excluding juveniles in Secure Training Centres and Local Authority Secure Children's Homes) was 85,200iii.The consequent prison population rate (per 100,000 of national population) is now 154 based on an estimated population of 55.22 million at end of August 2010iv. Table 1 demonstrates the relative rapid and substantial growth in the prison population since 1995, one that new Justice Minister, Ken Clarke, has declared ‘extremely high’. Table 1 – The Growth in Prison Population and Rate/100,000 since 1995.v Year 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010
Population 50,962 65,298 66,301 74,657 80,216 85,200
Rate/100,000 (99) (126) (127) (141) (148) (154)
These figures are substantially higher than comparable countries in the European Union for example, Germany (88/100,000) or France (96/100,000). Although the current UK government has indicated a possible change in future prison policy and consequently, rates of imprisonment, having launched a full assessment of sentencing and rehabilitation policy, the previous government was committed to further prison building and population expansion (Carter, 2007). Thus, the Labour government had planned to increase the net capacity of the prison system to 96,000 by 2014, which would have resulted in England and Wales having the highest rate of imprisonment in Western Europe (Carter, 2007).
5
Not surprisingly, the cost of this system and related processes is considerable. According to government figures, the Criminal Justice System as a whole costs the overall equivalent of 2.5% of GDP and total penal expenditure has risen from £2.843bn in 1995 to £4.385bn in 2009-10. These figures, even without the current imperative to save between 25% and 40% of public spending, consume a significant slice of national resources. Savings or reductions of such resources could be re-directed to improve social and economic opportunities for all citizens. Furthermore, research suggests that receiving a prison sentence has limited impact on offending and re-offending and, certainly, reoffending rates remain stubbornly high. The figures presented above relate to direct and indirect costs of the Criminal Justice System as a whole (policing, courts, prison, etc). They do not include the much more illusive but nonetheless important social and economic costs that offending, incarceration and failure to reintegrate ex-offenders into our communities represent be they the costs of family break-up, benefits and financial support or the impact on the life-chances and experiences of the children of offenders. Even without the details of the impact of the Comprehensive Spending Review on Criminal Justice resources, it is clear that the current approach lacks the capacity to provide an enhanced level of support for offenders in terms of preparing for a successful transition to a sustainable, productive life-style on release. In contrast, the Mentoring for Progression project, currently funded by Aimhigher MKOB and delivered by the Learning Ladder Ltd, provides an alternative model for engaging offenders in a structured mentoring programme of personal development and planning that has so far achieved impressive success. The model described here could readily provide an ideal example of innovation that can be piloted across a larger number of prisons and Young Offender Institutions. A larger pilot project, independently monitored, reviewed and evaluated from the outset, would further demonstrate the significant economic and social benefit of this approach and how it could provide a national service to support offenders make positive life choices and stay out of prison.
3.
Project Outcomes and Further Modelling.
Here we examine the recorded outcomes and costs of the model developed by the Learning Ladder Ltd. Taking this data and combining it with published data from various sources on the size of the prison population, the costs of incarceration and re-offending and current data on the rates of re-offending, we explore the actual and potential resource savings that accompany the implementation of this model. Clearly, the data that follows is based on provisional modelling and it does take some of the figures published on costs, for example of keeping prisoners in prison, as
6
proxy figures to provide an overall illustration of potential value rather than an absolute set of figures – as stated earlier such data would be more readily developed by a further pilot and evaluation. However, the figures used here have been produced with caution and, in many cases (for example table 4), we have extrapolated a variety of figures which calculate the potential benefits of the scheme much more cautiously than current outcomes suggest would be the case. Based on these calculations, there is a clear case for a larger pilot as the potential cost savings (and social impacts) appear to be substantial. Table 2 sets out the costs of setting up and delivering the mentoring programme in the current scheme calculated using data provided by the Learning Ladder Ltd in terms of days delivered and staff costs (less VAT). Table 2 - Programme Set up and Delivery Costs. Staffing
Set-up
Delivery year one
Delivery year two
Additional days
senior mentor and mentor
16 days setting up a projectvi
46 daysvii
30 daysviii
40 days per yearix
Subtotals (£s)
6080
17480
11400
15200
Total (£s)
50160x
Taking these set-up and delivery costs and setting them against the numbers of offenders engaging in the programme can provide us with a set of unit costs for different levels of engagement. Table 3 provides a summary of the number of offenders engaging with the project between 20082010. The numbers participating have steadily increased as the project has developed over the last three years. All offenders are introduced to the project at induction and around 13% have elected to complete the PDP process. Although this is a self selecting sample, a number of those involved reported that they had either declined to participate in projects with similar aims and objectives before or, where they had, they reported that the experience was less complete, focused and valuable. Discussions with offenders and prison staff suggest that the organisation and nature of the Mentoring for Progression project, the level of contact and the involvement of peer mentors, appealed to a broader range of offenders and had more credibility with both staff and offenders (Refer also:Institute for Criminal Policy Research, 2007).xi
7
Outcomes for participants have been very positive. Of those completing a PDP, a growing number have completed or are completing FE or HE courses. This has included success up to Masters level. Important as these outcomes are, the key intervention and activity of the project is the completion of the PDP. It is through this process that the individual offender develops a focused action plan (and back-up plan) on what to do (in terms of training, education and personal development) and how to do it. This provides a transferable, personal and focused document and set of activities which can move with the offender through the prison system and into post-release. It facilitates effective action both in and outside prison and provides the individual with a wider range of options. Table 3 – Participant Throughput and Educational Destinations 2008-2010. 2008
2009
2010
Totals
Number Engaged
500
600
900
2000
Complete PDP
67
74
93
234
Progress to FE
13
31
22
66
Progress to HE
8
11
25
44
As the PDP appears to be the critical intervention, we have taken an average calculation of the delivery and support for the completion of a PDP as the key cost of delivered activity. Taking total costs and dividing by the numbers completing PDPs over three years provides an average cost per PDP per offender of £643.00 – this is, of course, not an exact figure but an illustrative one. However, even as an indicative figure it can be seen that the cost per offender progressing through the programme is relatively small and becomes less as more individuals participate. Furthermore, the costs of setting-up and delivering a new programme, so far, have been lower in each new institution as initial systems and processes have already been developed. Indeed, the main costs that would increase if the scheme were significantly extended would be the staffing costs for senior and other staff mentors. Although calculating the costs and benefits of schemes such as this one is difficult due to the range of variables and absence of long-term data, it is also true that the potential cost savings – even calculated on highly conservative estimates
8
– suggest that the Mentoring for Progression model appears to provide a viable and productive set of interventions which would be worth developing furtherxii. The cost to the taxpayer of both imprisonment and re-offending is extensive. In 2007-08, it was estimated that it cost an average of £39,000 per year to keep someone in prison and this figure has risen as current estimates put the costs at £45,000 per prisoner per yearxiii. Official statistics demonstrate that half of all adults and almost three-quarters of young people are re-convicted within one year of being released and the National Audit Office estimates that reoffending costs the taxpayer between £9 billion and £13 billion a year. Using some of these figures, we can estimate some indicative potential savings if the scheme continues in the same sort of ways that it has so far in the three prisons covered in the table below. Clearly, these figures are broad estimates where the cost of re-offending is represented by a proxy figure calculated from National Audit Office estimates of the costs of re-offending, set against overall prisoner numbers and rates of re-offending common to adult and young offender populations. However, we should note that such calculations of the cost of re-offending (either the global figures from the NAO or the more local ones given here) are highly speculative given the range of variables that exist. That said, such estimates provide a sense of the potential social return on investment in a mentoring scheme such as this one and can help to shape our comprehension of the size of potential socio-economic gains. Table four provides an estimate of indicative savings based on published official data.
Table 4 – Illustrative Estimated Costs of Imprisonment and Re-offending. Number of Prisoners per Prisonxiv
Costs per yearxv
% Reoffending within 1 Yearxvi
Prison Y 400
18,000,000
50%
Prison Z 300
13,500,000
73%
Estimated Costs of Re-offendingxvii
Subsequent Costs per year
Total
21,126,676
9,000,000
30,126,676
23,133,803
9,756,450
32,890,253
9
In table 5 these calculations are developed to provide a comparison of the costs of delivering the programme and potential indicative savings estimated per individual against a re-offending rate of less than 10% that the project has so far achieved. Again, the potential savings – just in terms of keeping people out of prison for a year – are significant.
Table 5 – Estimated Savings by Participants per year 2008 – 2010. Number Completing PDP
Less % Re-Offending
Overall Costxviii
Estimated overall saving (NET)xix
67
63
40,509
2,794,491
74
70
45,010
3,104,990
93
87
55,941
3,859,059
Table 6 extrapolates these figures further and extends the indicative estimates to three scenarios across the national prison population. In the table, the net prison population is based on those serving sentences of one or more years. In these calculations overall savings are based on the cost of keeping individuals in prison and do not include estimates for savings in terms of non-offending and social costs.
10
Table 6 – Estimated Savings Extrapolated to Overall Prison Population serving more than a 12-month sentence. Target Populationxx
Estimated % participating
Number Participating (Nationally)
Overall Costs
Potential Overall Saving
44,700
13%xxi
5811
3,736,473
122,580,000xxii
44,700
10%
4,470
2,874,210
75,420,000xxiii
44,700
5% xxiv
2,235
1,437,105
25,155,000xxv
As stated earlier, these figures are difficult to calculate for a variety of reasons and should be seen as illustrative rather than absolute – however they do suggest that further roll-out and evaluation of the Mentoring for Progression scheme could provide clear evidence of significant potential savings. 4.
Project Characteristics – Why Does this work? ‘One and a half-hours is the longest I have ever spent talking to someone about myself, my aims and my future.’ Current mentor on their experience of completing their Personal Development Plan, 2010.
Recent studies have demonstrated both the general value of mentoring and the specific role it can play in reducing offending and re-offending and enhancing life chances and opportunities such as access to education and employment (Dubois et al, 2002, Grossman and Tierney, 1998, Newburn and Shiner 2005). Research also demonstrates that mentoring appears to work best when combined with other interventions and where contact between mentor and mentee is frequent and sustained (Joliffe and Farrington, 2007).
11
The comprehensive Social Exclusion Unit’s report Reducing Offending by Ex-Offenders (2002) identified five key issues that inhibited the opportunities for offenders to maximise the benefits of education, support and training while in prison. These are: • • • • •
Poor targeting of need Lack of incentives to learn Absence of rounded assessment of offender’s skills, needs and aspirations Difficulties experienced as a result of the prison regime Lack of links between education and training inside and outside prisons
This is not surprising as prison staff are under enormous pressures in terms of time and other commitments and are often not best placed to provide targeted, specialist support. Added to this there can also be, understandably, some issue of trust between offender and prison staff.
Why Mentoring for Progression Works – Key Characteristics •
Project is tailored to each institution and each individual.
•
Independent of formal prison structures, processes and systems.
•
Led by mentors and supported by outside people with specialist knowledge.
•
Offenders have to take responsibility for their behaviour.
•
Encourages individual to step outside the ‘offender identity’.
•
Raises self-esteem.
• Provides realistic, achievable targets and plans. The model discussed here works effectively to deal with the five • Encourages constructive focus. issues raised above. The PDP facilitates effective and rounded assessment of the skills, abilities and aspirations of the offender, facilitates targeting of need and support and goes some way to overcoming the difficulties experienced as a result of the prison regime. The Learning Ladder has specialist knowledge and experience of learning and training, has excellent links with provision outside of the prison (FE/HE/Business) and can focus on the needs and aspirations of the offender in ways that prison staff cannot. Furthermore, participation in the scheme and the training that goes with it provides genuine incentives to the men to become involved; they can see how they will benefit. Furthermore, the trust and confidence that goes with being a mentor also provides the men with further incentive as they, their peers and prison staff, value it. The approach facilitates the setting of realistic and achievable targets (rather than general or in some cases unachievable ones) and the PDP and accompanying processes allow people to discover things they didn’t know about themselves.
12
Prison Officers and other staff we talked to during this review reported very favourable responses to the project. One described it as a ‘highly good intervention’ and all staff stressed the value of prisoner led, prisoner run interventions in terms of ensuring success through creating project ownership and enhancing commitment. They also stressed the important role the scheme plays in raising self-esteem amongst participants and, in addition, raising respect amongst staff for those who participate. The Crucial Role of Peer Mentors.
5.
•
Offenders identify with peers in a way they do not with staff or ‘outside professionals’.
•
Peer mentors know the journey that the mentees are on.
•
Mentors provide a ‘reality check’.
•
They focus on realities of the offender's situation, background and objectives.
•
Ask mentees what their back-up plan is/challenge mentees to put a workable action plan in place
•
Act as successful role models.
•
Demonstrate what can be achieved.
Case Studies and Offender Experiences.
One of the most powerful aspects of projects such as this one is the transformative and life-changing impact that they have on participants. Here we aim to bring the report to life by capturing a short set of case studies and personal reflections from participants in the programme. In many ways offenders are in a ‘no-win’ situation. They often enter the prison system already having experienced a set of life chances and experiences that can make accessing education, training and employment difficult (SEU, 2002). Having then committed an offence or offences and received a criminal record only compounds this situation even further. Although most offenders involved in this project recognised that their
13
imprisonment was an outcome of their choices and behaviours, they also expressed frustration about how difficult it can be to re-engage with productive life on the outside. People report that time in prison results in ‘lots of doors being slammed shut’. While no one involved in this project (offenders, staff, prison officers or stakeholders) was seeking a ‘softer’ option for offenders there is a genuine aim of transforming offenders lives and ensuring, as far as possible, that ex-offenders can access meaningful, appropriate and viable training, education or employment activities that reduce the risk of repeat offending. Research and offender self-reporting both stress how important employment is to curbing re-offending and the men we spoke to clearly felt that the approach of the PDP, supported by mentors who had been through both the mentoring scheme and were serving prisoners themselves, added significant value to the support they received. Put simply, they found it relevant, realistic and informed by a grounded sense of the context of being an offender. Comments from participants include: •
‘Recognised the need for a feasible career route’
•
‘These are open interactions and it is easier to trust peers and colleagues’
•
“I found it helped me build and consolidate my confidence. It built me up as a person and helped me identify my strengths and weaknesses.’
•
“It’s about what you want, what you need, with realistic and achievable targets.’
Individuals reported that although they were encouraged to pursue training, education and other opportunities while in prison it was often difficult without the direct support of people with relevant knowledge and experience (in this case the peer mentors and Learning Ladder staff). Although it can be tempting to focus on the highest levels of educational attainment (where offenders have gone on to successfully study for Master level qualifications, for example) many people spoken to during this project stressed the value and importance of the PDP approach in terms of preparing them for work and employment. Indeed, it is the very diversity of planning and advice on offer and its tailoring to the person’s skills, aspirations and abilities that makes the programme what it is.
14
In 2010, for example, participants in the scheme at HMP Springhill were or are planning to undertake the following range of education and training. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Sports Massage Level Three Diploma Automotive Engineering to degree level Plumbing Gas Fitting Electrician Building Trades Business Management Journalism Gym Instructor Level 3 Maths and English Level 2 Mechanics Level 1 Carpentry NVQ Level 1 Exploring Science (60 CAT points towards an undergraduate degree) Retail Management IT/Web Design Music Production Translator
This programme can have significant impacts and offers real opportunity to offenders as the following extract demonstrates.
15
Extract from a letter sent to Learning Ladder staff from a mentee and serving prisoner.
‘…I would like to thank the both of you for everything that you have done for me. You have made me realise that just because you are in prison it doesn’t mean you’re not worth a second chance. And I believe that you both have opened my eyes for what criminals can do when released from prison. Karyn you are an inspiration to all employers – if only they were all like you. Sven I would like to thank you for showing that just because you have a criminal record it doesn’t mean you can’t get what you want out of life. The both of you have inspired me in different ways. Thank you again.
The Learning Ladder Ltd has received a number of similar letters and statements in the three years that they have been delivering the programme. All attest to the transformative impacts the Mentoring for Progression project has had on offenders and on their families, friends and, ultimately, the communities in which they live. Appendix 1 of this document contains a further extended case study of one participant’s experiences of the project and the impact on their life.
16
6.
Conclusion.
The Mentoring for Progression Project discussed here has had clearly beneficial impacts on the individual offenders and the institutions it has worked with and in. The data available suggests that the project has significant capacity to reduce offending and support positive and transformative changes in the behaviour and life-chances of offenders. The model developed by the Learning Ladder and supported by Aimhigher MKOB also demonstrates how cost-effective such approaches can be. However, this scheme also shows that mentoring is only part of the story – just as important in achieving sustainable outcomes is the role of action planning, on-going support and the setting of realistic and obtainable targets – rather than more generic advice, support and guidance. Though recent reviews of mentoring schemes both outside and inside prisons acknowledge the problem of selection bias in most samples (as evaluation is most often conducted after the project has been completed and not as an integral element of the project (Jolliffe and Farrington, 2007), there is evidence in current research and in that supplied here to suggest that this scheme has significant potential to be both rolled-out nationally and to achieve some of the objectives for prison reform and change that the current Government seeks. There is a real opportunity to develop this project further and undertake a larger pilot project in 10 – 15 prisons of different categories and conduct a large-scale, controlled evaluation at the same time to obtain the most robust understanding of the impact and social and economic gains that this scheme can deliver.
17
7.
References.
Cabinet Office, (2009), A Guide to Social Return on Investment, London, Cabinet Office. Carter, P. (2003), Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime: A New Approach, London, Strategy Unit. Dawson, P and Cuppleditch, L, (2007), An Impact Assessment of the Prolific and other Priority Offender Programme, London, Home Office. Dubois, D.L., Holloway, B.E., Valentine, J.C., and Cooper, H., (2002), ‘Effectiveness of Mentoring Programs for Youth: A Meta-Analytic Review’, American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, pp157-197 Grossman, J.B., and Tierney, J.P., (1998), ‘Does Mentoring Work? An Impact Study of the Big Brothers Big Sisters Programme’, Evaluation Review, 22, pp404-426. Institute for Criminal Policy Research (2007), Coming Through: An Evaluation of the PS Plus 2 Programme, London, ICPR/King’s College. Jolliffe, D and Farrington, D, (2007) A Rapid Evidence Assessment of the Impact of Mentoring on Re-Offending: A Summary, London, Home Office. Knuutila, K, (2010), Punishing Costs: How Locking Up Children is Making Britain Less Safe, London, New Economic Foundation. Lawlor, E, Nicholls, J and Sanfilippo, L, (2008), Unlocking Value: How We All Benefit From Investing in Alternatives to Prison for Women Offenders, London, New Economic Foundation. Leeuw, F. (2005), Trends and Developments in Program Evaluation in General and Criminal Justice Programs in Particular, European Journal on Criminal Justice, 11, pp233-258. Lewis, S, Maguire, M, Raynor, P, Vanstone, M and Vennard, J, (2003), The Resettlement of Short-Term Prisoners: An Evaluation of Seven Pathfinder Programmes, London, Home Office. Lord Carter’s Review of Prisons (2007), Securing the Future: Proposal for Efficient and Sustainable Use of Custody in England and Wales, London, Ministry of Justice.
18
Ministry of Justice, (2008), Community Sentencing – Reducing Re-Offending, Changing Lives, London, Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice (2009), Reoffending of Adults: Results from the 2007 Cohort (England and Wales), London, Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice, (2010), Reoffending of Adults: Results from the 2008 Cohort (England and Wales), London, Ministry of Justice. New Economics Foundation, (2008), Unlocking Value: How We All Benefit from Investing in Alternatives to Prison for Women Offenders, London, NEF. Newburn, T and Shiner, M, (2005), Dealing with Disaffection: Young People, Mentoring and Social Inclusion, Cullompton, Devon, Willan Publishing. Social Exclusion Unit, (2002), Reducing Re-Offending by Ex-Prisoners, London, Cabinet Office. Solomon, E and Garside, R, (2008), Ten Years of Labour’s Youth Justice Reforms: An Independent Audit, London, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.
19
Appendix 1 – Extended Case Study. Mentoring for Progression - how it changed my life. Getting sentenced and being taken away from your family will break a lot of big men. However, when I arrived at Lewes Prison in East Sussex for my first night as a prisoner I made a decision. Whatever happened I would not let these five years behind bars go to waste. When I got to the last bit of my sentence I was transferred to HMP Springhill in Buckinghamshire which is a D-Cat open prison. This might sound strange to people, “an open prison”. Yes there are no walls and you can walk out whenever you want. However prisoners who arrive there have gone through very rigorous security checks and are of very low risk to the community, and therefore are to be given the chance to resettle. Upon arrival at HMP Springhill we went through a week of general induction and were introduced to a life changing programme called Aimhigher. I don’t know where I would have been now without it. My story Everybody needs to work in prison so I was assigned the job of PMU (population management unit) orderly. This was a job that was done by an old friend of mine that I knew from Lewes; he had to move on as he was going to university so I took over the job. However before he left he told me all about the Aimhigher Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire peer mentoring programme of which he was a mentor, as he thought that I would have been a good candidate to become one. The programme gives prisoners the chance to think about where they want to be when they are released and especially to look at whether they could go to college or university. During my sentence, I’d always taken the opportunity to participate in all the available educational courses provided by the prison services. However I have to say, that is not always the correct way forward as you can find you are just doing courses because they are available. What makes the Aimhigher programme stand out from other things I’d done was that prisoners are the ones doing the mentoring. I was introduced to senior mentor Karyn Buck and she agreed that I would have the capabilities to become a good mentor. I was put on the waiting list to go on the next peer to peer mentor training course. To become an accredited mentor we had to complete three personal development plans with other inmates who where interested in further or higher education. That means we would talk to them about where they’d been and where they would like to go with a focus on education and their options. After my mentor training and completing three PDPs I became an Aimhigher MKOB accredited mentor. I started to fulfill my role as a peer to peer mentor at Springhill with great enthusiasm. For our own benefit and further training there was a monthly mentor meeting held where Karyn would come into the prison and debrief all the mentors to see if there were any problems. At one
20
mentor meeting I got elected to become the Aimhigher mentor coordinator. This job was to make all the appointments and arrange all the day to day running of the project at Springhill. This job quickly expanded as I had to do 60 days of community work and the prison agreed that I would go out to work for two days at Karyn’s company, The Learning Ladder Ltd, and one day at Aylesbury College as an Aimhigher mentor. This role was to give advice and guidance to possible higher education students. After my community work I was offered a job at The Learning Ladder which is where I am now. My personal development plan I do have to say that I would have gone the wrong way if it wasn’t for my mentor. So that is where this project is so very valuable. It gets people to focus on what they actually want and can do. Before Springhill I did not really think about the affect having a criminal conviction might have on my career, and was told that I could become a counsellor. So I started to study to become a counsellor by distance learning in my previous prison, because I liked it and am quite good with people and I wanted to do something good. However after a serious conversation with my mentor and completing my PDP at Springhill, it became clear to me that I hadn’t been thinking about the barriers I’d face upon release with a criminal record. So we tailored my PDP to what would give me the best job opportunities. Getting a job upon release is the most important factor in helping people not to reoffend. Therefore it is so important that we make the right choices in what, where and how we are spending our education in prison. I have changed my studies as I always wanted to run a business but haven’t got any qualifications in this. So I completed an NVQ Level 2 in Business Administration and am currently doing a Foundation Degree in Business Management which I want to top up to a full BA (honours). After this I would like to start an MBA if my grades are good enough to succeed. My personal opinion about the Aimhigher peer mentoring project is that it makes drastic changes to a prisoner’s attitude towards education and their own future. To be told by your peers that you can achieve your set goals is so important. They know your situation as they find themselves struggling with the same problems, so you believe them and are more accepting of their advice. Aimhigher has given me hope and opportunities and that has given me a clear view of my future and what I need to do to succeed without crime. So the programme has been priceless for me and my family. Also the Aimhigher support network and my mentor have always stood by me, and guided me in the right direction in making the right choices. This is what every prisoner needs, it is so important to be able to know what is right for you and that there is a future out there for everyone.
21
i
The Learning Ladder Ltd is a commercial training organisation based in Chalgrove, Oxfordshire (contact details can be found on the inside front cover of this report) In addition to providing a range of training and development services the Learning Ladder has a multi-award winning portfolio of mentoring projects – see www.thelearningladder.co.uk/)
ii
These are HMYOIs Aylesbury, Reading and Huntercombe and HMP Kingston.
iii
See Ministry of Justice Population in custody monthly tables August 2010 England and Wales - www.justice.gov.uk/ publications/ populationincustody.htm
iv
Office of National Statistics see www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/population/
v
Source Ministry of Justice and Prison Reform Trust.
vi
Days spent in course development and preparation including project work, meetings with prison and other staff and security checks.
vii viii
Delivery days year one. Delivery days year two.
ix
Includes project research, additional support, post-release contact, project management, communications, on-going relationship management with prison staff and stakeholders. x
Calculation based on Learning Ladder Ltd day rate of £380.00 per day (ex.VAT) September 2010.
xi See Institute for Criminal Policy Research (2007), Coming Through: An Evaluation of the PS Plus 2 Programme, London, ICPR/King’s College. This study demonstrated how prison population variables and background were less important than extent and quality of the mentoring on offer in determining participation and progression. xii
See NEF 2008 for similar examples.
xiii
Prison Reform Trust, Bromley Briefing FactFile, July 2010.
xiv
Illustrative examples based on hypothetical institutions - one an adult prison and one a young offenders institution.
xv
Prison population multiplied by cost per year, per prisoner.
xvi
Based on published national re-offending rates for adults and young people, Ministry of Justice, 2010, www.justice.gov.uk/ publications/
22
xvii
Estimated cost of re-offending based on national cost of re-offending (£9 billion) divided by the national prison population (85,200) multiplied by % re-offending within one year (National Audit Office figures estimate that in 2007-2008 re-offending by all offenders cost the economy between £9 and £13 billion).
xviii
Overall cost = (Beneficiaries - % re-offending (6.1%) as recorded in the European Social Fund Survey) x programme delivery cost per prisoner completing a PDP (£643).
xix
Estimated overall saving (NET) = (Beneficiaries - % re-offending offending (6.1%) as recorded in the European Social Fund Survey) x annual cost of imprisonment per prisoner (£45,000) - overall cost of project delivery xx
All sentenced prisoners serving more than 12 months (but excluding life and indeterminate sentences) as of July 2010 – Ministry of Justice. So far the Mentoring for Progression Project has worked predominately with offenders sentenced to 12 months or more.
xxi
13% represents the average % rate of offender participation in schemes currently being delivered.
xxii
Number participating nationally - national % adult not re-offending (50%) - re-offending rate recorded in the European Social Fund Survey (6.1%)
xxiii
Number participating nationally - national % adult not re-offending (50%) - projected halving of current re-offending rate (25%)
xxiv
5% represents a more cautious rate of participation in the scheme.
xxv
Number participating nationally - national % adult not re-offending (50%) - current adult re-offending rate (50%)
23
24
