Crisis in crisis

A challenge to Heather Munro of London Probation Trust: 
Why not engage responsibly with the private rented sector, not a bunch of policy wonks? How many of your people on license have Crisis helped into sustainable private rented sector tenancies which have lasted the duration of the term? Charities such as Crisis and Shelter have a place in effecting research and a framework for good policy and practise   but generally,  landlords will not engage directly and PRS schemes  they have  funded  have not evidenced sustained success.

How can you help empower ex offenders to manage sustainable tenancies? Ex offenders need to understand their rights and responsibilities as tenants and  tell their story to landlords in a way that empowers their  desistance, not be held back by entering into badly managed poor tenancies in which landlords are lied to, not explained EXACTLY what the ex offender's background is and in which the tenancy fails and you  perpetuate the cycle of homelessness. Tell you what, we'll send along two of our most powerful trainers and  tenant advocates for a free day of training to probation officers and those on licences in the community.

We wholeheartedly support Crisis and Shelter's work in lobbying for changes in policy and addressing the  need for research in this sector but they are not equipped to deal professionally  with the private sector, landlords have been burnt by too many Private Rented Schemes designed by charities who do not understand that the bottom line for every landlord has to be sustainability and to be able to pay his mortgage and related outgoings on a rented property. Too many tenancies have been missold by the  Social Lettings Agency model purveyed by Local Authorities. Till you start to engage with the private rented sector, you don't have a chance of helping people on probation achieving successful, supported tenancies with buy in from all the stakeholders engaged.  Let's talk, Ms Munro.

Heather Munro, London Probation Trust

Lovely press release, time for action.

March 15 2012

'Homelessness' contributory factor to offending

Over a quarter of London offenders serving their sentence in the community have housing as a ‘criminogenic need’* - according to data from the UK’s largest probation trust.

London Probation Trust (LPT) has over 40,000** offenders on its books at any one time and is the largest service of its kind in Europe.

LPT Chief Executive Heather Munro said: "Homelessness is an issue probation officers will come across on a daily basis when dealing with the offenders under their supervision.

"Most people working in probation would probably say the lack of stable accommodation, a place to call ‘home’, is one of the biggest contributing factors when it comes to offending and reoffending. It’s well known that if you are sleeping rough or moving from place to place that you are more likely to end up reoffending.

"Our data shows that 27*** per cent of the offenders on our books have problems with their accommodation. Usually this will be just one of several issues we have to help offenders deal with as part of addressing their criminal behaviour. Offenders tend to have complex backgrounds with multiple concerns – lack of skills, lack of employment, low finances, problems with substance abuse etc; and they are often compounded by issues with housing."

Heather pinpoints the direct link between homelessness and offending as the most likely reason her staff voted Crisis as their 2012 Charity of the Year.

She said: "I’m very pleased to be supporting Crisis – and not at all surprised that it came out top in our staff poll.

"We’re already working with them in our approved premises, where they provide free employment and skills advice to offenders as well as help some of them to secure more permanent accommodation.

"Crisis is a great charity and we will be exploring ways for staff to donate their time as volunteers as well as raise funds for this worthwhile cause."

Last year LPT staff raised money for several charities, including the Cassandra Learning Centre; Setu Nepal and MacMillan Cancer Support.

ENDS

*There are several criminogenic needs which are identified in the Offender Assessment System (OASys) tool. The guidance states:

"There is clear evidence that lack of permanent decent accommodation is related to re-offending. Those of no fixed abode or who are living in hostels, especially hostels with other offenders, are more likely to offend. Those who have many changes of address are more likely to re-offend. Accommodation can also be seen as a proxy measure for social exclusion. Not having a postal address can have serious and widespread consequences. Living in a high crime area is an environmental factor that can affect the rate of re-offending. A sudden change of accommodation status can lead to a significant change in the likelihood of reconviction very quickly, so this section is one of the most ‘dynamic’ area is OASys. Carlisle (1996), when discussing the housing needs of ex-prisoners, reviewed research that clearly showed a link between unsuitable accommodation and the rate of reconviction. (OASys Manual, 2002)

**This figure includes offenders who are currently on licence in the community as well as those under LPT’s supervision in prison.

***This figure only applies to those offenders currently on licence or serving their sentence in the community and for whom an OASys assessment is available. The OASys data is from the assessments over the last 12 months.

The scandal of A4e, an insider's view

Our intern K spent some time at Her Majesty's leisure at HMP YOI Feltham.
Here's his view on the   contracts announced today for learning and skills for offenders in prison and in the community for scandal ridden company A4e.

A4e are a company who are meant to deliver a service which they are  contracted to do with tax payers' money. They should be, and are responsible and accountable to us, the general public, for  delivering the various services which are procured by Government and are trusted and funded with large amounts of tax payers' money to ensure they deliver their services efficiently,  in the very least.

However, it appears this is not the case. A4e cannot clearly be trusted  to deliver contracts  procured by  Government, they are paid to deliver a service which they are not providing efficiently, and it looks like most of the tax payer’s money is just getting pocketed by these fat cats such as Emma  Harrison, the Chief Executive who recently stepped down as Family Tsar and  who  helped herself to £11m in bonuses over the last two years. Whilst she enjoys herself on the loot, living lavish, customers on her company's programs are floundering and are feeling the lack of provision  and witnessing first hand that A4e actually doesn't provide a service which helps them find employment but just make matters worse for them. People are beginning to “feel let down by the service that is meant to help them”. For example, Ms Verwaerde, 25, from Leicester who said that, she was put up for an interview by A4e, as part of the Coalition's Work Programme. The job was in sales, offering £7,000 a year plus commission. But after A4e told her she had been offered the position, she says she was discouraged from asking for written confirmation of her hours and pay; she was told she could have her benefits sanctioned if she did not accept the position, and was then told by two A4e staff that she could "give it (the job) a go" without having to notify the Jobcentre. Ms Verwaerde, whose ambition is to work in the police service one day, said she feels she has been failed by the very service meant to help her. "It felt like I was being pushed into a corner."  If she did not notify the JobCentre, she would be committing a fraud and would have faced sanctions, such as having her Job Seekers' Allowance cut or worse, criminal charges.

This raises serious concerns about whether  A4e are  fit for purpose, to deliver services to prisoners , especially  to   prisoners who are already vulnerable and a target to police because they will be on supervision licenses. Is it safe to allow them to be managed and forced into committing criminal acts, unknowingly by the employees of a company riddled with systemic fraud which is paid to assist them.   As evidenced  in  the case with Ms Verwaerde A4e are relaying the responsibility onto their vulnerable clients.

What the Government are doing taking on board A4e when they knew   serious allegations of systematic fraud existed regarding the  company and there have been numerous whisteblowers come forward since the most recent spate of arrests three weeks ago? It’s just as bad as letting an armed robber work as a cashier  in your bank is there a clear risk factor there. A4e have no other interest than to make a huge profit and deliver the service however inefficient it may be,  however how can we have a company with such problems internally be given contracts to help with the ex-offender community who really need help. An ex offender in work is far less likely to reoffend and gets a strong footing on his desistance  journey.

As someone who’s been prison before I want the Government to give out contracts to companies that are reliable, accountable and genuinely want to help me to get employed and not make life harder for me by pretending they are helping when really they are not doing nothing actually and potentially jeopardising my freedom.

But with the latest round of prison education contracts  announced today , others fear that in reality a system already under strain is about to become even more stretched, as ever more unworkable demands are heaped on it and its staff. In its submission to the Making Prisons Work review, the University and College Union told ministers its members were struggling to maintain standards in an environment increasingly hostile to learning, blaming the competitive retendering system. 

Cost-cutting in the pursuit of profits, attacks on staff pay and conditions, instability and bad management practises, including bullying, have resulted from the process, UCU claimed.

Charities subcontracted by the big private providers to deliver the service have warned they face going bust under harsh contracts that only pay out if they get a client into work and keep them there for six months, and last week, analysis by the National Audit Office found that rather than the 40% of people the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) estimates will get jobs via the programme, the figure is likely to be closer to 26%. That, the NAO said, increases the risk that providers might seek to protect profits by favouring those they can get into steady work more swiftly. There are fears that adopting a similar system in prison education will bring the same problems, the distorting effect of targets merely replaced with a similarly problematic focus on outcomes. Alastair Clark, co-leader on offender learning at the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, talks of the "perverse incentive to go for the quick wins" offered by payment by results; 

 "The people you can easily get into a job, and who can sustain it, could probably have done it themselves," says  Maria McNicholl from St Giles Trust. "Who is then helping people like a lot of our core clients? They're just being left as usual; nobody's paying you to help the people who need it most."

Racism and Misogyny in the Criminal Justice System

Here are the virals from the event in September chaired by ex prisoner ex Minister Jonathan Aitken, Imran Khan, Eoin McLennan Murray and others featuring questions from women serving prison sentences. Women, the unheard voices in the Rehabilitation Revolution