On a cliff edge – Work and Pensions Select Committee publishes its report into employment support for ex-offenders
This report concludes an inquiry I’ve blogged about previously, shortly after giving evidence to the Committee alongside Revolving Doors forum members Janice Nix and Matt John. The report pulls together a wide range of written and oral evidence, and comes broadly to the right conclusions. The report is available here, but some quick observations from the Revolving Doors perspective:
- Despite the topic of the inquiry being ‘support for ex-offenders’, the focus of the report is firmly on prisoners and ex-prisoners. This is, of course, a particularly important cohort, but also a relatively small one. While not all of those in contact with other parts of the criminal justice system are unemployed, some will have a range of unmet needs and may face very similar barriers to people in, or leaving, prison.
- The report is realistic. The Committee acknowledges the complexity of needs and barriers to employment faced by many leaving prison, and also the increasingly challenging environment found in prisons including the ‘challenges of rising levels of violence [and] a reduction in prison officer numbers’
- The report emphasises the importance of continuity of support and resettlement – the ‘cliff edge’ picked up widely across the media. The Committee has read and heard about the ‘through the gate’ element of Transforming Rehabilitation, and it’s clear that while they buy the idea, they’re not convinced it’s being delivered in practice.
- Despite several witnesses (including me) emphasising the importance of stable and appropriate accommodation on release from prison, there were no recommendations around housing in the report. This isn’t to be overly critical – housing is mentioned in the report in places, and it may have been a simple matter of sticking tightly to the brief, but a little more recognition of the centrality of housing to building a stable life would not have been unwelcome.
- One recommendation which does relate to housing, is that of making a full month’s entitlement of Universal Credit available to prisoners on release. I understand the reason for calling for this, but I’m not sure it’s quite the right response. It would be administratively difficult (how would the housing component be calculated?) and potentially risky to make available what could be a very substantial lump sum.
- The Committee highlights the reluctance of employers to consider recruiting people who have been in prison. This is a significant barrier, and the recommendations about prisons building better links with employers, and making better use of release on temporary licence are sensible. Applying ‘Ban the Box’ to all public bodies, other than where clearly unsafe to do so, would help to make the public sector the sort of exemplar employer that government strategies often call for, but rarely achieve.
- A recommendation to reduce National Insurance (NI) contributions for employers taking on prison-leavers seems well intentioned, but likely to have a modest impact at most. We can get a sense from labour market programmes aimed at young people of the sums it might take to influence recruitment behaviour. The almost £7,000 offered by the Future Jobs Fund was successful in incentivising employers (primarily charities and public sector bodies) to recruit eligible jobseekers, while the £2,275 available under the Youth Contract (and aimed to a greater extent at private sector employers) was much less so. Employer NI contributions for someone on £15,000 per year – which is above the living wage – would only be around £950. Would that be a sufficient incentive to change employer behaviour? Perhaps, but some of the other recommendations, such as including employment of ex-offenders in procurement and commissioning decisions, may be more effective.
- The Committee quotes extensively from our forum members Janice and Matt. The Committee and its support staff have a difficult job in managing and making sense of the wealth of written and oral evidence they receive, and have to try to make sense of the sometimes inconsistent narratives from ministers, officials, service providers, stakeholder organisations like Revolving Doors, and interested individuals. While the role of policy makers and the expertise of providers is clearly entirely central to the aims of the inquiry, the unique insight gained from personal experience is vital too and, naturally, we welcome the Committee having given due weight to that lived experience in their report and recommendations.
Overall, a report with which has identified some genuine problems and has come up with some interesting solutions, some of which seem likely to be more effective than others. We’ll carry on working with our stakeholders to try to ensure that the employment support offer for all ex-offenders (and not just ex-prisoners) is strengthened.
