IPPR Report makes pragmatic case for reform
The riots that began in London last Saturday night and then spread to other cities across England have focused even more attention on criminal justice reform. As journalists and commentators struggle to understand why the riots happened, thoughts also turn to how rioters should be dealt with and what long-term lessons can be learned. There is understandable anger, expressed by MPs in the House of Commons this afternoon. Once the focus on the riots has faded however, it is vital that we retain a focus on the longer term challenge of finding practical and affordable approaches to reduce offending, and what reduces the chances of people getting caught in a cycle of crime.
In this context, the recent IPPR report ‘Redesigning justice: Reducing crime through justice reinvestment’ provides a helpful addition to the practical, pragmatic case for criminal justice reform. The report builds on a strong evidence base, including aspects of our developing Financial Analysis Model, to argue for greater investment in ‘upstream’ community-based projects that tackle the causes of crime at the source. This will be more than paid for by the savings that it will bring further down the line in the criminal justice system.
My colleague Anna and I worked with IPPR to help provide evidence, and we are pleased at how this is reflected in the final publication. The report uses evidence from the reducing-re-offending team in Camden and from our own service user forum to show the positive impact that a strong relationship with an allocated case worker has on reducing offending. It also refers to our Financial Analysis Model, the initial findings of which suggest that an investment of £33 million per annum in holistic services for people with multiple needs in the community and in prisons could reduce spending by services by up to £3 billion over three years.
The report joins us in expressing the importance of a local approach to reducing reoffending, enabling local authorities to take a lead and ensuring that local alternatives to custody are adequately resourced. The case study of short-term prisoners in Lewisham provides further evidence of the amount of resources that could be made available locally, with £2.5 million spent on people serving less than 12 months for non-violent offences in 2009-2010 in Lewisham alone.
Other recommendations include:
- Exit routes for diversion into more effective rehabilitation for low risk offenders built into all stages of the criminal justice system
- Stipulations against ineffective short sentences
- Probation to be decentralized and integrated locally
- Local Authorities to be made responsible for reducing re-offending, with local custody budgets allocated.
These recommendations are supported by a growing evidence base demonstrating what works. Our experience shows that community-based, localized and holistic projects, such as the Milton Keynes Link Worker Plus scheme, are central to meeting multiple needs and reducing crime. Improving the lives of the revolving doors group is not just a moral issue; it makes practical and financial sense too.
In a time of austerity, it is more important than ever to get value for money from services. With this report, and continuing work on our Financial Analysis Model, the government should recognize the need to reinvest in services in order to reduce crime, and produce great savings for the taxpayer.
While in the short term politicians will be reacting to the public’s anger against the rioters, in the longer term they must stay focused on what really works to reduce reoffending. This report is a helpful addition to that work.
