Executive Summary
Background and Aims
Home Detention Curfew (HDC) came into use in Scotland in 2006 and allows prisoners, mainly on shorter sentences, to serve up to a quarter of their sentence (for a maximum of six months and a minimum of two weeks) on licence in the community, while wearing an electronic tag. Open prisons have been in existence much longer, and are facilities without the secure perimeter fences of traditional, 'closed' prisons, and allow prisoners to gradually take on the responsibility of freedom through home leaves and other activities.
The research evaluates the effectiveness of HDC and the prison system's Open Estate in terms of their ability to 'improve the management of offenders' and facilitate their 'reintegration into the community', specifically by: (1) Investigating the implementation process and associated costs and benefits of the HDC scheme and open prison, and, (2) Developing an in-depth understanding of factors which may impact on effectiveness of the schemes. The research focused on the period when people were on an HDC licence or in open prison, and does not include analysis of the period after a person returns to full liberty.
Methodology and Research Design
The research employs a mixed methods approach, and there are three main elements of the study: a statistical analysis of patterns of use and outcome for HDC and open prisons; qualitative research on the administrative process and experience of the schemes; and an analysis of the costs and savings respectively of HDC and open prisons. The relevant study period of statistical data collection for HDC and open prisons is July 2006 - March 2010.
The main activity of the qualitative research was interviews and meetings with, primarily, those directly involved in HDC or open prisons. For HDC, we interviewed SPS staff involved in administering HDC at all Scottish penal establishments making use of the scheme, and criminal justice social workers in three areas. The research strategy for open prison involved meetings and interviews with prisoners, senior managers and front line workers, as well as site visits.
For assessment of costs and benefits, we collected data from and interviewed SPS, Scottish Government and Serco staff to aggregate costs for HDC and open prison processes.
The Context of HDC and Open Prison
Schemes of conditional liberty, like HDC and open prison, operate in a highly politicised context. They are intended to support a prisoner's transition out of prison by controlled access to the community, but are subject to concerns about public safety and the transparency of sentencing when people are granted 'early' release. At the same time, prisoners and their families may assert their rights to be considered for such schemes. In addition to all of this, HDC and open prison in Scotland are operating against a backdrop of increasing prison overcrowding, which results in a re-focus away from a reintegration function and toward a population management one.
Evaluation of Home Detention Curfew (HDC)
Use of HDC
Since it was introduced in 2006, use of HDC has grown steadily. Between July 2006 and March 2010, 7,292 (45% of those considered for HDC) prisoners were released on an HDC licence. Over three-quarters of these prisoners (77%) successfully completed their period on HDC. The average daily population on HDC between 2006 and 2010 was 331, and the vast majority of those on HDC (93.7%) were on it for the first time.
Profile of Population on HDC
The age profile and gender balance of the population on HDC is broadly similar to that of the overall prison population, and fluctuations in use of HDC appear to have followed fluctuations in the prison population overall. There is slightly more use, proportionately, of HDC for women than men.
Prisoners released on HDC are generally serving short sentences of six months up to less than two years; only 5% of those given an HDC licence were serving sentences of three years or longer. However, those on very short sentences rarely receive HDC: between 2006 and 2010, only 46 HDC licences were granted to those serving three months or less.
The offending profile of those on HDC tends to be less serious than for the prison population as a whole (violent offences accounted for 37% of the prison population's main offence on a one day snapshot in 2008 compared to 19% of the HDC population). Drug-related crimes (23%), crimes of violence (19%), dishonesty offences (18%) miscellaneous offences (16%) and motor vehicle offences (12%) were the most common offence categories of those on HDC.
Recalls
The overall recall rate for HDC was 21%. Older prisoners, those on shorter sentences and those in prison on violent or drugs offences had lower rates of recall than the overall average. There are also establishment differences in recall, ranging from nearly 30% at one prison to a low of just over 10% at another establishment. Some of this variance, but not all, can be explained by different population profiles at the different penal establishments. Up to a point, the longer someone is on an HDC licence, the more likely they are to be recalled; after being on a licence for 130 days, the likelihood of being recalled goes down.
The most common reason for being recalled is for failure to comply with the technical conditions of the curfew rather than new offending. Being out of curfew for more than six hours (38% of all recalls) and breach of licence conditions (24%) accounted for most recall activity. New offending appears only rarely to be the cause of recall (7% recalled for a new warrant served).
The HDC Decision Making Process
HDC applications are processed by Unit Manager level staff in prison assisted by staff coordinators and administrators. Extensive record checks are conducted to establish a profile of an applicant's behaviour and risk profile, after which a community assessment may be requested, which generally is completed by community-based social workers who consider the suitability of the address where the prisoner proposes to stay. A further check of records is conducted prior to a final determination as to release or refusal of an application. Application decisions are reported to take on average five to six weeks, though, not uncommonly, can take longer.
Interagency Coordination
Responsibility for HDC decisions lies entirely with SPS; social workers conducting community assessments have no power to reject an application (or formally even submit a recommendation to release or not) and (unlike the police) are not systematically informed of release decisions. There was some dissatisfaction in two social work areas about the lack of involvement in decision making and in supervision of prisoners in the community; in one area community assessments were delegated to a bail enforcement unit and relationships were reported to be satisfactory. Relationships with police and Serco were reported by most SPS respondents to be positive.
Risk Assessment
The Prisoner Supervision System (PSS) serves as the first screen of the risk assessment process, and prisoners with a PSS level of high or medium will not be released on HDC. PSS is not designed to assess risk in the community, which was widely acknowledged, but this is the starting point for the risk assessment process. Some CJSW respondents expressed concern about this, questioning how well a process focused on assessing a person's behaviour in secure conditions would translate to predicting their risk outside of prison. SPS respondents, however, felt CJSW assessments tended to adopt a cautious approach to assessing risk - possibly as a result of such concerns.
Perspectives of Families and Offenders
An international review of literature shows that offenders and families who have experience of HDC strongly support its availability. Getting out of prison and having a family member back home were the main cited reasons. However, the condition of being on a curfew and required to be inside one's residence for 12 hours a day (as is the default period in Scotland) can create stress for both the released prisoner and their family. Sometimes family members reported feeling coerced to support a prisoner's application, and felt that they too were being punished. Having support during the period of release (e.g. from probation officers) that was available to families as well as prisoners was seen as helpful for dealing with stress and other issues.
Purpose of HDC
Respondents in the research mainly perceived the purpose of HDC as managing prison population pressure. Some expressed the belief or hope that HDC could also support reintegration of prisoners into their communities, often because of a conviction that being in the community rather than prison was a facilitator in itself of reintegration. Patterns of use of HDC by different establishments tends to support the view that HDC mainly functions to relieve crowding, as those prisons with the most crowded facilities also proportionally make the most use of this scheme.
Factors Supporting Success on HDC
Younger people have higher rates of recall and this prompted in one area a pilot in which multi-service support is offered to 16 and 17 year olds on HDC (Annex C). The fact that, generally, the longer someone is on HDC the more likely they are to be recalled suggests that support in the community might be able to attend to and prevent the causes of this happening. The finding of varying recall rates across penal establishments suggests there may be scope for improving the consistency of the administrative process.
The Open Estate
Declining Use of Open Prison
Over the 2006 to 2010 period analysed in this research, the Open Estate population peaked at 507 (there are a maximum of 425 prisoner places) in the third quarter of 2007 and has been declining steadily to 234 prisoners in the first quarter of 2010.
Profile of Population in Open Prison
As the open prison population has declined, the profile of those on the Open Estate has also changed with higher proportions of older prisoners and those serving sentences of four years or more. This may reflect changing patterns in the transfer decisions being made in closed prisons, with less inclination to send younger prisoners and those on short term sentences. Around a quarter of those admitted between mid 2008 and early 2010 were 41 years or older, compared to 18% in this age group between 2006 and 2008. Over 70% of those admitted in 2010 was serving a sentence of four years or more, compared with less than half in this sentence group of those admitted to open prison between 2006 and 2007.
Absconds and Returns to Closed Conditions
Although a couple of high profile absconds from the Open Estate have raised the profile of this issue, a statistical analysis of absconds shows this to be a relatively rare phenomenon. Over the 2006-2010 period, there was on average 4.4 absconds per quarter, though this rate is inflated by a concentration of absconds taking place during 2007 (also a year when the population was at or above its capacity). When prisoners did abscond they tended to do so soon after being transferred to open conditions, and over half of all absconds lasted a week or less. Data provided by the Open Estate showed that 82 of 350 prisoners who were transferred to open prison during 2009/10 eventually were returned to closed conditions, generally for breaching the rules of the prison or there being a concern about their risk of absconding.
Factors of Success and Effectiveness of Open Prison
Prisoner and staff respondents all expressed a strong belief about the value of the Open Estate as part of a system of progression from secure prison to full liberty. The generally low level of absconds is an important factor documenting compliance, and open prison appears to manage the abscond risk effectively partly through returns to closed conditions. Home leave was seen by prisoners as the major attraction and incentive of open prison. Prisoners noted that the availability of programmes and activities felt to be personally useful and applicable was not always maximised, and staff felt the work of open prison was not being fully recognised or adequately resourced. Both prisoners and staff respondents felt addressing individual needs which would support reintegration was sometimes subordinated to needs of the prison (e.g. to get prison jobs done, to fulfil centrally mandated goals for programme participation). The general view among respondents was that one year was probably the maximum length of time that could profitably be spent on the Open Estate.
Costs and Savings of HDC and Open Prison
The estimated weekly cost of keeping a person in prison is £610 (based on the 2009/10 annual prison place cost of £31,703). This compares to a weekly cost of £126 to manage someone on HDC (plus one-off costs of £702 for the purpose of assessing HDC applications preparing prisoners for release). Hence, a minimum period of two weeks on HDC represents a notional savings of £266 while a person on the maximum allowable period of six months represents a savings of £10,914. These cost savings are, however, maximised by the fact that HDC as it currently operates allocates no specific resources for support or supervision of prisoners while on release.
The cost of operating the Open Estate in 2009/10 was £8,210,484. If all 425 places were filled, the average cost per prisoner place in open prison would be £19,319, which is significantly cheaper than the overall average cost of a prisoner place of £31,703 for the prison estate overall. Currently operating under capacity with an average daily population in 2009/10 of 261, the cost per place in open prison rises to £31,458, assuming no changes to the staffing complement.
Areas for Development
Four key areas for development for both HDC and open prison emerged from the research:
- Reintegration: the meaning of this should be clearly established to allow for monitoring of effectiveness. The typically short periods of time on HDC raises distinct reintegration issues and opportunities compared to open prison.
- Managing Prison Populations: Both open prison and HDC have been used to help manage pressure on the prison estate; use of HDC appears still to play a primary role in this function. It would be worth exploring how this use of conditional liberty schemes sits with their respective aims to facilitate management of offenders and community reintegration.
- Interagency Coordination and Control: Opportunities for collaboration and interagency coordination do not appear to be maximised for HDC or open prison, and this may undermine mutual trust and understanding which has material consequences on the patterns of use of both schemes.
- Safety and Risk: Serious incidents are rare for both HDC and open prison, and much attention is currently devoted to risk assessment. Still, there are issues about the role of the Prison Supervision System as part of HDC risk assessment, as well as concerns among some community-based social workers about a prison-based assessment process. Significantly reduced transfers to the Open Estate may partly be a function of screening out inappropriate candidates, but is likely also to be the consequence of a more cautious attitude to risk management following high profile absconds.