Open Estate Costs
6.20 The question of cost effectiveness for open prisons is particularly multi-faceted and in some ways difficult to specify. This is a result of many features of its operation. It is not directly comparable with closed prisons since open prison is only possible for those who have spent some time in closed prison (i.e. it is not strictly speaking an alternative to closed prison); prisoners may go back and forth on a number of occasions between closed and open conditions, and measuring the costs of this is difficult. The population profile of the open prison also traditionally is distinct from that of the overall prison population, and there may be associated cost differences of this. What we attempt in this section is to identify costs which are measurable, specifically the costs overall of transferring prisoners and the annual per capita costs of closed versus open prisons. In addition, we spend more time here than in the section above on HDC, elaborating some of the conceptual issues which affect full consideration of the cost effectiveness of this form of conditional liberty.
6.21 Testing longer term prisoners who are coming up for release in progressively less restrictive conditions than those in which they have served most of their custodial sentence serves a number of purposes. First it aims to diminish, as far as possible, the impact of custody on their sense of self and, second, to actively prepare them for full release, or conditional release, back to the community. Open prisons are a time-honoured way of doing this in Britain, though not the only way. Finally, interview respondents consistently reported that spending time in open conditions was an increasingly important factor in the determinations of the Parole Board for Scotland to grant parole (the research team did not independently speak with Parole Board representatives).
6.22 The Open Estate model is a fixed resource - a set of buildings and staff in a particular location that cannot easily or quickly be expanded or contracted, or moved, to respond to changes in demand. It is embedded in a network of local agencies who supply work placements - all important social capital for open prisons, without which they could not function effectively. Its size and scale place finite limits on the number of prisoners who can be transferred from closed to open conditions. Other things being equal, if it costs no more than closed prison and works effectively to make it easier for long term prisoners to 'return to society' than would be the case if they remained in closed conditions, it is a cost-effective resource.
6.23 The Open Estate is currently operating at just above half its maximum capacity. Capacity of the two sites comprising the Open Estate is 425: occupancy declined from 302 in April 2009 to 230 in March 2010. The SPS provided data showing the average daily population in 2009/10 was 261.
6.24 The cost of operating the Open Estate in 2009/10 was reported by the SPS to be £8,210,484. [34] 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 (as noted above under discussion of HDC). During the current period of under occupancy, the cost per prison place on the Open Estate rises to £31,458, which is similar to the cost per place for the overall prison estate, though it should be noted that the open prison costs includes the same level of staffing as it would have were all prison places filled, as no staff have been re-deployed since the population has declined to its current level. [35]
6.25 According to an SPS review of 2009/10 costs, the total annual cost of staff time involved in assessing prisoners for transfer to the Open Estate is £315,751. [36] Data from PR2 show there were 254 admissions to the Open Estate in the same period, which gives the average cost per prisoner for making a transfer to open prison of £1,243.
6.26 All other things being equal, keeping individuals in the less restrictive environment of an open prison is not cost-effective if they can be safely and constructively managed in even less restrictive conditions. In this regard, HDC has been available to long term prisoners, which disproportionately are to be found on the Open Estate. HDC use for prisoners in open conditions, unlike in the prison system more generally, does not occur because of pressure on places - there is no pressure here - but precisely because it has some reintegrative potential.
6.27 The geographical location of the Open Estate in a rural area imposes its own costs, notably in terms of travel distances incurred by home leave, family contacts or professional contacts (lawyer, social work), though not all of these are borne by the prison. [37] Against this, the political viability of open prisons may require a somewhat isolated location. Equally, other prisoners may feel even more cut off from the areas in which they would rather be living.
6.28 The number of absconds from the Open Estate is low (see Chapter 5), and the corresponding cost of responding to them relatively low, even if it means a return to a closed prison for the individual concerned. In the exceptional event that a serious crime is committed by someone who absconds, as in the case of Robert Foye, 'controversy costs' arise, in terms of both the costs of an enquiry and the costs of an emergent risk aversion which inhibits initiatives with prisoners that might otherwise have been taken.
6.29 A case can be made for maintaining an Open Estate - a medium size prison for managing the transition of longer term prisoners 'back to society' - on cost-effectiveness grounds. Such an establishment has the advantage of economies of scale over cottages and specialist wings located in closed prisons, a range and variety of available work placements, and a concentration of expertise. There is no necessary reason why open prisons must be significantly less expensive than closed prisons - the provision of rehabilitative and reintegrative services, and the need for a high staff-prisoner ratio may well be expensive - but the lowered security measures means that they almost always are.