Reimagining Custody, Community and
Citizenship for 21st Century Scotland
Record of proceedings of an international symposium
Edinburgh 2nd & 3rd June 2016
Compiled by Dr Jim Carnie
SPS Research
2
The views expressed in this document are those of the Symposium participants.
3
CONTENTS
Page 5 Foreword
Page 7 Introduction/Purpose Statement
Page 9 Opening remarks
Page 13 Plenary presentations
Page 19 Group Sessions Day 1 - Social inequalities and experiences of the penal
system
Page 19 Group 1 Inequalities, ‘communities of fate’ and social justice
Page 26 Group 2 Uses and abuses of penal confinement
Page 33 Group 3 Positive identities, custody and release
Page 39 Group 4 The use and misuse of measurement in penal practice
Page 45 Group 5 Life transitions, inclusion and pathways to desistance
Page 56 Group Sessions Day 2 - ‘What’s next?’ & ‘What if?’ - Opening remarks
Page 59 Group 6 What factors influence public opinion on matters of crime,
punishment, prisons and reintegration?
Page 63 Group 7 Is it really possible to secure/influence political buy-in for penal
change in light competing electoral, social and economic priorities?
Page 66 Group 8 How can communities and civil society better support reintegration?
How can we challenge ‘othering’ and the ‘cancellation of citizenship’?
Page 70 Group 9 Can prison ever really have an impact on community factors (post
release) beyond its (apparent) control?
Page 73 Group 10 How do we create ‘spaces for change’ and community solidarity for
a ‘fairer society: fairer justice’?
Page 77 Closing addresses
Page 81 Annexes
4
5
Foreword
I am pleased to introduce this record of proceedings of the International Symposium on
“Rethinking Community, Custody and Citizenship for 21st Century Scotland” which was held
in Edinburgh on 2nd and 3rd June 2016. I am very grateful to all of the participants who
joined us from a number of jurisdictions and gave generously of their knowledge and
expertise throughout the event. I would also like to thank the speakers, presenters, facilitators
and the scribes who recorded the discussions. The event was enriched by the stories of those
with experience of custody who courageously shared their life histories and stories and I am
grateful to them for their important contribution to the event.
The symposium has generated a rich source of material. Accompanying this record of
proceedings is a shorter summary ‘manifesto for penal change’. These documents will
provide important points of reference in stimulating further debate through a ‘national
conversation’ on the future role of prisons in Scotland.
There is a real opportunity to start to make a meaningful difference, not one that focuses on
process, practice or efficiency, but one that seismically challenges first principle form and
function in criminal justice. That is the real task we face. The Symposium and its ‘manifesto
for penal change’ should be an opening gambit to a much longer deliberative process to
stimulate debate and challenge entrenched attitudes on the purpose of punishment and prisons
in Scotland.
Like the First Minister for Scotland and the Cabinet Secretary of Justice, I want Scotland to
be at the very forefront internationally in prison reform.
Colin McConnell
Chief Executive
Scottish Prison Service
6
7
“RETHINKING COMMUNITY, CUSTODY AND CITIZENSHIP FOR 21ST
CENTURY SCOTLAND”
Purpose Statement
The purpose of the Symposium is to debate the nature and purpose of penal policy and
practice in Scotland in order to develop a proposition for a penal system that will be fit for the
21st century and reflective of the Scottish Government’s commitment to a “Safer, Stronger,
Fairer” Scotland.
The Symposium will:
explore the values, beliefs and assumptions within Scottish culture which underlie the
current relationships between concepts of community, citizenship and custody and
explore how these relationships might be better configured (the ‘what if’ questions);
examine social inequalities that are reflected in and reproduced by the penal system
and consider whether and how a future penal system might challenge and disrupt
these inequalities;
uncover, discuss and consider ‘real world’ social and penal problems, dilemmas,
questions and ideas with which we need to engage as a society and resolve in an
innovative and imaginative way if we are to create a 21st century penal system
genuinely predicated on the values of justice and fairness;
in the above discussions, draw on the best analysis of Scottish experience and on
experience and knowledge from other jurisdictions in seeking to redefine penal
policy.
In so doing, the Symposium would address the significant task of rethinking,
reconceptualising and reframing penal sanctions as a basic function of the 21st century
Scottish state. Through such a process it will:
develop a series of propositions which will set out the characteristics of 21st century
penal policy and practice, testing the thinking against explicit values, purposes and
‘what if’ scenarios; and
act as an ‘opening gambit’ of a much longer deliberative process to stimulate a series
of reflective events (a national conversation) to increase participation in the debate,
test emerging propositions rigorously and challenge accepted social attitudes to penal
boundaries further.
8
9
TERESA MEDHURST, SPS DIRECTOR OF STRATEGY AND INNOVATION
Teresa Medhurst, SPS Director of Strategy and Innovation welcomed everyone, especially
those who had travelled from overseas, continental Europe and other parts of the UK, to the
International Symposium on “Reimagining Custody, Community and Citizenship for 21st
Century Scotland”.
Mrs Medhurst said that the Symposium programme was bold, provocative and demanding.
The Scottish Prison Service and Scottish Government were looking for participants’
imaginative and insightful contributions into how we “reimagine” our approach to custody,
community and citizenship.
We were asking participants to think beyond a debate on criminal justice structures,
mechanisms and processes, to consider a more radical approach to penal philosophy in
Scotland which challenges accepted precepts.
There was a real opportunity to make a contribution to a national conversation on the future
of our prisons and our treatment of those who pass through them.
There was genuine potential for change. The Scottish Government was fully committed to
making Scotland “Safer, Stronger and Fairer” and the Symposium would help to shape
thinking on the nature and purpose of penal policy and practice in Scotland.
Scotland needed to revisit its attitude to incarceration, disproportionately impacting as it does
on the most deprived in our society. We needed to question seriously the fundamental
purpose of our prisons and in so doing reflect on the nature and circumstances of people in
custodial care.
These were big issues to address, but we must all work to support the ‘returning citizen’ and
help create the ‘moral space’ for them to consolidate, reinforce and sustain positive lives on
re-integrate into the community.
Mrs Medhurst introduced a pre-recorded video message from the First Minister.
NICOLA STURGEON, FIRST MINISTER VIDEO ADDRESS
“Welcome to today’s International Symposium. I would particularly like to welcome those
of you who have travelled from overseas to Edinburgh and Scotland. I am sure today’s
discussion will provide stimulating insights into prisoner rehabilitation and ways of
preventing reoffending. I hope that some of those insights will help to inform policy
internationally and in Scotland.
Scotland has a proud reputation for social justice and a tradition of promoting public
involvement in creating a fair and equal society. If we are to live up to that reputation we
need to revisit our attitude to incarceration and the way it impacts disproportionately upon the
most deprived people in our society.
10
We need to ask some fundamental questions about the purpose of our prisons and take into
account the difficult background of a significant proportion of those in custody. We know,
for example, that many prisoners have experienced poverty or abuse and that many of them
suffer from mental health problems or addictions to drugs and alcohol. These are huge issues
we need to address as we consider how to support people during the time they are in prison
and also when they leave, so that they can make a full and positive contribution to their
communities.
But we are making progress. Scottish Government is working closely with the Scottish
Prison Service to improve rehabilitation. For instance, we are changing our approach to
female offenders to improve their prospects of rehabilitation. We are encouraging a greater
use of community sentences and we are also developing local units that will allow women in
custody to be located as closely as possible to their communities and, importantly, to their
family and children.
The various measures we are taking to better prepare people before release and support them
afterwards should make a great difference both to those in custody and to their communities,
particularly their families. That is why the Scottish Government is so committed to learning
from the very best of international penal policy, research and practice.
I want Scotland to be at the very forefront internationally in prison reform. So I am
absolutely delighted that you have the opportunity today to take part in this important
conversation and I very much look forward to hearing the results. I hope all of you have a
productive discussion.”
COLIN MCCONNELL, SPS CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Colin McConnell, SPS Chief Executive added his own welcome to delegates and expressed
his pleasure in seeing so many distinguished contributors with different perspectives from
across the disciplines.
The Symposium was building on a very successful event last year on new and radical
approaches to managing Women in Custody. He hoped that some of the bold ideas to emerge
from that event would resurface again.
He said it was a testament to the vision of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, the Scottish
Government, our academic partners across several universities, our local authority and third
sector partners and indeed ourselves at the Scottish Prison Service that we have once more
committed to a radical reappraisal of penal thinking – this time embracing the fundamental
nature and purpose of prisons in 21st Century Scotland. Others were having similar
gatherings on ‘creating spaces for change’ and the promulgation of the penal debate through
such channels was to be welcomed.
The Symposium title was deliberately provocative - “Re-imagining Custody, Community and
Citizenship for 21st Century Scotland. The Purpose Statement represented a real challenge to
everyone.
11
The format was deliberately designed to make delegates focus and reflect - to think abstract,
aspirational thoughts and to address unorthodox and complex challenges.
The fundamental challenge for the Symposium was how we break out of our relatively
comfortable professional world of criminal justice discourse - where, as informed
researchers, policy makers, practitioners and commentators we converse with each other in
readily understood language and recognised concepts - to reach beyond into the ‘real world’ –
the real world of public scepticism, the real world of sensationalist media rhetoric, the real
world of political resistance, the real world of community inequalities and the real world of
hopelessness and despair.
Nearly ten years on from the Scottish Prison Commission’s Report “Scotland’s Choice”, we
have to ask the question - why are we not further advanced in our mission to change both the
penal experience and attitudes to incarceration?
The Symposium offered a real opportunity to start making a meaningful difference, rather
than tinkering around the edges of process, practice and efficiency. A difference that
seismically challenged first principle form and function in criminal justice. That was the real
task we face. As the Purpose Statement outlined the event should be the beginning of a much
wider national conversation, an opening gambit to a much longer deliberative process to
stimulate debate and challenge entrenched attitudes on the purpose of punishment and
prisons.
We needed to move beyond what we do to people to what we can do for people, and how we
can help people take the opportunity to help themselves: in circumstances more than likely to
involve difficult odds.
It was erroneous to think that we as experienced and knowledgeable criminal justice
professionals ‘know best’. We should never lose sight of the personal stories and experiences
that lay behind so called ‘offender management’. We had to constantly remind ourselves that
it was essential to put the individual and his or her personal circumstances at the very heart of
the rehabilitative journey and to get them involved in co-producing the solutions to their
problems.
Of course, there was a risk in overstating the contribution that any Prison Service can make
on its own to reducing re-offending if that contribution is viewed in isolation. It was not
realistic to expect any Prison Service to rectify completely the plethora of social, economic,
educational and psychological problems that are present in the prison population.
Sir Campbell Christie summed it up:
“This country is a paradoxical tapestry of rich resources, inventive humanity, gross
inequalities, and persistent levels of poor health and deprivation. Against that
backdrop, the public services of the future must not only continue to provide a safety
net for the vulnerable, but make a coherent contribution to a stronger, healthier,
economically viable and more equitable society.” Sir Campbell Christie
12
However, the lack of public and political sympathy for the offender and for prisons generally
would not be easily overcome. That the Service would always face obstacles, opposition and
ill-informed comment was indisputable - that was the undoubted reality of our world.
Yet, this Symposium needed to rise to the challenge to argue for rational debate on criminal
justice in Scotland. We had a golden opportunity to really innovate and think imaginatively
about that moral, social, political, economic and physical ‘space for change’.
13
PROF LESLEY MCARA, UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
Crime and Punishment in a Small Nation: Why Welfarism matters
Prof McAra began by outlining the broad and historical political commitment to social justice
in Scotland which was rehabilitative in orientation with the emphasis on promoting
behavioural change and reintegration of offenders back into the community. Examples could
be found in the Kilbrandon philosophy (deeds symptomatic of needs, social educational
model of care, best interests of child) and in the preamble to the Social Work (Scotland) Act
1968: ‘...to make further provision for promoting social welfare in Scotland’.
Prof McAra compared the striking similarity in the messages of two senior Scottish Minsters
separated by some 30 years of history.
“Whilst the use of imprisonment may be inescapable when dealing with violent
offenders and those who commit the most serious crimes, we must question to what
extent short sentences of imprisonment are an appropriate means of dealing with
offenders. Prisons are expensive both to build and run and do not provide the ideal
environment in which to teach an offender how to live a normal and law abiding life,
to work at a job, or maintain a family. Perhaps some of these offenders could be dealt
with by a community based disposal without posing any undue risk to society
providing the courts can be satisfied that the sentence imposed is sufficiently firm and
robust in view of the circumstances of the crime.” (Malcolm Rifkind, Secretary of
State for Scotland, 1988)
“Short term prison sentences simply do not work in terms of rehabilitating offenders
or reducing the risk of their re-offending. They disrupt families and communities and
greatly affect employment opportunities and stable housing. That is why my vision is
one which reflects the values of a modern and progressive nation in which prison, in
particular short term imprisonment, is used less frequently as a disposal and where
there is a stronger emphasis on robust community sentences focused on addressing the
underlying causes of offending.” (Michael Matheson, Cabinet Secretary for Justice,
2015)
With very similar visions Prof McAra posed the following questions
Why did Malcolm Rifkind’s vision fail to deliver over the longer term?
What lessons might we learn from our recent history to ensure policy discourse does
not keep reinventing itself?
Why is welfarism worth pursuing?
How can we ensure that welfare values infuse practice?
In response to the first two questions a number of failures were identified:
Rising imprisonment rates;
An apparent rise in up-tariffing in sentencing practice;
Rise in use of short term custodial sentences.
Two key factors in explaining this failure were offered:
14
The nature and operation of ‘statecraft’ with its stochastic tendencies and its focus on
institutional [re]construction and ‘audit’ as mechanisms of control;
The nature and function of penal institutions with their inertia and failure to tackle
institutional working cultures (e.g. police, social work, judiciary)
Contrasting approaches to criminal justice and post-devolution polity building were outlined.
With the New Labour/ Lib Dem Coalition 1999 -2007, there was a complex narrative with
overriding focus on punitiveness and actuarialism which involved:
Increased managerialism;
Public protection, risk management, effective practice;
Social inclusion and crime prevention;
Individual rights and responsibilisation;
Restorative justice, victims as stakeholders;
Increased focus on persistent offending and anti-social behaviour.
In contrast the Scottish National Party 2007 presented a platform of ‘compassionate justice’,
early and effective intervention, and prevention through:
The Justice Strategy for Scotland (2012) – with its vision ‘of a justice system that
contributes positively to a flourishing Scotland, helping to create an inclusive and
respectful society in which all people and communities live in safety and security’;
Reducing the number of short-term sentences of imprisonment, increasing
‘community payback’ and targeted early intervention;
Raising the minimum age of prosecution to 12 (2010);
The Whole System Approach (from 2011) – maximum diversion, agencies working in
partnership.
Examples of fundamental institutional reconstruction were Police Scotland, National
Children’s Panel and Community Justice.
Prof McAra returned to the themes why is welfarism worth pursuing and how can we ensure
that welfare values infuse practice? Referring to her own work on the longitudinal Edinburgh
Study of Youth Transitions and Crime she led evidence to indicate that contact with the
justice system entrench both poverty and violence. She outlined tabular data and a ‘heat
coded map’ of Edinburgh based on census and criminal conviction data to demonstrate the
links between poverty and detention. A typical case of delinquent behaviour had the
following characteristics:
Born into areas of highest deprivation;
From low socio-economic status household;
First victim then offender;
Multiple and complex needs not known to agencies;
History of sexual abuse;
In and out of foster care, no consistency in social work intervention;
Excluded from school, early leaver, few qualifications, subsequent unemployment;
15
Bullied and socially isolated;
Drug users from a young age;
Self-harming (e.g. ‘cutting’) and suicide attempts;
History of depression;
Persistent petty offences escalate to including assault and weapon carrying;
In and out of prison.
There were a number of lessons to be learned and challenges to be faced in Scotland
including:
Collaborative leadership;
Building communities of practice across government portfolios;
Understanding impact of systemic processing both cross-sectionally and
longitudinally;
Tackle institutional working cultures, including judicial culture;
Revisiting the role of social work.
Prof McAra drew her presentation to a close with concluding remarks by referencing ‘the
challenge’ as articulated by David Garland in 1985 and a potential ‘solution’ as outlined in a
historical piece from The Guardian in 1944:
The challenge:
“Penal discourse is as much concerned with its projected image, public representation
and legitimacy as it is with organising the practice of regulation.” (David Garland,
Punishment and Welfare, 1985)
One solution (inter alia):
“What these delinquent boys and girls really need is to be lapped round with love.
What each of them most needs is a friend. Today we have our theories and our
psychologies, our plans and movements, even our clubs and youth centres, but have
we the men and women who will give themselves unreservedly to the service of the
boys and girls who need them most? It is the worker of a youth centre and not the
furniture that matters.” (Artifex, The Guardian 6th March 1944)
PROF ALISON PHIPPS, UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW
Working towards multilateral integration – some lessons from the refugee and asylum
experience.
Prof Phipps outlined her role as Professor of Languages and Intercultural Studies and
explained how she had been asked to bring this work on languages and intercultural studies to
bear on the domain of criminal justice and penology. By drawing on the interdisciplinary
resources of social and cultural anthropology, theatre and cultural studies, theology, law,
modern languages and education she could see parallels from which lessons could be learned
16
in terms of community reintegration following a period in custody. She was particularly
interested in the different ways in which people can learn to live and communicate together
by stepping outside comfortable or familiar contexts.
She said the Symposium was focusing on three “Cs” – custody, community and citizenship.
In her own field her focus was on the three “Ds” – detention, destitution and deportation.
Prof Phipps described how mass migration into Europe and the Syrian refugee crises invoked
a negative protectionist reaction in many European states.
Drawing on the philosophy of Alain Badiou, (Being and Event), Prof Phips outlined how two
events had altered consciousness on the issue through which people had found new
realisation and reconciliation with truth. Those two events were:
The change of heart by a politician and a country.
Aylan Kurdi image
In the first event the German Chancellor to the initiative to introduce a more conciliatory,
accommodating and welcoming policy response to those dispossessed masses flooding over
borders in flight of war torn zones in adjacent regions.
The second influential event was the worldwide coverage of the death of Aylan Kurdi whose
young three year old body was found washed up on a beach after drowning at sea in an over-
packed refugee boat.
Through video recordings Prof Phipps illustrated the dramatic impact that caused change at a
‘human level’.
Gorgio Agamben is quoted:
“If in the system of the nation-state the refugee represents such a disquieting element,
it is above all because by breaking up the identity between man and citizen, between
nativity and nationality, the refugee throws into crisis the original fiction of
sovereignty.” (Agamben, Symposium, We Refugees p.117)
Outlining positive responses to the refugee ‘crises, some examples are given:
We have Room: An Extraordinary Story of Adoption (A documentary about the
Weimer family’s adoptions from Ethiopia)
Glasgow sees Syria (Hundreds of people gathered in Glasgow at a candlelight vigil to
show solidarity for the plight of Syria’s refugees. Cities across the UK took part in
similar events in support of the refugees.)
Resettlement (VPR) scheme (The UK Government is working to resettle up to 20,000
Syrian refugees in the UK by the end of this Parliament, under its Syrian Vulnerable
Person Resettlement scheme.)
Lesvos and Calais Aid schemes to support refugees in the camps
Medecins Sans Frontieres
On 3 October 2013, a boat carrying migrants from Libya to Italy sank off the Italian island of
Lampedusa. The boat had sailed from Misrata, Libya, but many of the migrants were
17
originally from Eritrea, Somalia and Ghana. Using striking and disturbing images from the
Lampadusa shipwreck disaster when some 360 migrants lost their lives, made the telling
point that it was only after their deaths that these people were recognised as citizens to be
accorded proper and decent funerals.
Prof Phipps argued that in Britain we tend to have a mono lingual education system and
culture leading to what she described as a ‘deficit model of language’. Our expectation of
immigrants’ ability to master English is high. A comparison was drawn between the high
intensity language training for Foreign Office field diplomats and the modest number of
hours available to refugees. There can be a local fear of people that we do not readily
understand – described as a ‘permanent temporariness’. The lack of general engagement was
described by one refugee:
“You are stingy with your language. You do not speak to us in the street”
Prof Phipps quoted:
“Intense pain is also language-destroying: as the content of one’s world disintegrates, so that
which would express and project the self is robbed of its source and its subject. Word, self
and voice are lost, or nearly lost.” (Scarry)
However, Scotland has welcomed refugees in a number of ways’ with underlying stories of
languages, justice and healing.
There was a need to move beyond ‘welcome’ to ‘integration’ through:
Integration Policies;
Creating ‘new Scots’;
Sharing of language;
“Multilateral Integration” – overcome fear of unknown through interaction.
A multilingual democracy could be created through:
ESOL provision (English for Speakers of Other Languages);
Language deficit models;
Learning from International Relations and diplomacy;
Stopping using languages as a proxy for diversity;
Learning from multilingual contests and places of pain and pressure;
Extractivist attitude to language and research.
Prof Phipps ended with two quotes
“Meeting a stranger outside of our own boundaries is rather easy, and even satisfies our
aspirations, as long as we can return home and appropriate between ourselves what we
have in this way discovered. To be forced to limit and change our home, or our way of
being at home, is much more difficult, especially without being unfaithful to ourselves.”
(Irigarary)
18
“The speech of genuine thinking is by nature poetic. The voice of thought must be poetic,
because poetry is the saying of truth, the saying of the unconcealedness of being.”
(Heidegger)
19
GROUP 1
Subject – Inequalities, ‘communities of fate’ and social justice
Objective: Describe what a socially just Scottish society ought to look like and what
impact that could have on punishment and imprisonment?
‘Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought’ (John
Rawls).
Points to consider
What does a social justice approach to addressing offending behaviour actually mean
and where do prisons fit in?
What are the qualities and characteristics of a penal system that contributes to a
socially just society?
“The challenge now is to make better use of imprisonment, and to do this we have to develop
a more robust and effective system of punishment that encompasses both prison and
community-based sanctions. There is no need to re-invent the wheel in the pursuit of change:
we know what uses of prison work to support reduced reoffending and accountability, and we
know how effective the most well-designed and implemented community programmes are.
There is robust and plentiful evidence on these issues. The problem is not knowledge but
action.” Scotland’s Choice, paragraph 2.28
MORNING SESSION
Community and Engagement
The prison service has a communication issue when it comes to the public and, by extension,
the communities it serves. While the role of the media in stirring punitive appetites was
noted, it was also noted that communities do have ‘common sense’ and that there is an
important role for the SPS to play in explaining their interventions, how they achieve an
effective result, and the benefits of that result for communities. The prison service and the
offenders it deals with must be presented as more than just a crime/punishment process;
people have larger stories (typically tied into wider socio-economic issues) that need to be
understood if there is to be a human connection between those released from prison and the
communities they are returning to.
The very terminology of ‘offender’ was noted as being a challenge to overcome. ‘Offender’
conjures a particular social attitude, again fuelled by the media that evokes notions of ‘evil’
and ‘sub-humanity’. Many offenders, especially those who have been sentenced to prison,
have indeed done bad things, but the SPS must be the first to step forward and advocate that
the better response is to seek a positive change with/for offenders, rather than simply
throwing away the key.
20
The challenge was posed: in a situation where someone has not only been injured, but
victimised in a potentially serious fashion, how can we effectively and persuasively ‘sell’ to
the public a welfarist response to the responsible offender?
It was observed that the public largely do not know why offenders are in prison. Stereotypes
abound, terrorists, murderers and rapists being predominant, but this is not universally true,
but the public’s belief that it is true, fuels their appetite for punitivism/protectionism by
feeding the underlying fear that motivates said appetite. They need to be informed of the
range of sentences (and lengths of sentences) available to judges and the reasoning behind
specific decisions for one sentence or another. Society is currently only being given the
‘headlines of the extreme’ and it falls to the SPS and the judiciary to tell new stories that
counteract that narrative.
There was a distinction drawn between what people rationally think of the criminal justice
system and their knee-jerk, emotive response to media stories related to crime. Thus,
encouraging public support is a question of encouraging the right attitude and outlook
concerning prison.
In order not to completely abandon notions of punishment (particularly in a denunciatory
function), the idea of paralleling prison with the sporting concept of the ‘sin bin’ was
suggested: someone is taken away from society for a defined period of time for an infraction,
but is then brought back into the game with no further penalty, granting him/her a clean slate
and fresh start. This would allow prison to balance the desire for a symbolic dimension that
satisfies public desires for punishment/retributivism-lite, but without sacrificing the long-term
desistance objective or entrenching anti-offender sentiments.
The media and the public are two radically different groups and social forces. The SPS and
other penal institutions need to be addressing the latter more. Given public misconceptions
about prison, what if the public could further participate in criminal justice? This would
allow members of the public a first-hand, front-line understanding of prison’s functions and
capacities, what it can and cannot do, and as a result would ideally reduce their punitive
appetite. The idea was thus posed to reconceptualise criminal justice as a social procedure,
with members of the public functioning as more than just outside observers and potentially
even incorporating a similar system to juries for prison services, with some form of public
involvement as a paid ‘civil’ service.
Following this previous point, the idea was also posited of community-sourced judges,
encouraging courts to focus more on local, welfarist problems and responding with problem-
solving, solution-driven principles rather than a blanket retributive attitude.
Inter-Organisational Coordination
It was emphasised that there needs to be greater alignment amongst the various penal
institutions of Scotland. For instance, the prison service and police were seen as having a
conflict of interest: while the former’s mission is to reintegrate offenders, the police do not
factor in any rehabilitative concerns when investigating, arresting and charging offenders.
There are no explicit unification of themes or values across the criminal justice services.
21
On a policy level, it was argued, there needs to be less rigidity between organisations – it was
noted that many organisations are talking about the same thing (prison seeks ‘desistance’,
probationary groups seek ‘change’, rehabilitation programmes seek ‘recovery’, etc.), but each
organisation is trapped within its own box, not fully aware of what its partners are doing, and
lacking a shared lexicon to achieve a shared understanding of their objectives and activities.
By and large, the judiciary understand the challenges offenders face and the underlying
problems that feed their criminal behaviour. The question then becomes, what are the issues
when it comes to their sentencing response? What do they think the role of prison is, and
how is that informing their response to offenders (namely: why is it being chosen over the
rest of the sentencing options range)?
The prison service still needs to put the brakes on revolving door, short-term imprisonment.
There must be a greater focus on long-term, serious offenders within prison, and greater
coordination with other organisations to focus in on what they can do, either outwith or after
prison, to assist with those incarcerated for an impractically short term.
Prison Values
Kilbrandon was observed as being the constant starting point for the Scottish penal approach
– its welfarist principles in working with offenders and recognition of wider social forces as a
criminogenic cause informing our response to crime/offenders.
While there is open-mindedness to new ideas and values across the criminal justice
landscape, broadly speaking change is slow in the coming. This was attributed to frontline
staff (not only in prison, but the police and even judiciary) not readily accepting new values
determined by policy-makers in organisations. Without change on the frontline, any espoused
progress is just words on paper.
This intransigence was attributed to the heavy emphasis placed by institutions on
performance indicators. Key Performance Indicators are an easy public indicator to
demonstrate ‘value for money’, but limit the effectiveness of frontline staff by creating their
own set of priority values which must be met before more abstract ones.
Prison can be conceptualised as a utopic institution: one driven by faith in individual
redemption/transcendence (it was noted that these are quasi-religious concepts), and based
upon a hopeful attempt to re-engineer the failings of wider society.
The political concept of ‘universality’ was advocated: an emphasis on co-existence and a
sharing of the world between various ideas and voices different from our norm. Tied heavily
into transnationalism and multiculturalism, this meta-value poses the vital question of how
Scotland will embrace the concept of ensuring peoples of different personal values –
religions, politics, ethos, creeds – are capable of living together positively and productively.
An argument was made for ‘simplifying’ the prison approach, or at least the terminology
utilised. An emphasis on the ‘human factor’ was needed – not just the needs of the offender,
but the perspective of the victim, the building of communities, etc.
22
One of the major contestations of this group was the role for prison as a sentencing option.
Two major schools of thought were present. The former viewed prison as the classic ‘last
option’ – the final penal measure reserved for the most risky, the most heinous or the most
recidivistic of offenders when all other viable means of intervention have proven
unsuccessful. That does not mean prison should not continue its rehabilitative endeavour, but
it is distinct from the alternative perspective, prison as a ‘positive intervention’, which, at
least in the perception of the group members, instead positioned prison as just another
method of achieving offender change, simply one characterised by greater control methods
(namely: custody and the captive audience that produces).
This latter perspective was tied into the understanding of custody as an ‘appropriate disposal’,
and members of the group expressed concern about the nebulousness of this term. What
constitutes ‘appropriate’? The public’s gut reaction, for instance, would view anything other
than prison as a ‘slap on the wrist’, and thus inappropriate, so we not only need to set a
delineation and criteria for what we consider ‘appropriate’ cases for prison, but we need to
make those publically known. It was also stressed that, in many cases, prison is a step back
in terms of desistance, at least unless steps are taken by SPS to mitigate prison’s harmful
impacts, and the idea of ‘appropriateness’ risked placing rose-tinted glasses over the need to
recognise the harm prison causes.
‘Appropriate’ uses of custody were defined by the group as being for the protection of the
public from a particularly dangerous/risky offender. Punishment in a denunciatory function
was also emphasised – focussing on the symbolic dimension of denouncing the act, rather
than the actor, and treading carefully around more punitive, retributive emotions. However,
it was also emphasised that in this latter regard, we must consider whether there are more
effective – i.e. desistance-facilitative ways – to convey a suitable level of denouncement
without imprisonment.
It was questioned that, if crime is at a 41 year low, why is the prison population so large, and
why are we struggling to reduce it? What is influencing the continued imprisonment of
offenders?
One of the key final emphases in terms of prison values was the principle of minimum
intervention in offenders’ lives. Not only should penal custody be minimised, but the
negative impact custody has (as mentioned above) should be mitigated as a priority. Dealing
with offenders in prison is not a question of psychological or cognitive issues. It is a matter
of inspiring, teaching and helping them.
Societal Focus
The argument was made that attempting to create/achieve meaningful change with and for
offenders using the prison system was putting the cart before the horse; wider social issues
and criminogenic pressures needed to be addressed first. If we want to follow through on our
commitment to using prison less, that requires wider solutions to much broader social issues.
As a result, looking beyond a purely prison-oriented perspective, one of the best solutions to
crime is a preventative approach, namely by focussing resources early and emphasising
young people being given the best skills and opportunities available through education,
employment, housing, social support, etc.
23
It was also recognised that prison has an exacerbating effect on many of these social issues:
breaking whatever positive connections an offender has with his/her family and employment.
At the bare minimum, prison must seek to mitigate these negative effects it has on offenders.
However, it was also emphasised that, in achieving this, we cannot allow prison to become
perceived as a ‘desirable’ sentencing option just because the harm it causes has been
mitigated.
Many inequalities were recognised as being beyond the scope of prison to influence, change
or control. Prisoners come from a particular social setting and at the end of their sentence
return there, to the same conditions, challenges and influences. While prison can help equip
prisoners to face these issues, it cannot on its own change them.
In the face of these wider socio-economic issues, it was recognised that the sort of legitimate,
but minimum, wage employment ex-prisoners are likely to secure upon release are less
desirable and profitable than many criminal careers. Crime pays, desistance doesn’t. Thus,
setting aside the need to address socio-economic issues, there must also be an emphasis on a
normative change in offenders to value a legitimate lifestyle over a criminal one.
If an individual has no home address, or it is believed they will not succeed, then they are not
given a community sentence and will likely be sent to prison instead. Prison is not, in this
case, the preferable option, it is, courtesy of the offender’s deprived circumstances, the only
option.
Tied into this, it was the experience of several group members that some offenders find
prison a preferable alternative to what passes for a community outside the institution’s walls.
Again emphasising the need for a partnership approach, they stressed the need to identify
what resources local communities require to meet ex-prisoner needs so that re-imprisonment
does not become a sanctuary by contrast.
AFTERNOON SESSION
Community and Engagement
The argument was posited that ‘community’ is an imagined concept. Instead, we may wish
to consider focussing on poverty as a major cause of crime, and rather than develop
communities, focus on ‘environments for living’, utilising urban design, housing,
employment and education to engineer space to address the social problems that contribute to
offending. It was identified that most offenders in prison come from identifiable areas within
the country linked to major deprivation.
Participation of the public in the criminal justice system was also explored as a key value for
SPS. While a restorative justice-style approach of stakeholder mediation, interaction and
reparation was discussed, it was recognised that within the context of a prison system, where
high risk offenders and severe offences are dealt with, this approach does risk further
victimisation.
That said, the group did emphasise the importance of challenging the typical victim/offender
dichotomy, emphasising not only the socio-economic victimisation inherent to many
24
offenders, but striving to encourage peace-making not only between offenders and their
victims, but the wider public as well. It was also envisaged that this peace-making could
address the problem pertaining to the lack of extant, positive communities, but forging
positive relationships to fulfil a similar function of desistance support and assistance.
Prison Values
The following were identified as key values the group felt the Scottish penal system should
embody:
Participation – A greater emphasis on restorative justice for both offender and victim
and a focus on achieving reparation for and with the community. In terms of the
prison system, this would mean ‘moving across the prison walls’, ensuring offenders
were not isolated from wider society for extended periods (both their own families,
employers and the community), but allowing and ensuring community connections to
be formed with and within the prison institutions.
o This was later expanded to suggest the involvement of lay participants (i.e.
members of the community/public) in criminal justice. This was envisaged as
achieving greater understanding of and reflection upon the justice system,
encouraging a more rehabilitative-focused public appetite for the justice
system. The group conceptualised something akin to a prison monitoring
group made of self-selecting volunteers, providing both the prisons with an
independent value monitor, as well as allowing members of the public a
valuable insight into prisons and empowering them with a responsibility to
hold prisons to a constructive, positive standard.
Support and Inclusivity – An emphasis should be made on identifying with offenders
the key tasks required to achieve rehabilitation/ desistance, and social/prison workers
should endeavour to collaborate with offenders to help them find their own means of
achieving those tasks, rather than imposing standardised methods of problem-solving,
cognitive thinking or generic solutions upon them. The offender’s needs should be
the core driver of rehabilitative/desistance intervention.
Community – Prison should operate with one eye towards the long-term scenario of
the offender’s life post-release, ensuring that there not only exists a well-resourced,
non-criminogenic community for the offender to return to, but that the community is
prepared (both in terms of resources and attitudes) to receive the offender back into
their midst.
Humane – At its most fundamental, prison should be motivated to provide good
conditions, endeavour to treat an individual’s imprisonment as a chance not only to
encourage desistance, but to prevent further victimisation (both members of the public
and the offender him/herself) and provide support and mentoring to prisoners to
ensure they are released back into society with the utmost preparation and assistance
feasible.
The question was also posited regarding what role punishment has in prison. Is prison a
setting where offenders are punished, or is the act of imprisonment the punishment in and of
25
itself? Should we even constitute this act as a punishment, or is that an archaic mode of
thinking, given the social inequalities that influence offending?
At the most fundamental level prisoners should be treated according to their rights. Even
taking into account the challenges presented by a co-existence stance, treating a prisoner
according to his/her rights ensures a universal foundation of treatment that is applicable
across all cultures, faiths and nationalities. In keeping with this, prisoners should be educated
on their rights in order to enable and empower their own sense of agency and involvement in
wider society.
It was also recognised that, if we are discussing social justice and a rights-driven agenda, we
have to recognise that this approach is for everyone: meaning not just offenders, but also
victims, families of victims and local communities. In terms of these wider parties, and
indeed for the offender to a large extent, we must remain cognisant of the fact that rights are a
fundamental question of justice, ensuring the state is held accountable for delivering a fair
and positive outcome for all stakeholders.
The idea was also posited of providing prisons with a greater degree of power in determining
the suitability of individuals proposed for incarceration, allowing governors and the SPS as
an overarching organisation to liaise with the judiciary to determine the merit of proposed
prison sentences – in a similar fashion to the social work reports prepared for community
sentences.
As a final realisation, the group came to the conclusion that there was little need to reinvent
the wheel when it came to prison, or indeed wider criminal justice, values. Kilbrandon
remains a contemporarily relevant ethos of social support and welfarist intervention.
Societal Focus
It was emphasised that SPS cannot function to reduce crime/reoffending on its own and it
required as support wider-ranging measures to tackle inequality and address the social
injustices that contribute towards offending. Crime is a failure of society and thus broad
aspects of society must be harnessed to deal with it.
Setting aside social inequalities for a time, the group also discussed the issue of co-existence:
the inclusion of wider and wider nationalities, cultures, beliefs and practice into the justice
system and the challenges that presented (e.g. how to respond to ‘honour killings’). In order
to construct a rationale, productive response to these challenges, we require first an open
conversation and then a coherent conceptualisation on how best to intervene.
On this preceding issue, the group also discussed the possibility of approaching these
challenges on a micro-political basis, examining each on a case-by-case, individual-by-
individual basis, to fully appreciate and respond to the complexities and nuances presented.
26
GROUP 2
Subject – The uses and abuses of penal confinement (the constitution of closed spaces).
Objective: Can penal confinement ever be made less exclusionary?
‘The evidence that we have reviewed leads us to the conclusion that to use imprisonment
wisely is to target it where it can be most effective – in punishing serious crime and
protecting the public.’ (Scotland’s Choice 2008).
Points to consider
What would constitute appropriate (and inappropriate) uses of penal confinement in a
socially just Scottish society?
What alternative forms of regulation could be imagined and developed that might help
eliminate inappropriate uses of confinement?
“Penal practice, penal rhetoric and penal theory too often portray punishment as an
essentially exclusionary imposition: to punish someone is to exclude him/her (or to mark
his/her exclusion) from membership of the civic community. Imprisonment makes this most
dramatically obvious: the prison walls exclude the prisoner from ordinary society. Such a
conception of punishment encourages a matching conception of those who are punished as
other: ‘we’, the law-abiding, punish ‘them’, the dangerous outsiders or enemy, against whom
‘we’ need to be protected. Anthony Duff
MORNING SESSION
Discussion
Prison was described as a station for people who have a ‘very mobile life’. Anna Schliehe
described work she had done with young women in custody in prison and in secure care. The
group discussed institutionalisation and fragmentation – how loss of liberty and the custodial
environment can lead to a broken sense of identity and community.
The workshop group discussed the idea that not only were ‘fixed institutions’ and
institutional structures ‘stations’ in mobile lives, but that the fixed or inflexible nature of
these institutions causes loss of connection with society outside the institution – making
‘putting down roots’ more difficult. Loss of autonomy and control were discussed – potential
changes to someone’s sense of self that can occur as a result of the deprivation of liberty.
One participant framed the discussion as “penal spaces are thought of as safe anchorage – are
they an anchor or an impediment?”
27
It was broadly agreed that in order to make change, a range of different perspectives needed
to be reconciled – the political landscape, public opinion, and the views of victims of crime
and victim representative groups.
Anna Schliehe described a quote from one of the young women she worked with – she said
that when the cell door is closed “your head is doing overtime” The group discussed the
proportionality of punishment and the rippling consequences of a sentence/ tariff on society
and the individual. It was acknowledged that there can be broad consequences to
imprisonment that can extend beyond the length of a sentence and beyond the person
imprisoned. These extended consequences were described as ‘collateral consequences’.
They were described as extending far beyond the end of a sentence. The group felt that these
collateral consequences could result is people ‘paying more’ and punishment being greater
than obvious on first glance – leading to very different experiences of ‘doing time’.
Sentencing
The ‘disproportionate effect’ of a short sentence was discussed. It was felt that the benefit to
society of a short custodial sentence was very limited, but the effect on the person in custody
could be great - and extend well beyond the length of their sentence. The group agreed that it
would be ‘sensible to increase the minimum custodial sentence quite substantially’ – a
minimum of 2 years was suggested.
The group discussed the lack of an option for judicial oversight over the duration and
implementation of a sentence in Scotland (as opposed to other countries e.g. France). Several
members of the group felt that if Sheriffs had to oversee a sentence (with regular review) they
would have more understanding of the impact of custody on people’s lives and life chances:
“When someone is sentenced they deal with the consequences. Judges and Sheriffs
should be involved in review so that they see the consequences of the sentence that
they have handed down. The newly created sentencing council should help with this.
The parole board is quasi-judicial, but it has not much oversight of what happens on
release.”
The group discussed how to improve knowledge amongst Sheriffs of the “weight” and
consequences associated with sentencing. “How do you create a disincentive to sentence to
custody?” It was acknowledged that introducing judicial oversight of all sentences without
other changes would increase the workload on the judiciary at a time when they are already
under pressure. The group thought this may be unrealistic.
The group also discussed how someone may go through several court appearances before
they get to incarceration. There was felt to be a “gradual ratcheting up” – a linear progression
to sentencing from community sentencing to incarceration. The group felt there should be
opportunities to revisit community sentences – perhaps later in life or if there have been life
changes which make them more likely to be effective. One comment was that community
sentences are often offered in young adulthood – “when we’re all at our wildest” and that
they weren’t revisited.
In the Netherlands there are ‘free form sentences’. Sentences may proscribe what must occur
between particular dates of a sentence while other periods of time are more flexible – what is
done in that time can be decided as appropriate.
28
The group discussed the fact that there is no facility for suspended or conditional sentences in
Scotland – it was thought that these would be useful.
People should not be processed through criminal justice for what are mostly welfare needs.
They wondered if a judge can take socioeconomic background into account, but disagreed on
whether they should, or if that would be acceptable to the public. “By the time someone
reaches sentencing they have already been punished”. The group felt that there should be
further examination of who gets a custodial sentence.
Transitions
The group discussed how the transition to the community after incarceration can be very
difficult. When people are released there is often a substantial delay to their receipt of
benefits. It was thought that it could be near impossible to fulfil community payback in the
maelstrom of release.
The groups considered “why there always seem to be such problems in transitions from
institutional care”. A range of examples were discussed including the move from residential
care and hospital back home, looked after children leaving care and release from prison.
Ambiguous citizenship
As part of the preceding discussion on the difficulty of transitions between organisations and
on release from institutional care the group discussed organisational responsibility. It was
thought that a large part of the difficulty seen in transitions comes from ambiguity in
organisational responsibility - where it is not clear where responsibility for providing services
lies people can fall through the cracks.
This led to a discussion about local citizenship. It was felt that while in prison you are
physically in a local authority area but you are not seen as a current citizen of any local
authority area. Prison was described as a bubble where you are removed from local authority
citizenship – in a bubble outside ‘society’/a citizenship no-man’s land. This was contrasted
with secure care. While in secure care you are the responsibility of a local authority – in
prison you are the responsibility of no local authority – you are cut adrift.
Connecting to the community was very difficult from within institutional care. The group
returned to the discussion of ‘mobile lives’ and how mobile lives could contribute to loss of
local citizenship (where are your roots, are they deep enough that a local authority will
‘accept you back’ on release) while loss of local citizenship in prison and ambiguity on
release contributes to a push forcing people towards a more mobile and unrooted life.
The group discussed how distant the world outside could become to people in prison. An
example was given of a woman in custody who had to visit an orthodontist outside prison.
She would press her face against the window in the van on the way there and back in order to
absorb everything she could see outside prison.
Youth sentencing
29
The group agreed that a whole system approach was required to divert people away from
prison. In order for that to work a wide range of community agencies needed to work
together. There was a comment that this had been seen to be successful in youth sentencing –
that holistic partnership working had led to diversion and lower numbers of people in
custody.
The group debated whether changes in youth offending and numbers in custody could be
attributed to more holistic working in children’s hearings or to changes in youth culture. (Not
socialising outside so much, greater use of games and social media). The peak age of
conviction has shifted up – are the changes seen a generational thing tied to changing youth
culture? Although there are fewer young people in custody it was felt that there are increased
numbers in secure care.
The group raised the issue of the age of criminal responsibility. The current age of criminal
responsibility (8) and potential age for prosecution (12) were broadly seen as inappropriate.
The group wanted to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 18 (16 in exceptional
circumstances) - welfareism ought to be the default position. They felt that people suffered
from consequences related to Protected Vulnerable Groups even if they didn’t get a custodial
sentence. This was discussed at length and the group felt that they’d like to recommend in
their presentation that the age of criminal responsibility should be raised to 18 (except in
exceptional circumstances where 16 should considered).
What are prisons for?
The group discussed the question of the purpose of prisons. They asked: Are they for people
who are a danger to society? If so, what is the danger that we need to be protected from?
It was acknowledged that institutional confinement is “intrinsically controlling,
disempowering and harmful”. The physical nature of a prison - prison wall, block, and cell
were described as “degrees of isolation” – each a barrier between a person and the
community. The group felt that in addition to the physical isolation imposed by custody the
way the prison regime is structured leads to loss of internal autonomy. It was felt that the
power and control exercised over people in custody can be excessive, has a detrimental effect
and that compliance without understanding the rules can lead to frustration.
The structure of the custodial journey throughout the UK was contrasted with international
examples. Tasmania was given as an example where it was said that 80% of the prison
population was in an open estate. The subject of conjugal visits and weekend jails were
raised as opportunities to help people keep contacts, and even jobs, the community.
This brought the group to the plans for women in custody in Scotland. The group felt that
Scotland needs to ‘bring society into prison and people in prison into society – local links are
relevant for everyone not just women’.
The group then wondered whose responsibility this shift should be. There was no agreement.
The group felt that support for people during their sentence and after should be about ‘people
first – not generalised’. It was also felt that people in elected positions “have an elected
responsibility – not just to the victim, but for the path that led to the person offending”.
30
There needed to be a “circle of support” when people are released back to the community and
that should include a range of community and voluntary services as well as statutory services.
The combination of voluntary and paid professionals was important as it was thought there
was a different power dynamics working with volunteers versus “people paid to fix you”.
As it closed, the group wondered “What if we did less? Does service intervention actually
help? What if people were referred to criminal justice services or not and that was it - not
more and more specific service intervention?”
AFTERNOON SESSION
Welfare
The afternoon group thought that people are often sent to prison because there are no other
opportunities for support. It was felt they could all agree that there are abuses and misuses –
but what are the alternatives to prison?
Mental Health – the group questioned why is it considered normal to keep mentally ill people
in prison. “There are too many people in prison who should be in health or social care
institutions, but there isn’t capacity so prison is seen as a ‘safe place’”. Prison can meet
immediate basic needs, but not the longer term needs of people who are unwell.
The group contended there are a lot of people unnecessarily “locked up in remand” – that
remand custody is often unnecessary and that it can have huge consequences for the person
on remand. It was thought that young women are often locked up for ‘welfare reasons’. The
group argued that prisons are often used for containment – that a lot of people end up in
prison due to a lack of alternatives in the community with a focus on security rather than
rehabilitation.
In addition to sentencing for care reasons, the group discussed people choosing to go into
prison as a form of self-care due to lack of options in community. Examples were given of
people who chose to commit crime and ‘get picked up’ so that they could have a bed in the
winter and feel safe. A member of the group asked “Why are we using prison to deliver
welfare?”
“People should get services they need in prison. If someone’s sentence is linked to welfare
and they won’t get the services they need in prison that person should be going to those
services in the community and should not be in prison.”
Availability of alternative options and appropriate levels of security
It was felt that there was widespread inappropriate use of confinement – e.g. remand versus
supervised bail. It was thought this was linked to a shortage of suitable accommodation
available for people on supervised bail. An example was given of a bail hostel in Dundee
which has now been closed due to local community cost pressures. The group discussed how
the cost of supervised bail is much cheaper than custody, but that ‘prison is always there’ and
that breakdowns can occur when budgets sit with different organisations with different
financial pressures.
31
Several people in the group remarked that many people are “locked up in prison with security
levels that are too high. You can lower the security.” An example was given of open prisons
in Denmark. After an orientation period of several weeks, the usual course of progression for
people in custody is to go straight to open estate. There they can prove that they can live in
open conditions – if that is not thought appropriate they can move to a higher security
institution. This was described as ‘trust based’ – that you trust the person in custody until
they give you reason not to. It was contrasted with the Scottish model where someone comes
into prison and earns liberties.
The group discussed collateral damage – disruption to jobs, housing, family and social links.
An alternative of weekend jails was suggested – or prisons where you just stay the night. A
member of the group felt that when people come into prison they have to leave ‘their’
community and ‘join a prison community’.
The group broadly agreed that prison should be a last resort. Everyone was in agreement that
prison should keep its supportive ethos, but there should be alternatives. One problem with
alternatives to prison is that ‘prison is always there’ while alternatives frequently change
depending on short term funding and third sector funding cycles. It was described as difficult
for Sheriffs to have faith in alternatives if it might not be there in a year or have its funding
renewed.
The group also discussed a lack of parity in how outcomes from alternatives to custody are
evaluated versus how outcomes from prison are evaluated. “Alternatives have to realistic and
implemented. Are we more critical of alternatives than prison? No parity in the standards we
expect.” It was felt that community organisations and alternatives to prison were held to a
much higher standard than statutory services. There has to be discussion of how we ensure
there are alternatives with ‘stability and legitimacy’.
However – the group also felt that when you expand the range of alternatives to prison you
also expand the number of people in the criminal justice system who may benefit from them.
This is why increasing diversionary options did not lead to a decrease in people in prison, but
an increase in people sentenced.
Short sentences
Short sentences were symbolic but not effective. Short sentences were described as doing
‘disproportionate harm’. Due to ‘churn’ sometimes people who are in prison frequently on
short sentences are better known by officers in a prison than those on long sentences. This is
because they will have seen those people often over a long period of time.
There should be a better understanding of what constitutes improvement – for example,
people who had in the past only managed to stay out of prison for a couple of weeks between
sentences staying out of prison for several months when supported. The group felt that this
needed to be acknowledged as an achievement – not just as a failure because they’ve
reoffended.
Each sentence should be looked at on its own rather than as part of a series of escalating
sentences. There was a discussion of the loss of citizenship or connection to statutory
32
services in the community for people awarded short sentences. It was thought that a person
in prison ‘was a citizen, is a citizen and will be a citizen’.
Do no harm
The group discussed whether the aim of criminal justice services would most appropriately
be ‘Do no harm’. The question was raised as to how good statutory services were at
improving people’s prospects. The care system, particularly secure care was mentioned.
There were several comments on how young people could be held in secure care because of a
history of offending or for welfare reasons – but that there was not a distinction in facilities.
That this led to a collation of welfare and deprivation of liberty.
“Do no harm” - should that be our guiding theory? Why are people there in the first place?”
“Leave no trace – can contact of any kind be damaging?”
Purpose of prison
This session also discussed what the purpose of prison is – punishment versus rehabilitation?
“Can you rehabilitate when in a punishing environment? Not just punishment for people
there – punishing for staff.”
“Are we convincing ourselves we’re reforming when we’re just doing more of the same or
just small changes? It sounds good, but maybe we’re just using more positive language – not
much real change.”
Additional Comments
“We need increased public involvement in criminal justice. Public involvement often
humanises the person involved.”
“We need more employers to sign up to employ people who have been in prison.”
“Would be good to see victims charities in prisons – most people in prison are victims of
crime too.”
“There should be recognition of the fact that someone has broken the law or done harm.”
“The community needs to see you as a new person on release”
“There needs to be appropriate use of time in prison – to make connections with the outside
before you go out”
33
GROUP 3
Subject – Positive identities, custody and release.
Objective: How can people in prison (and after prison) sustain or develop positive
identities?
Points to consider
How, and to what extent, does Scotland currently support individuals to maintain or
develop positive identities in custody (and on release)?
What more do we need to do to in supporting individuals in their daily lives (in prison
and after release) so to achieve a more socially just model of custody and
reintegration?
“Advancing co-production in justice sanctions, and the outcomes associated with it, requires
that we revisit the basics of meaningful participation across prison and community settings,
including attention to: what it is, why it matters, how it works and who it involves. At the
same time, we need to take this conversation beyond justice sanctions and into places and
spaces, both professional and public, in which justice can be done.” Trish McCulloch 2016
MORNING AND AFTERNOON SESSIONS
An individual cannot just be an “ex-offender”, a positive identity is needed. The view others
take of an individual is important – if no one thinks you can change, how can you?
What is happening in custody?
Positive relationships with staff are developed. People feel respected and that they
can speak to staff.
People feel safe.
Work is available – but enough?
Education available – but enough? There is a particular problem that people can
get qualifications, but then there is no progression or way to use their developed
skills.
Risk of turning inward – focus on life in prison instead of outside. This makes it
harder to develop a positive identity on the outside.
What more needs to be done?
Progressive, tailored activities that encourage focus.
Individual level work rather than just group.
Many say “time to think” is what causes change, not anything prison actually
does.
Should have active part in sentencing plan.
More normalised contact (phones, skype, etc.) – to stay part of the family.
34
On release people have higher expectations than they do in prison. This is problematic as
they are under ‘surveillance’ on release, their status is more visible, they lose contact with
those who they developed relationships with in prison, they struggle to find employment
(often after having a job in prison) and housing provision is patchy. These issues make it
more difficult for the expectations of those released from custody to be realised.
Throughcare Officers and the third sector can help address these issues, but this is not enough
and only small number are people helped by these services.
In Austria a “respectability package” is offered to those released from custody. This ensures
housing, finances and an activity (ideally employment, but this could be voluntary work, etc)
are in place to help start life outside. A life outside of prison is needed in order for a positive
identity to be developed and/or sustained.
Relational desistance is necessary; no one can sustain a positive identity on their own.
Family, community, employers, criminal justice actors and services and the police have a role
to play in building this identity.
Challenges identified:
Personal development while in prison.
Support through the gate.
Employment outside.
Getting the courts and police involved.
DISCUSSION
Discussion followed delivery of the presentation outlined above. Below represents a
synthesised summary of the discussion across both groups. The same issues came to the fore
in both sessions so points made on the same topic are considered together here even if they
were made in different sessions.
Identity Development
It was discussed that identity stems from an individual’s formative years and that there are
deep psychological links in relation to who we think we are. It was therefore viewed as very
difficult to change this and in order to make any changes the individual needs to want to see
themselves differently. However, it was considered inappropriate to separate inside and
outside prison when discussing identity. Identity should be maintained throughout. It was
felt that when an individual is sent to prison their identity is still their identity and this should
be reinforced along the whole path. An individual can make changes to their identity, but it
was considered important that they also maintain any positive aspects of their pre-prison
identity while in custody.
This idea of reinforcing positive identity was thought to be important. It was felt that all
individuality is taken on entry to prison (losing their own clothes and possessions, given an
identifying number, becoming unable to pursue their hobbies/interests, etc.). Prison in a
sense was viewed as dehumanising and in this environment it was viewed as vital for an
individual to hold onto their sense of self. However, outside prison on release was also
35
viewed as a difficult environment in terms of an individual’s sense of self, as labels have a
greater impact on release from prison. Outside prison people are viewed as “offenders”.
Inside prison this label applies to all so people are judged as people. Identity in prison is
developed person to person, but on release that person becomes “an offender”.
Relationships
The need for a champion when trying to create a new identity was discussed. Positive
relationships were viewed as hugely important. Many in custody need their self-esteem built
in order to create a new identity and the way to do this was through positive relationships.
Without these, people can become disengaged. The challenge of getting staff involved in
developing positive relationships was discussed. Throughcare officers were viewed
positively. This should be available everywhere and for everyone. A personal officer
sticking with an individual throughout their sentence was also considered good, but the best
relationships were felt to develop organically. In order to allow for this it was felt that
investment in staff was needed. Staff need to have the tools to do their job well and when
they are given training it renews (or creates) enthusiasm.
It was considered to be the wrong approach to chase a model of the perfect prison. Instead
we should be focussing on what we have and developing that. State of the art facilities were
viewed as much less important than the people involved in the service. It was felt that is
where investment should be made. It was essential to give staff a sense of value and give
them a role and responsibility where they feel they are doing something important. Huge
numbers of prison officers join because they want to help and these people should be utilised.
However, it was acknowledged there are other prison officers who are not as engaged with
the more modern vision of a successful prison. These different mentalities were not
necessarily related to age or length of time spent with the service. It was considered that staff
who volunteer for roles do better. Front line staff especially have role to play and they need
to be aware of that. Their roles are often not viewed as of high importance and that was
inappropriate. The need to make staff at this level feel empowered was acknowledged as
every contact matters. Staff needed a sense of fulfilment from their roles.
Finding Success
An individual’s view of themselves can change when they succeed at something for the first
time. This can be in a variety of ways, e.g. in education or work. There was a concern that it
is hard to make an individual feel successful when they have less talent/ability (although the
view was taken that most in custody have a talent or ability of some sort that has not been
discovered yet). It was important to avoid constructing a concept of success that is the same
for everyone. Different people can succeed in different ways.
When some people enter custody they are not ready for work or training so they need support
to get to that stage - the priority needs to be dealing with initial issues. People in this
situation still need to feel that they can succeed. Sharing success stories was considered a
positive approach to making people feel they could be successful in a variety of ways. No
one should feel worthless. However, it was also important to be realistic with people about
what they can expect. When expectations are set and not realised this is can affect an
individual’s identity – it sends them a message they cannot really do what they thought they
could. Giving people in custody a sense of what it is like to be different and respected was a
36
positive thing that would build self-esteem, but caution was advised about giving people a
taste of a life they cannot maintain on their own. Realistic, manageable goals need to be set.
Finding a Role
The role that you have in relation to others was considered an important aspect of identity. If
an individual has a negative role (as a criminal, drug addict, etc.) their views about
themselves will be correspondingly negative. If they are viewed by others positively (as a
friend, parent, etc.) they will view themselves more positively. Though identity is an internal
concept it is developed in relation to others. Therefore, it was felt a deliberate effort was
needed to get people to see those in custody differently – as more than what they are in prison
for.
This requires the development of the positive aspects of their identity to push these to the
fore, for example, by providing parenting classes and facilitating meaningful contact with
children to develop identities as good parents. Home leave should also be viewed as a chance
to perform these roles, not just as a holiday from prison. Home leave is to allow preparation
for release and it was felt that the prison service need to be very deliberate about why they are
doing things. Being clear about the purpose of home leave was considered important.
Making clear what is being done and why was felt to be something that should be key across
the whole service.
Community
We need to make sure communities are ready for people returning from custody. What
communities think is something that prisoners themselves are concerned about. Community
capacity is overestimated and there is not enough investment in this area. It was felt that a
utopian view of community reintegration was taken. The system needs to allow those
released from custody to go where they can thrive, not necessarily where came from (even in
terms of housing issues, it would be beneficial to think beyond returning people to the same
community). It is difficult to reintegrate to a community and families as stigma attaches.
Community liaisons between prison and the community have been considered successful
when used elsewhere (e.g. Nottingham) and it was felt that this was something which could
help with reintegration. There was a lot of support for the role of throughcare officers and
this service should be made more widely available. Business people coming in to meet with
prisoners was also considered a positive approach. This has been shown to make the business
people involved feel good about themselves and let them see that prisoners are just people. It
is also beneficial for those in custody to be treated like a normal person and feel like a normal
part of the community. It was discussed that opportunities are available for people to be
positive members of the prison community, for example through mentoring. These
opportunities are successful at building self-esteem. It was considered important to try to
provide similar opportunities on release so people can be positive members of their non-
prison community.
People returning from custody are not connected in the community. They have no network
on release. There was a need to, in a deliberate way, create a community around an
individual where people should be the focus, not a location. Circles, a programme which
works with sex offenders, was successful as it creates a network around the individual. A
37
programme like this was needed for all offence types. The value in setting up “artificial”
communities for people leaving custody was discussed. This can be online through closed
Facebook pages which exist for creating community, providing support and preventing those
released from custody from becoming isolated. Communities can also be set up using
physical spaces. The community hubs utilised by those released from Polmont were
considered successful as it gave those newly released a place to go to have a community
around them. These hubs allow users to get a gym pass, meet people, use the internet and get
help with job searchers. They were beneficial in terms of providing a routine. Routines were
considered positive as they maintain motivation. Some ex-prisoners have described being
depressed when they leave prison due to having no friends or routine on the outside.
Community hubs can help prevents this.
“Bringing the Outside In”
The idea of “bringing the outside in” was discussed. This involves people coming in to
prisons to treat those in custody like anyone else. This was described as a process of
“normalisation” and as a way of creating “pockets of normality” for those in custody. It was
necessary for those in custody to feel like a part of society and to maintain their identity
throughout their time in custody. Allowing people through the prison doors is also beneficial
for improving community attitudes to those in custody as it humanises them.
We need to change the perception of prison and bringing people in works well. It allows
them to see those in custody more positively. Specifically considered useful were workshops
run by potential employers and social enterprise. Getting social enterprise into prisons and
getting people involved in it was viewed as important. Social enterprise is already utilised in
Barlinnie, Greenock and Polmont and is being considered at Cornton Vale. There was a
significant interest from organisations to be part of this and there is now a waiting list. It
gives those in custody the chance to develop skills as well as impacting on their identity
management. It was also expressed that if those in custody could vote this would also allow
them to feel part of society and it would allow them to impact on policy relevant to them.
Changing Public Attitudes
Changing public attitudes was a key theme that emerged in discussion. There is so much
anti-prisoner rhetoric that the public do not want those released from custody in their
communities. We need to convince the public that it is better to provide a positive
environment for those in custody, although it was thought by some that the public are more
concerned with preventing re-offending than with providing harsh punishment. There have
not really been adequate studies into what the public views actually are.
There needs to be a social change in public understanding of what prison actually does. It
should be realised that prison aims to create fewer victims. Many of those in custody are also
“victims”, but this label is dropped quickly when they begin offending. More empathy
towards those in custody is needed. Public service broadcasting was discussed as a potential
platform to speak to the public about these issues and attempt to change attitudes. We needed
to ensure the public understand is that change is possible. We should try to encourage
communities to feel a sense of pride in their prisons that people are coming out better.
38
Restorative Justice
It was important that people take responsibility for their actions. In prison people were felt to
be protected from what they had done, as they did not have to deal with victims. Restorative
justice was viewed as having an important role in this regard, but it was noted that victims’
organisations are not supportive of restorative justice due to fear of re-victimisation. It was
important to promote a common goal among all organisations of preventing the next victim.
Purposeful Activity
Getting more people in purposeful activity was of the utmost importance. It was felt that
everyone should be doing purposeful activity, even those on remand. Purposeful activity
should focus on getting an individual community ready. With this in mind it should include
basic life skills such as budgeting, washing and ironing.
Working with Other Services/Organisations
The role of the judicial system in ensuring prison is used only as a last resort was discussed.
The view was expressed that some people are sent to prison because judges get “fed up” with
them, for example, because they repeatedly miss court dates. People with chaotic lives are
being sent to prison when it is not warranted. In order to help judges in making appropriate
decisions it was important that they be aware of the circumstances of an individual’s life. A
closer look needs to be taken when an individual is failing to meet demands set by the
criminal justice system to ensure they can access the right services to help them. The real
answer to the problem of high remand numbers was considered to be in the community
through bail supervision. Judges should be visiting prisons to increase their awareness of
what their sentences really mean.
The police were also viewed as playing a significant role. They way in which they treat ex-
offenders was thought to have a big impact. Effort was needed to create a positive dialogue
with the police. One specific suggestion was having the police visit prisons to talk to those in
custody. This could be informative for prisoners as well humanising them, so that the police
do not view everyone in custody the same way.
Housing and other statutory support services were also considered important in how they deal
with those released from custody. “Cultural problems” were described among these
organisations which did not provide those released from custody with a positive experience.
We have to ensure a more positive image of these individuals permeates throughout all
services. Third sector partners were considered useful in encouraging people to see those
released from custody differently and we should continue to work in partnership with these
groups.
39
GROUP 4
Subject – The use and misuse of measurement in penal practice.
Objective: Describe how high performance would be recognised and measured in a
social just society’s penal system?
Points to consider
Explore the characteristics of high performance and ethical working in a custodial
environment and in work to support reintegration.
What are the challenges to delivering trusting and respectful relationships between
staff and prisoners?
“Prisons are…special moral places. That is, that they are places where relationships and
the treatment of one party by another, really matter. They raise questions of fairness, order,
and authority (others might say legitimacy), but also some other questions about trust,
respect and well-being, in an exceptionally palpable way.” Alison Liebling
MORNING SESSION
Jamie Bennett started the proceedings with a short presentation. He outlined his research on
prison managers and managerialism. It was argued that public sector managerialism was
symptomatic of a wider global trend where the neo-liberal ethos of private sector
performance measurement and financial restraint prevails.
Bennett argued that the local hierarchical practice in prisons reflects the dominant
masculinity of physicality, competitiveness and ‘banter’. Criminal justice managers have
three types of values:
Humanity - concerned with rehabilitation;
Punitiveness - concerned with pain and deterrence; and
Expedient managerialism - where business practice and efficiency take precedence.
These 3 approaches combine within prisons in a myriad of ways. In performance
management there are various methods of measurement (KPIs, audits, inspection,
independent monitoring, and service-user feedback). Over 50 Key Performance Targets
(KPTs) were measured in prisons in England and Wales against a number of different areas
(regimes, decency, safety and security etc.). These KPTs are then put together in a weighted
scorecard and league tables are produced.
Bennett reported that many prison managers complained that concerns to meet KPT targets
consumed their working lives and had become ‘core business’ which took precedence over
other aspects of their work, most importantly in managing relationships. An intense fear of
failure prevailed which dominates thinking and leads to expedient managerialism. KPTs
reflect a culture of masculinity and intensify self-pressure.
40
The Measuring the Quality of Prison Life Tool (MQPL) assessed the human experience of
prisons. Bennett cited early, ultimately unfounded, criticisms of MQPL where staff
expressed concerns that it was subjective and prisoners always complain. It was thought that
by involving prisoners it would undermine a managerialist approach - results would not be
legitimate as they were not hard measures like KPTs.
Prison managerialism was said to lead to surveillance and management at a distance, where
each successive layer was used to control those below them. Such an approach prevents
people managing themselves. Strict compliance to KPTs simplified prison work and shaped
a culture of masculinity and competitiveness in which cultural change was resisted.
Key Questions for discussion:
What is important in designing prisons? What should be measured? How do they reflect
competing interests? Who should design/ monitor them? Local or central? Should they
change periodically? How do we know if they’re effective?
Alison Liebling presented the MQPL detailing how research has tried to humanise prison.
Liebling proposed that a key question to pose is “what makes us morally blind when
measuring performance”? Liebling told a story of a visit to conduct an MQPL at HMP
Doncaster where an agitated man from Birmingham had been held for 8 months. He wanted
to move closer to home, but the Governor told Liebling that there is only a requirement for
85% of prisoners to be living close to home. A ‘moral blindness’ was caused as a result of
the KPT having already been met; the prisoner was subsequently ignored as the Governor
could manage 10-15% of prisoners being misplaced. It was argued that measures are needed
to instil order and accountability, but there are risks of moral blindness where matters are not
acted upon.
Key Questions for discussion:
How can we think about measurement where it generates energy and action? Is there a way
of thinking about measures that energise us? What is the relationship between measurement
and morality? How does a prison uphold social order? Is this what we should measure?
Conversation:
It was argued that there was too much bureaucracy involved once a target is hit which deters
initiative. An anecdote of Nelson Mandela asking for a prison blanket during his period of
incarceration was used as an analogy to illustrate the bureaucracy involved in the prison
setting. Human interaction can cut across this, although it was conceded that such interaction
is extremely difficult to measure. The example of HMP Grendon was given, where prisoner
and staff meet to discuss issues of concern.
When thinking about measurement we need to consider: how do we standardise it? Whose
interest does measurement serve? For a Minster’s benefit? Or for the benefit of prisoners?
It was argued that the development of measurement needed to involve people at the frontline
of the organisation. Whilst the Governor is accountable for results, everyone at the frontline
41
needs to understand how they can contribute to the overall plan. We need to agree on a
national plan, but this needs to be translated to staff.
In the commercial world companies have 5-7 measures that everyone understands. In HMPS
130+ quality indicators exist - there was no way that staff could readily assimilate that level
of detail. We needed to communicate more lucidly to staff so they know how to focus on the
core business. We needed fewer indicators and a better understanding of the drivers behind
them.
It was asked whether ‘humanity’ was too abstract to measure. However, prisoners know
where boundaries lie and it was argued that staff and prisoners together would be best able to
come up with appropriate measures. Individual interactions are part of the legitimacy
process. Prisoners make assessments on legitimacy, so it is essential to consider their
perspective in devising measures as prison is their world.
SPS has KPIs - it was recognised that officers do a difficult job and have to be multi-faceted
in their role. It is hard to manage the balance of control and authority with care and
opportunity. KPIs are useful, but we need to measure the quality of interactions; culture is
influenced by people – so how is that captured? Are the measures important to staff? The
Governor? Prisoners? We need to be clear, as staff can get lost in measurement. We need to
have a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods, but Government tends to be interested
predominantly in figures.
Government needs to have a complete view of the prison, so we need to ensure that the
qualitative is captured in measures. Quantitative measures are of public importance, but
collating only numbers can drive dysfunctional behaviour - KPIs can often leave significant
blind spots and mask problems.
What exactly is the role of the prison? How can we hold prisons accountable for
reoffending? How can SPS manage long term outcomes? The relationship between officer
and prisoner was central to positive outcomes.
Measurement leads to an obligation to issue targets; quality measures can be complicated.
What really matters in a prison is the quality of life and staff satisfaction. Staff need to know
exactly what is expected of them. This needs to be reinforced and encouraged so we need to
rate highly those who promote good practice. In order to shape culture we have to promote
positive behaviour.
The changing outlook of SPS over the years was raised. Most officers do not have a fixed
outlook on prisoners upon entering the job - the values of the culture they enter shapes their
practice. It was asked whether it is management, managerialism, staff or leadership which
has most influence over culture. SPS needs to spend time understanding the relevance of our
vision. It needs to make sense to officers and prisoners alike.
Consensus:
We need to agree on how to measure high performance in a socially just environment.
KPIs can be inhibitors as they become the main focus.
42
We should not underestimate qualitative data as it captures the nuances of the prison
experience. Parity of value is required between quantitative and qualitative measures.
A balance is needed, as there is a difference between data and understanding. Data
needs to explain what is happening, but we need to synthesise different sources to
understand and then link that understanding to improvement.
We need to agree on the definition of KPIs.
KPIs should be derived locally to shape the particular establishment. They should be
designed by staff and prisoners to meet the local culture. There needs to be a place
for local indicators.
We need to recognise where there is a difference between performance and practice.
We need to measure how officers perceive they are treated because this impacts upon
how they manage prisoners.
We need to recognise and reward good performance. Could prisoners have a say in
staff performance? Prisoners could give an opinion through ICM/Throughcare.
Key challenges- propositions:
Should we have local autonomy or centralised direction? What is best? Prisoners want
consistency across establishments, although inconsistency still exists. Centralised decisions
are input at a local level. There is a direct relationship between moral messages officers hear
and how they interact with prisoners. Cultural change takes time.
Prisons are about social order and control. Prison officers know that prisoners go to prison as
punishment and not for punishment. Each prison has a particular culture – but who has the
biggest influence? Is it the Governor? Politicians? How can we build a better culture? This
is at the heart of a good service, but can performance measure this?
Staff performance is key- ‘what you permit you promote’. How can we find a measure that
captures this?
AFTERNOON SESSION
Performance measures are a democratic necessity and are required to provide scrutiny of
public services. The perceived ineffectiveness of performance measures could be tempered
by including the users’ perspective. Internationally, there is a lot of similarity in terms of
KPIs being focussed on security, but little about morality or social order. We can bring in
measures of social order and social justice, but how can we bring these together? We need
managerialism, but it has to be smarter with a service user focus.
Who are we serving in SPS? We work for Ministers so we need to demonstrate efficiency to
the public. This is legitimate, but are we serving prisoners? What constitutes good customer
service for prisoners? We can usually be efficient, but often not effective. Where do we
want to be? We need a balance between the security dominated KPIs and other more
qualitative measures. .
It was argued that prisoners are not customers since they do not have a choice - they are
recipients. Public accountability was essential, but it was doubted whether managerialism
was the best way to achieve this? Managerialism ‘instrumentalises’ everything. Targets are
about achieving more for less.
43
How much is prison going to help us meet the greater good? The Norwegian model of
creating “better neighbours” offers measures which are contributing towards a moral purpose.
We should measure and assess quality. There is a need for central accountability, but should
there also be local flexibility?
An example of qualitative indicators in youth work (Hot Chocolate at Dundee) was
discussed. Outcomes were devised across 22 areas. Managers initially faced resistance and
encountered hostility from staff. Over time they were able to devise measures which
captured the personal journey and distance travelled in a database collated across the
organisation nationally. It provided aggregated outcomes to report performance to funders.
Staff could evidence the difference their job was making.
A mixture of corporate measures and local measures is preferable. If ‘co-produced’, then
prisoners will measure themselves on what is important to them. People make the difference
in how a jail works and corporate centralised direction can undermine this and stifle
creativity. Motivated staff are the key to motivating prisoners. However, what should be
locally set and what should be nationally set? We needed to devise a user-voice driven
performance measure to support a humane environment. Prisoners recognise this and can
articulate the key issues. We need to ask positive questions to take us in a new direction and
base measures on appreciative enquiry.
Some fifty KPIs exist in NOMS, but they are not persuasive or convincing that prisons are
doing what they are supposed to do. KPIs do not tell the full story. SPS currently have 28
KPI, but what are the 3-4 we should concentrate upon? It was argued that KPIs create a false
confidence and are only useful for parliamentary accountability. However, they can make
people lose sight of what is important. More autonomy is needed for jails with locally agreed
measures.
At present we have lots of data, but it is often of limited value and is not acted upon. If you
ask people about experience, then there needs to be a reaction to the data captured. We
should gather information and then act upon it.
We need to use prisons to create better citizens with collective collaboration between SPS,
Social Work and other key stakeholders. We need collective accountability between partners.
Social order requires participation from all with the involvement of users’ voices. In
Grendon, prisoners and staff meet every Friday with elected prisoners facilitating a
discussion. The whole community becomes involved in the decision-making process.
Agreed propositions:
1. Measurement has to be person centred, this has got to be fundamental to any measure.
We need to recognise the value of the human narrative.
2. We need to focus on the most important data indicators. The process should be
streamlined and more focused.
3. We should capture service-user feedback to tell the story and experience.
We have enough assurance at present. We now require inter-organisational, co-committed
outcomes. We also require a much wider discussion about the role of Scotland’s prisons. We
44
need a centralised joined-up approach to one major goal, but local implementation is also a
key feature. Our measures should be learning tools.
45
GROUP 5
Subject – Life transitions and pathways to Desistance.
Objective: Communities can, and should, be at the centre of a strategy for working with
people who have offended. What more can Scotland do to support individuals before, in,
and leaving, custody?
Points to consider
What is currently being done to support desistance for people in and out of custody?
Can developments in the Women’s Strategy (e.g. proposed Community Custody
Units) and the Young People’s Strategy (e.g. supporting engagement through a
learning environment) offer templates/exemplars for re-integrative work with all
people in custody?
What would pre-release planning and post-release support need to involve if designed
to better support desistance?
“Yesterday is not ours to recover, but tomorrow is ours to win or lose.” Lyndon B. Johnson
Maruna (2006:16) argued that reintegration properly belongs to communities and to formerly
incarcerated persons and that the role of the practitioner is to ‘support, enhance and work
with the organically occurring community processes of reconciliation and earned
redemption’.
It is difficult to disagree with this, said Beth Weaver – but what does it really mean in a real
world context? After all, community itself is a highly contested term because its meaning
changes in different contexts and people refer to different things when they talk about
community.
The sociologists Craig Calhoun argues that community is not so much a place or a discrete
population, as we often imagine, rather it is about a distinct manner of relating. Delanty
suggests that community communicates ways of belonging – or lack thereof. This discussion
about community involvement and building capacities is happening tomorrow and so today, I
am going to start this group discussion off with the question – what more can Scotland do to
support individuals before, in, and leaving, custody? To get the conversation going, I am
going to suggest that we need to develop a networked, relational and strengths based
approach which to me means co-creating communities of support – in this context, with a
focus on life transitions and pathways to desistance.
Life Transitions and Desistance
What do we mean when we talk about life transitions or pathways to desistance? Well,
transitions are about life changes – about movement, a passage, or change from one position,
state, stage, to another; it means change. They often denote changes in roles and
46
relationships, for example, marriage, parenthood or access to employment which include
developmental and social transitions, themselves often enabled or constrained by our access
to, participation in, or exclusion from, social relations. Desistance is similarly a process of
change, for the most part – a journey – that is variously enabled or constrained by these social
relations and the changes, or lack of within them.
There is increasing recognition of the relational context in, and through, which desistance
occurs and this is as much about the manner of relating or nature of relationships between
professionals and prisoners/service users as it is about people’s relationships to, and with,
significant others, as well as participation in wider social relations. This holds true for young
people (Barry, 2010), women (Weaver and Lightowler forthcoming) and men (Weaver,
2015). But it’s not just desistance – many of the difficulties underpinning offending are
relational in a broad sense – both in terms of the social inequalities, social disadvantage and
social exclusion encountered by many people involved in the criminal justice system, as well
as the trauma that many individuals have encountered at a more personal level in and through
their relations. Personal and familial relations are for many both the context and medium of
change or the source of chaos, stress and trauma underpinning offending – indeed, they often
underpin the precarity in young people’s lives that all too often contribute to participation in
offending in the first place.
This is why the notion of community as a relational space is key to supporting life transitions
and pathways to desistance – precisely because processes of recovery and desistance are not
solely within-individual phenomena; they are also dependent on interactions between
individuals and their relationships, their immediate environment, community and social
structure. Fostering connections between people restoring relationships and building social
capital are thus key components in recovery and desistance. We can learn from the manner
of relating that Maruna is perhaps getting at when he refers to community; I think that in the
pursuit of professionalization, we lost something of the humanity, mutuality, trust and
understanding that characterises the kinds of relationships that can actually make a
difference.
How we understand a given individual in their relationally and emotionally textured worlds is
part of this process of supporting change. I certainly don’t have all the answers – but for me,
to truly support change, we need to change the way we have historically engaged not only
those involved in the justice system, but other agencies, families and communities.
Accepting the relational context in and through which desistance occurs requires us to
consider how these contexts might also shape and influence approaches to practice. This
means moving beyond the individualistic approaches that tend to be responsibilising, reliant
on cognitive-behavioural, professionally-led interventions designed to manage and minimise
the risks associated with offending – aimed to instil or fortify people’s capacity for self-
management that characterise so much of what we do in the CJS.
Building on current reforms
In Scotland, the Scottish Government and partners have invested in a process of penal reform
that seeks to address the harms caused by imprisonment and to support people’s access to the
kinds of supports and opportunities they need to move on in life. Particularly for young
people and for women. The women’s strategy, for example, will see the establishment of five
regional custodial units for up to 20 women each. This is as much about recognising the
47
harms caused by institutional prison environments – as it is about recognising the impact of
imprisonment on women, families and communities. The Scottish Government has already
invested in Women’s community justice centres. While the shape that these take differ in
different localities, there seems to me to be an opportunity here to build connections between
these local custodial units and local community centres which would increase potential for a
more seamless inside-outside pathway of support which, from an SPS perspective, increases
their potential to be both community facing and community engaging.
Claire Lightowler and I have undertaken research into one Women’s Community Justice
Centre. A range of factors were perceived to have an impact on its success which related to
the approach taken which has wider learning for how we support life transitions and
pathways to desistance. This approach includes combination of immediate, responsive
practical support facilitated by a one stop shop approach and assertive outreach as well as the
relational dynamics and approaches co-created between centre staff and women as well as
between the women themselves – and the outcomes these have engendered. Both staff and
site selection are key to the success of the centre – space for women and for staff and women
to come together, that feels natural rather than office based, but the staff were also all selected
for their commitment to innovative, participatory and gender sensitive, trauma informed
practice. The centre operates as a drop in and women can participate in a whole range of
activities from jewellery making, to sport, to cooking and so on – as well as crisis
intervention and counselling. By helping the women keep their minds occupied, the activities
provide a sense of relief and an escape from the realities of their lives. The activity groups
also provide a very useful structure for the women, helping to punctuate their days and
support a sense of routine, but they appreciate the groups are informal, so they can drop in as
and when. The women also noted the value in having an opportunity to develop their skills
and do things they have not experienced before and to build relationships with each other and
staff.
Briege Nugent and I also evaluated the young people’s Moving On, a PSP by action for
Children and Barnardos, which, interestingly, also provide community hubs – a welcoming
space, in which people can participate in activities as well as affording access to formal and
informal peer and social supports. Like the women’s centre, the hubs and the staff that work
in them, place the young people at the centre of their practice/service rather than expecting
them to fit into it, and their proactive outreach actively encourages voluntary and sustained
engagement. The practical and emotional support that both women and young people require
is significant and, often, necessarily intensive requiring substantial time and effort. To
support reintegration for all people in and after custody, we need resources like this in every
community – and we need to resource these adequately.
The young people’s strategy, for SPS, is focused on improving not only access to education
but a diverse range of educational opportunities, to providing opportunities to peer mentoring
and other community resources – both in prison and through the prison gate. This needs to be
extended across the prison estate. I cannot do the strategy justice here, but all of this implies
recognition of the need for more porous prison walls – but at present, we have one main
prison for young people. I am not suggesting that we need more – indeed, I am all in favour
of strengthening the presumption against short sentences to 12 months and I am in favour of
developing more opportunities to divert young people from the criminal justice system and of
an increase in the age of criminal responsibility – and I think these are core and necessary
48
reforms to pursue. But is there any reason why local custodial units can’t equally be
established for our young men – and, even, our older ones linked into community hubs?
The development of a learning environment in custody for young people is important, both in
terms of developing education and improving employability. I think we could do even better.
The Skill Mill in England, for example, creates opportunities for paid work for young people
involved in the CJS, which are linked into relevant vocation qualifications. The Skill Mill is
a social enterprise and young people are offered paid employment in water course
management, flood risk management and horticulture services and so on. This is a truly co-
productive endeavour which includes public, private and third sector organisations to
delivering a new approach to addressing disadvantage – as well as responding to labour needs
in the area. Starting in Newcastle, the Skill Mill now operates in Leeds, Cumbria, Liverpool
and Estonia. While this seems ambitious, it was started and is still led by a core group of
youth justice practitioners who still work as practitioners. Can young people involved in both
custodial (on day release) and community justice settings in Scotland not equally benefit
from the development of innovative approaches like this which both supports life transitions
and pathways to desistance? What’s stopping us from developing similar structures here?
What I am proposing is that we continue to build on the constructive reforms for young
people and women and we extend these across the prison estate. I think we also need to go
further to provide a more networked, relationally informed, participatory and innovative
approach to supporting people. For innovative practices to flourish, however, we need also to
go beyond a reliance on re-offending data as a measure of efficacy because change takes time
and there are so many other less easily measured outcomes that we need to know about. It is
all too easy to give up on the kinds of services that really make a difference because they
can’t produce the kinds of results in the arbitrary timeframes imposed. We need also to
invest in innovative practices in the way that we do other core services. They cannot be a
bolt on – or they fall through the cracks when hard pressed services and staff find themselves
endlessly responding to crises.
Challenges
So, I have a list of key points and challenges. We need to stop people going to prison in the
first place by significantly increasing the age of criminal responsibility, developing and
resourcing opportunities for diversion from judicial processes, by radically reducing the use
of remand and short sentences. We need to develop a flexible and opportunity led approach
to services as part of a more structured framework or continuum of opportunities as is
necessary. Community justice centres are ideally places to achieve this. This leads on to my
challenges:
My first challenge is to develop a range of community justice centres/hubs – not just
for women and young people – that are community engaging and community facing;
that are connected in and to local custodial units and well as local community groups
and employers; that offer multi-agency resources and a host of activities for people to
participate in; that offer a place and space to go to that is non-judgemental and in and
through which those attending can develop both bonding and bridging social capital.
My second challenge is to create local custodial units for young and older men too.
We know that environment (both the physical space and the relational dynamics) are
49
key to encouraging not only engagement but in terms of what they communicate to
people about their worth. This means finding or acquitting places and spaces where
groups of workers, professionals, volunteers and prisoners/service users can come
together – because it is in every day opportunities for participation and through
informal interaction, alongside more structured opportunities, that relationships
between service users, between service users and staff, and with other co-
producers/volunteers or groups develop and which are key to developing and
maintaining support – both within and out with custody.
My third challenge is to create spaces and places in which people can belong and
flourish. But, what more do we need to do to support not just desistance but
reintegration?
As part of this, the attitudes and skill set of professional staff influence the
relationship that develops with service users and others. This means embedding a
culture of change through collaboration with individuals, families, voluntary
organisations, community services and groups. The attitudes of staff and the
relationships that develop shape and influence propensities to and experiences of
participation in various supports and services, to differing degrees, and therefore its
outcomes. Developing trust and mutual understanding and respect are the foundations
of participation as is the development of a culture of inclusiveness. There are various
means through which this trust and effective partnerships can be built:
o Firstly, through the development of asset based approaches.
o Secondly, by creating opportunities for participation – professionals working
alongside service users and communities to create a variety of choice about what
they can get involved in and the supports they need, that are flexible and
respecting of individuals circumstances, priorities and needs and realistic about
individual capacities, and motivations, without creating undue pressure.
o Thirdly, by getting more creative and courageous about constructing the
conditions that can really change; tweaking the system isn’t enough if change is
called for.
o My fourth and final challenge then, is – what is holding us back from developing a
more radical approach to supporting change, to creating the kinds of inclusive
communities through which change can be enabled? And what role might our
new community planning partnerships play?
Return to Communities with no Supports
The group discussed prisoner release from custody which often involved a return to a life the
same in every way as it was prior to their imprisonment. Often this means individuals
returning to communities which have limited support or resources within them. It was argued
that Community Justice Social Work and third sector workers are currently ‘pushed’ for
resources.
Community Hubs
It was suggested that Community Hubs have been helpful in some communities and more of
these would allow greater support for those who need it. The group commented that such a
50
roll-out would require a commitment to resource adequately, otherwise the likelihood of
failure is high. In some of the existing Community Hubs the lack of adequate resources
means that number of cases allocate to workers reduces the time spent with each individual.
Further considerations for Community Hubs
The group acknowledged that hubs can easily be non-inclusive to some individuals due to
distance. For some, even being 5 miles away from their home can make things difficult. It is
possible that 80% of those who require help and support may be excluded by the creation of
Community Hubs. It was suggested that perhaps local authorities/communities should be
enabled to do something in regard to this issue.
It is often the case that community leaders become ‘hung up on’ models. However, it may be
the case that a model is not required in this situation, rather there may be a hub in one
community and a neighbourhood programme in another. Here there could be a vision which
is shared rather than a model enforced. Other group members proposed that there could be a
series of models due to the fact that people feel belonging in different ways.
It was agreed that Communities would require very intensive assistance to enable them to
achieve their vision. Additionally, there is an issue related to how to create communities that
do not belong to any one group of people.
Community Builders/Community Planning Partnerships/Community Facing Support
Services
The group discussed the idea that there are areas that have no resources or ‘hubs’ but other
communities have ‘community builders’ which, it was suggested, could be a nationally run
programme to allow for a fairer dispersal.
Uncoordinated Work
There are a number of organisations who have the right aim and are working towards similar
goals; however, these are often uncoordinated and there is a lack of cohesion in the
community. It was suggested that there are structural elements that require to be managed
and that Community Planning Partnerships could be the vehicle that provides this cohesion of
services. At the present time, ‘good money is often spent on bad things’ which could be
managed better if there was a shared vision, collaboration and leadership. Additionally, it
was noted that the correct groups and individuals must be invited to assist with the
appropriate support of an individual. There should be a centralised way of considering all
resources and engaging in asset-mapping. This would allow for an improved and joined-up
approach towards a central vision for community-facing support services.
The point was raised that, often, organisations perceive that which is rated ‘core’ to be
‘statutory’ and that which is rated ‘non-core’ to be ‘non-statutory’. It should be highlighted
to all that this is not the case.
One opinion was that the SPS receives a poor standard of service from the NHS due to its
‘rigid cultures’ and as such, significant changes are required. The SPS were said to engage
51
well with the third sector, however, the point was raised that there are issues concerning
economies of scale in this regard.
It was suggested that there may be more thought around, and extension of, the idea of non-
prison officers working within custody and prison officers working out-with custody.
Funding
The group agreed that there is a general lack of overview and strategy throughout and within
organisations which results in many areas/people attempting to do the same work as others.
In addition to this, it was recognised that a result of the lack of coherent strategy leads to the
scenario where the approach which is ‘flavour of the month’ receives funding for a period of
time and this then jumps to another approach before the first has had the opportunity to prove
itself/serve its purpose.
Difficulties which may arise
The group realised that there may be difficulties in holding good relationships or sharing the
same vision or ideas with all councils, particularly due to the party political point of view that
councils operate on.
Questions were asked such as:
Would it be possible for a preferred partner to cover the whole of Scotland
irrespective of post-code?
Is every action being carried out always aimed at supporting desistance?
Location determines support/resource
It remains the case that the area where an individual lives determines what is available to
them upon release. It was recognised that with regards to HMYOI Polmont, due to the
assortment of home locations of the prisoners there is a huge variation in individuals’
contracts. It was further noted that SPS is aware of as little as a third of the work that the
agencies are carrying out with individuals due to there being too many to remain informed.
Community Readiness
It was acknowledged within the group that it is often the case that individuals are not ready to
return to the community when they are released from custody. Frequently, this involves the
need to develop basic learning skills. This is an area that can only be carried out effectively
when an individual approach is adopted. The group agreed that Community Hubs would be
ideal for this as they offer other possibilities to people seeking alternatives.
Responsibility
The group raised the issue that proposals such as Community Hubs were not all within the
gift of the Criminal Justice System, rather it includes Community Planning Partnerships.
52
Alternative Initiatives
The group noted such initiatives as the Top 600 strategy in Amsterdam where the top 600
most prolific offenders were identified and their cases are prioritised by the Police and courts.
It was suggested that perhaps there is too much of a focus on Cognitive Behavioural Therapy
programmes within custody and an alternative may be to move away from these to more life
skills based programmes.
The group acknowledged that, upon release, the provision of structure is vital and it is often
the case that prisoners return to custody in order that they can receive the support and
structure. The structure that Turning Point’s ‘218’ provides was noted to be helpful for
providing the support required and it was suggested that this is an area that Community Hubs
could play a vital role.
The group were advised there is a Community Hub in Kilmarnock which provides a service
not exclusively for former prisoners, but for others in the community such as older people. It
was noted that this is helpful because it means those attending are not necessarily thought of
as former prisoners and this allows the creation of a different identity.
Feelings of Community
One group member described the difficulties some prisoners faced relate to them feeling that
the prison is a community where they have friends. Upon release there is often a situation
where they feel that they do not fit in or a situation which is strange.
“When the community is harder than custody there is a big problem”
Interactions
The group noted that it was important to change relationships and ensure that staff deal with
individuals on a human level and work with individuals in different ways. There should be a
move away from ‘doing it to’ and ‘doing it for’ to ‘doing it with’ in terms of helping
prisoners.
Victims
The group acknowledged that the victim should be incorporated into some part of the
process. It was agreed that this should be done at the earliest opportunity and on an
individual level. It was noted that victims are also helped by the community. This is an
opportunity to encourage individuals within the community to take part.
Lack of community ‘feeling’
It was felt that where there was previously a sense of community in some areas, these are
now often seen as a suburb of a larger town or a city. The group discussed the fact that those
in the community do not appear to always know what work is being carried out within the
prison.
53
Mental Health Issues
It was noted that many individuals within custody have mental health issues. Often, the
loneliness felt by individuals who have recently been released from custody has
consequences for mental health. Furthermore, it was noted that an individual has a better
chance of having their mental health needs addressed in custody than they do in the
community.
Wider than purely a Community Justice issue
The group noted that a variety of sectors are responsible for various elements which are
relevant when considering issues such as these. These include the communities, economy,
justice and health amongst others.
AFTERNOON SESSION
Language
The group discussed the idea that some of the language that is used within Criminal Justice
should be further considered. It was suggested that instead of using the term ‘reintegration’
implying some degree of separation, the term ‘integration’ should be adopted.
Communities understanding of prison
The point was raised that society does not see prison as being a part of the community and
this is something that should be resolved by providing further understanding about what
prisons do.
Sentencing
With regard to recent changes to sentencing, it was noted that sentencing alone is not enough
to transform individuals – there requires to be a range of initiatives involved in order to make
a significant change. The group discussed the age of criminal responsibility and how it may
be beneficial if this is raised to 12 years.
Opportunities
The group agreed that there should exist a range of opportunities that are targeted at different
stages throughout one’s sentence. It is important to recognise that people’s needs change
throughout this time and so the types of support required vary and should be catered for on a
continuum.
Community
A vital component was people within local communities. It was felt that locals should know
as much about their local prison as they do about their local hospitals. Generally, it was felt
that people support prisons, but awareness needed to be raised with more community
engagement. The community would listen if honest answers were being provided about
54
prisons. We owe the public information as attitudes will not change until the community has
become more involved.
Support in earlier life
The group agreed that it is important that greater resources are used in order to support people
at an earlier stage in their lives.
Prisoners’ Perspective
Change must come from within; in some instances where an individual does not engage there
are limitations to rehabilitation. It was agreed that the ‘key ingredient’ was the individual
him/herself and often issues can be deep-rooted. It takes time for people to change therefore
expectations needed to be at a realistic level.
Community Attitudes
The group considered how the receptiveness of the public may be built up. It may be helpful
to ‘change the narrative’ to become more vocal about how future victims can be prevented.
One of the group members argued that some journalists do not to write about positive
initiatives which are taking place within custody due to the negative public reaction that this
would likely cause. It was thought this is a problem area because politicians require to take
account of public pressures and react to opinion in certain circumstances.
The Scottish Government is committed to penal reform so there is an opportunity to push
courageous claims and to ‘put their money where their mouth is’. Some felt that
opportunities are coming within Scotland, such as the local community custodial units for
women. There is also an opportunity to engage with the public through the arts – such as
plays, songs or even through popular television programmes.
Language Used by Staff
The issue of inappropriate language being used by staff members was raised. Those in
leadership positions must set the example on language as this ‘trickles down’ to other
employees. The group was aware of some of the views held and language used by some. It
was noted that the staff population are a microcosm of the wider community and therefore
there are a range of views and opinions held.
Release from Custody
Upon release from custody, individuals do not feel particularly welcome back in the
community. In earlier discussions throughout the Symposium there had been mention of the
‘Room for a Refugee’ initiative. Further to this the group discussed ‘Refuwegie’ which
provided welcome packs for refugees in Glasgow and provided a welcome letter. The idea
was proposed that there could be a similar initiative for returning citizens after custody. This
could be provided by an active, mobilised community to focus on the reintegration of
individuals. The group believed that it would send a powerful message to former prisoners if
this could be carried out.
55
The group discussed the fact that many people who are released from custody have a sense of
overwhelming isolation and require such contact and a place where they feel supported.
Champions
The idea of ‘Champions’ was raised which could involve former prisoners who have changed
after years of rehabilitation returning to prisons and being a face within the community to
advocate the work that the prison had done for them and the importance of continuing this
with others.
Agency Collaboration
The group again highlighted there should be collectivism across different groups and that
collaboration should be incentivised. There is often no real ‘community’ available when an
individual is released from custody. There was the sense that third sector organisations seek
to assist where they can, however, these are not able to do all of the work in the community.
It was proposed that there should be more accountability for the work that is being carried out
by all groups in order that there is a prevention of the same work being delivered by different
groups and perhaps to increase collaboration between groups for those who are attempting to
reach the same goals.
Prison Environment Changes
There was discussion surrounding the prison environment and how this can change. It was
noted that a ‘therapeutic community’ environment can be achieved within custody as well as
it can be in the community. Additionally, it was suggested that there exists the potential,
within Scottish prisons to design prisons to provide as much normality to prisoners as
possible. There was also discussion of what happens next for prisoners if these environments
were created for them. There was concern raised that this may be carried out without joining
up relevant services in order to build in their support. It was recognised that there was a
requirement to offset this cost with the cost to society. Further, it was acknowledged that
there would be difficult decisions required in order to decide what to disinvest in in order to
make such changes.
56
DAY 2
PROF FERGUS MCNEILL, UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW
Prof McNeil recapped on Day 1 entitling his reflections – “Reimagining Everything”.
To become (more) socially just, Scotland must:
Commit to addressing the social inequalities that drive many forms of offending
(which is where crime prevention and community safety really happens).
Raise the age of criminal responsibility to 18.
Stop allowing its criminal justice system to amplify and entrench inequalities. That
means:
o Defining purposes for criminal justice priorities around the development and
maintenance of a just social order, as a shared goal across agencies (within and
beyond criminal justice);
o [Setting priorities for policing, prosecution and punishment that reflect a
proper assessment of the social harms that certain behaviours cause, rather
than targeting ‘the usual suspects’ (and the usual offences), AND of the social
harms that certain forms of punishment causes].
Stop allowing its criminal justice system to amplify and entrench inequalities. That
would entail:
o Making every effort the constrain the use of penal confinement and (then and
only then) the harms that it inevitably causes;
o Developing less exclusionary forms of penal control (if, and only if, we are
convinced that penal control is proportionate and necessary at all);
o Within the constraints of proportionality, adapting our forms of penal control
to reflect individual needs (and individual progress): find ‘the right response
for the right person at the right time’.
Ensure that its criminal justice organisations (police, prosecution, courts, prisons,
community justice, etc.) cultivate, reflect and practice certain values, respecting the
humanity of those with whom they work.
Prioritise cultural change in these organisations over continually reforming their
structures.
Measure and assess criminal justice performance in ways that:
o Reflect the central purposes of supporting the development of a more just
social order;
57
o Reflect and prioritise associated values… and do so across organisations to
enhance collective responsibility;
o [Collective responsibility for the success of ‘Looked After Persons’ in the care
of the state: nationally and locally].
Find new (and renew old) ways to motivate and mobilise all citizens to play a part in
re/integration through:
o Brave political and civil leadership in public debate (i.e. speaking up)?
o A public education campaign?
o Creating concrete opportunities for civic activism around ‘multilateral
integration’?
o Investing in establishing and sustaining vibrant, integrative communities (of
interest, of place, of practice) as hubs of collectivism?
ERWIN JAMES, AUTHOR AND JOURNALIST
The challenges of ‘requalifying’ as a citizen
Erwin James introduced his life story with exceptional honesty. He spoke about his own
difficult upbringing, his drift into petty, then serious crime, his fugitive years in the Foreign
Legion and the imposition of his Life sentence in 1984.
In a moving account he described that after the death of his mother in a tragic car crash, when
he was just seven years old, his life took a turn for the worse. The stability of his family life
steadily evaporated as his father became increasingly chaotic and violent through alcohol
misuse. His father embarked on a nomadic, peripatetic lifestyle and entered into a series of
relationships from which Erwin felt alienated. In his book “Redeemable: A Memoir of Hope
and Despair” he outlines how he became a thief and a liar, how his delinquent acts grew in
scale and intensity, how his offending behaviour led him to be sent into care, how he
absconded to wander the country hitchhiking and sleeping rough and how, as he got older,
alcohol started to become an issue for him too.
After committing the crimes for which he eventually received a Life sentence, he fled the
country and joined the French Foreign Legion where he said ‘he hid for two years’. While
the Legion gave him the stability and structure he craved, he felt his Legion persona to be a
charade and so, prompted by guilt, turned himself in voluntarily to the authorities to face the
charges for which he was sought. On being sentenced he disclosed an unanticipated sense of
relief - that his troubled and painful life on the outside was at an end. The pains of
imprisonment seemed more desirable than the pains of his previous existence, especially his
recognition of the pains he had caused others. However, in prison ‘time came to a standstill’
and ‘his head was full of shame and misery’.
He went to prison with, in his own words – ‘massive failings to overcome’ – and, by his own
admission, few apparent skills or abilities. Yet within six years, after encouragement from a
prison psychologist, he graduated from the Open University, gaining an arts degree majoring
in History.
58
Erwin described a slow and gradual process of rebuilding which was prompted by his
encounters with the prison psychologist who made him confront the painful truths of his past
in order to understand how they had shaped him from a young age. He began to face the
drivers and triggers that had pre-empted his deviant and criminal behaviour. The prison
psychologist Joan gave him the ‘tools to work himself out’. He enrolled in education classes
and excelled at English. As he began to read, absorb information and think, his self-belief
and self-worth increased and a sense of purpose returned.
His interest in writing continued to develop and his first article appeared in The Independent
in 1994. In 1995 he won first prize in the annual Koestler Awards for prose. In 2000 he
began writing a regular column - “A Life Inside” - for the The Guardian. The columns were
the first of their kind in the history of British journalism and he remains a Guardian columnist
and contributor.
Erwin’s closing point was that everyone was redeemable no matter how far they had fallen.
59
GROUP 6
Subject – What is Public Opinion; how is it formed; and how ‘punitive’ is it?
Objective – What factors influence public opinion on matters of crime, punishment,
prisons and reintegration?
Points to consider
What kinds of public dialogue and deliberation might better support moderation in the
penal debate?
How do we support public education so as to enable better informed attitudes to
punishment and reintegration?
“…media inspired penal populism in which the language of punitive discipline has
ideologically cemented the political elite with the wider population into a grim and emotional
desire for inflicting vengeful retribution on the ‘lesser breeds outside the law’.” Roy
Coleman and Joe Sim
The group was shown a number of statistics from the Bromley Briefings of Autumn 2015.
A statement was read from Michael Gove, Justice Secretary in July 2015:
“Prison is a place where people are sent as a punishment, not for further
punishments...Human beings whose lives have been reckoned so far in costs—to society, to
the criminal justice system, to victims and to themselves—can become assets— citizens who
can contribute and demonstrate the human capacity for redemption.” (Bromley Briefings,
Autumn 2015).
The group accepted that this was a powerful introduction of a prisoner being considered to be
an ‘asset’.
Public Acceptance
The group discussed the issue of public acceptance and felt that there had not been sufficient
thought given to that area. However, it was noted that, for example, the acceptance of ‘mini-
prisons’ and the new female estate is crucial for its success.
Public Opinion
It was suggested that a main driver of public opinion is in the way that the media reports
serious heinous crime and also how politicians respond to this.
What is public opinion?
It is difficult to understand what the ‘public opinion’ on certain matters actually is due to the
public often being asked superficial questions. It was felt that if thoughtful questions were
60
asked, thoughtful answers would be returned. Further, it was suggested that the public are
more liberal than newspaper headlines lead us to believe.
Prisoner Perspective of Release
The group discussed the idea that release from custody is a difficult time for many
individuals, some of whom may feel that this time is more difficult than it was when they
entered custody.
Arts
The idea of using the arts could be a positive way of showing the different perspectives of
those within custody and those around them in various capacities. One group member
discussed research that had been carried out which suggests that politicians often react to the
media in a certain way in terms of ‘coming down hard’ on criminals and the use of prisons,
however, this response differs from that which the public believe should be the case.
Additionally, it was felt that the media was not the main influencer of people’s perceptions,
rather, this was through talking to friends and family members.
The group noted that there are currently a number of documentaries on prisons. It was
suggested that this is a positive means to allow the public to see what work is happening, to
further understand the lives of some individuals who have been sentences, and to sell the idea
of hope within prisons along with the idea that real positive change can be achieved.
Community Feeling
The issue was raised that it may be the case that people do not feel that they are a part of a
community now. Additionally it was noted that there can be a general apathy towards prisons
and related issues until people are affected personally. In addition to the use of the arts to
portray stories and messages, it was suggested that social media could be utilised further to
deliver this information and to provide powerful imagery.
Perception that Crime is rising – inaccurate perceptions
With regard to the public perception of crime, the Bromley Briefings noted crime levels and
the fact that they have been dropping. Despite this, the number of people in prison has
increased.
Public Opinion
From further statistics within the Bromley Report the group suggested that, often, public
opinion was not informed by the facts; rather, it was by emotion. At times some are not
prepared to listen to the facts, such as the statement that, in general, crime is dropping.
People tend to be more fearful of crime. The group noted that perceptions were more
positive locally rather than on a national level with many being surprised at times when a
crime is committed, sometimes responding: “we never thought it would happen around here”.
Below are some of the facts discussed:
61
Crime is at its lowest level since surveying began in 1981 and is nearly two- thirds
(64%) lower than its peak in 1995.
Crime rates fell by 7% in the year ending March 2015.
Nearly three in five people (57%) thought that crime in England and Wales had gone
up ‘a little’ or ‘a lot’ in the past few years.
People have more positive perceptions of crime locally than nationally—just 29%
said they thought crime in their local area had increased.
One in ten adults surveyed said they were worried about burglary. However, the
likelihood of being burgled was low, with only 3% saying they had been burgled in
the last year.
11% of adults surveyed said they were worried about violent crime. However, less
than 2% of people had been a victim in the last year, half of which resulted in no
injury.
(Bromley Briefings, Autumn 2015)
The group recognised that the public are not a homogenous group and therefore different
communities required different actions. It was suggested that more use should be made of
case studies as, often, hearing the background stories of individuals leads to a change in
perception. It was added that politicians are perhaps not the right individuals to deal with this
issue due to levels of distrust of politicians.
The point was raised that former prisoners require to live within a community on release or to
obtain work placements whilst in open conditions, however, this is often met with a ‘not in
my back yard’ response, particularly in relation to sexual offenders. Further some employers,
such as Timpson’s are prepared to employ former ‘mainstream’ prisoners within their stores,
however, are not prepared to employ former prisoners with a sex offence history.
The importance of public opinion was thought to be high. Examples were cited of occasions
where SPS plans were altered due to the opinion of the public within local community areas.
Within HMP Grampian, individual living units were built with a surrounding wall due to the
public’s wishes for this to be the case. The name of HMP Low Moss was due to change to
HMP Bishopbriggs, however, due to the possibility that this may have driven down house
prices in the area, the change was not made.
The group suggested that the mind-set instead should be ‘if they are going to be my
neighbour I want them to be a good neighbour’.
Role for Prison to publicise itself within local communities
It was suggested that there could be a new role created where there is a dedicated
representative within the prison whose role involves meeting with the community locals and
businesses in order to spread the word about new initiatives within the prison and its aims and
achievements.
Public Opinion
It was important to recognise that the public have an opinion and that they are allowed to
express this - to ‘have a seat at the table’. SPS should be risk-takers when it comes to public
involvement. It was also felt that implementing some changes within prisons could involve
62
something of a negotiation process with the community. Distrust will be expected, but it is
important to allow for this rather than to ignore it. The idea of bringing the community in to
prisons and taking the prisons outside was raised. Additionally, where messages are
conveyed by a popular member of the community, there will be a greater likelihood that these
will be listened to and considered. The group agreed that it was important that information is
‘framed’ in a relevant way and is delivered to a specific audience.
63
GROUP 7
Subject – ‘A robust and consistent body of research has provided strong evidence that
political factors have more influence on high imprisonment rates than crime does’.
(Scotland’s Choice 2008)
Objective: Is it really possible to secure/influence political buy-in for penal change in
light competing electoral, social and economic priorities?
Points to consider
How do we engage appropriately and constructively in informed debate and influence
future political priorities on prisons and incarceration?
Can effective public service partnership delivery be used to influence and change
prevailing ‘risk averse’ penal policy and practice?
“It is essential to the future success of Scotland’s public services that all stakeholders now
work together in an urgent, sustained and coherent programme of reform of how Scotland
delivers public services.” Sir Campbell Christie
Overarching the ideas discussed in the group was the view that politicians react to the public
as they need their votes. When in office they only have 5 years to make a difference and they
are scared to be too radical in case it jeopardises their re-election. It was considered that
politicians tend to rebalance the message when they take a “soft” approach to penal policy in
one area by taking a harsher stance in another: for example, taking a gentler approach with
women in custody while removing automatic early release.
Risk versus Trust
“Risk” was considered a powerful word that captures the public imagination and results in a
disproportionate response. It was considered that there is a “risk averse approach” embedded
in the system. One particular example given of this was the McLeish report which mentioned
the word risk over 80 times. Even in reports considered progressive the language of risk
prevails. This risk dimension, risk language and language of quantification was viewed as
taking away professional discretion and leaving no room for creative ideas. The language of
risk was viewed as obscuring other language, for example, the language of trust. The view
was taken that the risk averse approach should be replaced with a trust approach. It was felt
that there were few ways for individuals in custody to demonstrate their trustworthiness. The
only way to find out if someone is trustworthy is to trust them. Opportunities for this need to
be available.
When prisons which adopt a trust based approach are compared to those with a focus on risk
the trust prisons appear more successful. There is more violence in the risk-focused prisons.
Trust seems to reduce risk. This makes risk aversion self-perpetuating. In trust-focused
prisons staff make a deliberate effort to try to get close to prisoners and show them that they
believe they have potential. These prisons try to find potential and nurture it. This can
involve moving prisoners if they do not get on one hall. In the trust prisons prisoners’ are
64
able to talk together about sensitive subjects such as religion. Furthermore, staff feel more
confident in being upfront with prisoners which is something that seems to be valued by all
parties.
We also need to consider trust with serious offenders, not just the “easy cases”. Long term
prisoners should be viewed as potentially trustworthy rather than potentially risky. Long
termers who will be released will need to be trusted, so we do need to be bold and focus on
the extreme cases too.
The perception that risk management protects the public was discussed. It was felt that
public leaders needed to communicate that this does not protect public safety. However, we
should not assume politicians and the public are committed to a risk approach. Mr McAskill
re-election after the Megrahi’ release was given as an example of bold decisions being taken
and accepted. Perhaps a reduced focus on risk is also something politicians and the public
could get behind.
The Public Understanding of the Population
High profile cases shape the public understanding of the prison population. There was felt to
be a disproportionate response to the rare very serious cases. The criminal justice system
generally gets it right, but when it gets it wrong that comes to the fore. For example, there is
always extensive media coverage when something goes wrong at the Open Estate. The
perception of crime was not considered to correlate with realities. We need to reduce the fear
of crime not just reduce crime itself. Opening the prison gates to the public was viewed as a
way of doing this as the public would get a clearer picture of what those in custody are really
like.
Opportunity for Cross-party Summit
It was suggested there was a window of opportunity now to hold a cross-party summit. This
would involve politicians from various parties as well as academics and other stakeholders
meeting to discuss the best approach to penal policy. This is something done in Norway
already - a summit is held on with policy makers, offenders, criminal justice staff, etc. and is
viewed as one of reasons they have managed to keep prison numbers down. Staff in the
prison service and wider criminal justice system subscribe to the philosophy that prison
should be used to make better neighbours. Getting everyone on board with this same
ideology has had a positive impact in Norway, so is something we might try to replicate here.
It would be better to tackle these issues now and try to get everyone on the same page while
the subject is less emotive. There was an opportunity now to do something bold. In the
plenary session there was particular support for this idea and it was added that it was
important for this summit to be visible and include those not normally involved.
The Importance of Community
Another theme that emerged strongly from discussions was the importance of community. In
democratic societies criminal justice should be used as a last resort, not as a way to “shore
up” communities. Therefore, it was as important to build better communities in Scotland so
that the criminal justice system would be less heavily relied upon. The criminal justice
system should not be required to make communities feel safe, trust has to be built in those
65
communities. Government through criminal justice was considered to be becoming the norm
and it was considered that communities should be empowered to rebel against this and insist
the strength be in the community, not in the system. Resources in the community are needed
to build this strength. It was felt that those within communities needed to get to know each
other and to that end community centres, youth clubs, etc. should be utilised more. Such
facilities suffer most when cuts are made, but it was believed solutions lie with these services
rather than within the criminal justice system.
It was important people in the community see prisons doing well. This will make them feel
more positively about investment in prisons, like when communities see the good done by a
new hospital and support its development. In order to do this it was felt necessary to make
the prison walls permeable. Letting the public in to a prison to interact with those in custody
(without allowing it to become a zoo) was viewed as a way of making the prison part of the
community and encouraging communities to feel a sense of ownership of the prison. Another
specific suggestion made to make prison part of the community was to base a community
library in prison and have those in custody work there. This provides community facing
work for some of those in custody and could improve the public perception of prisoners.
The Use Made of Prison
There is now much less crime recorded yet more business going through the system. The
system was viewed as creating its own demand. A reduction in the numbers in custody is
required. Community sentences were viewed as working well and helped people more than
short prison sentences. With the political climate at the moment, a presumption against short
sentences could be implemented though there was some dubiety about how successful this
would actually be. There was also some cynicism as reducing prison numbers has been a
goal for many years – even decades apart people are repeating the same conversations. The
view was taken that reduction in one area of the prison population is generally met with an
opposite trend in another part of the population. However, it was acknowledged that
sentencing was a politically difficult issue of which opposition parties take advantage.
Partnerships and Projects
Public service partnerships or arrangements made between SPS and externals for those newly
released from custody can be great to get people started, but it is difficult to make this support
last. It was important to enable appropriate partnerships and make the roles of those involved
clear. Many of the projects used in custody and on release were viewed positively, but it was
felt that different projects work for different people. Because of this acknowledgement that
not everyone is the same, it was suggested that more, smaller scale projects be utilised.
Rather than adopting one large project and applying it across the board, smaller groups could
be matched to the most appropriate project for them.
66
GROUP 8
Subject – Re-integration and ‘creating capabilities’.
Objective: How can communities and civil society better support reintegration? How
can we challenge ‘othering’ and the ‘cancellation of citizenship’?
“The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them” Ernest Hemingway
Points to consider
1. The challenge of throughcare support – ‘What can each returning individual be
enabled to do and to be?’
2. How do we scale up the support of civil society institutions (business, social
enterprise, media, faith groups, volunteering) etc. in providing opportunities for
reintegration?
3. How do we mobilise ordinary citizens and community groups to support
reintegration? How and to what extent can people with convictions themselves
mobilise in their collective interests?
“To expect people whose lives have been characterised by the structural inability to assume
responsibility for non-trivial relationships and events for extended periods to suddenly turn
this situation on its head overnight because they are now formally free to do so, surely rates
as one of the most bizarre and unrealistic social experiments in penal practice. Learning to
be responsible, just like learning to do crime, takes time. It takes practice and, just as
critically, it requires a willingness on behalf of so-called mainstream networks to place their
trust in persons afflicted by severely depleted levels of social and symbolic capital.” Mark
Halsey
Beth Weaver presented on models for reintegration – this presentation featured her work
looking at Co-operative models in Italy.
Co-operatives:
Co-operatives are different to social enterprises because everyone involved has ownership
and a say. Co-operatives in Italy have a legal requirement to engage with and invest in the
community they work with – many work with people released from prison.
In a Co-op all members have a (mostly) equal say on spending, investment and business
direction. This membership is really important – the success of the Co-op is a shared
responsibility.
In the Italian Co-operative model around 15% of members are defined as socially
disadvantaged. Their time working in the Co-op demonstrates their reliability and ability to
67
work. There is throughput, but people can often get support for up to 3 years and then move
to a job with the Co-op.
In the Co-op you can build up to work. There is slack in the system so people do not have to
work full time and full capacity immediately. You can still earn money and have self-
respect.
Sacro has made contact with a Scottish national setting up a Co-operative in Italy. Several
other members of the group discussed how important it was for organisations in criminal
justice to work with diverse groups – “We don’t want to just to work with people we already
work with”. They also discussed the need to look beyond Scotland – the Italian Co-
operatives being an example of international good practice.
One of the reasons the Co-operative model works in Italy is that there are tax breaks and
preferable consideration of Co-ops in allocation of contracts by the state. The group
wondered whether there need to be incentives (tax breaks, preferential allocation of
government contracts) in order for a similar model to flourish in Scotland.
Many Co-ops provide temporary accommodation until a new member is ready to get
accommodation of their own.
Custody alternatives
The group discussed alternatives to prison:
“Prison doesn’t need to involve walls – we can use technology to have a virtual prison”
“Can we restructure sentences so people can maintain jobs, family links, and contacts with
community?”
Employment
The group discussed employment in prison, out of prison and pay in prison.
Peter Van Sand discussed how in the Netherlands companies that had work done by prisoners
(in prison contracts) had to employ ex-prisoners. He said that as he asked companies to
employ ex-prisoners the prison service itself also had to employ ex-prisoners or look
hypocritical asking others to do what it would not do itself.
The group discussed how it could be seen as hypocritical for the Scottish Prison Service to
ask businesses to employ ex-prisoners when it would not employ them itself. The group
discussed how private organisations have a corporate responsibility – but asked whether there
was sufficient financial/business benefit to employing ex-prisoners?
Criminal records disable people from getting into employment or re-joining their community
– what kind of balance could be created to provide incentives to employ people.
The group discussed the prison wage:
68
“How do we justify paying people 50p a day in prison? They should be paid as they would be
community.”
Examples were given of alternatives in the Netherlands where people are paid a realistic
wage - they get a weekly allowance in jail and the rest is saved in an account for release.
“Why don’t prisoners get paid a minimum wage? What if the prison service employed
people?”
What sort of wage should people get when phasing into work - in Sweden the minimum wage
is provided in Co-ops until a person ready to move on.
Incentives would need to be offered in order for business, Co-ops, and social enterprises to
employ more ex-prisoners. Employment law is not devolved so changes would have to
involve discussion with the national government. The group thought additional devolution
may be necessary in order to improve employment opportunities for people who have been in
prison.
Community support
The group spoke about community support networks – formal and informal with community
as a mode of connection rather than a specific place or group. They spoke of the how
importance of being aware of what a community already has – how asset mapping can help
people understand what is available. New services should be co-produced with communities
– so that it is something the community want and will use.
The group also talked about professionalism – how it has potential, but can also be a
problem:
Pluses - Knowledge develops, skills, prestige;
Minuses - Rehabilitation becomes the job of these workers and the people supported become
users/consumers of services.
The variation in individual ability and risk was also discussed – ‘Not everyone can go into
peer mentoring roles’. There are issues around funding to bridge the gap between what a
private partner needs in order for employing ex-prisoners to become attractive. An example
was also given of an industry where skills were more important that someone’s past such as
the construction industry which was more interested in people having the necessary skills.
Complex issues
“Some people have such complex issues – they don’t want a job or have experience – in a
Co-op model you can elicit whatever contribution a person can give and support that person.
People feel part of a shared enterprise rather than a recipient of a service.”
“There needs to be policy change so people won’t lose their home if they get a job.” Several
members of the group spoke about how, if people went into supported accommodation on
release, getting a job would likely lead to them having to leave their accommodation. This
69
was because the supported accommodation costs were so high that if you no longer received
benefits you could not afford to stay.
“Hostels are often so expensive that if you get a job and lose benefits you lose your home.”
“Short term prisoners – many aren’t losing jobs and houses because they didn’t have them.
Some of them aren’t community ready let alone ‘job ready’. We have to help people feel like
part of community.”
70
GROUP 9
Subject – Can prison really make a positive difference?
Objective: Facing challenging ‘realities’. Can prison ever really have an impact on
community factors (post release) beyond its (apparent) control?
Points to consider
Are there intrinsic limitations to the role of prisons in improving the chances of post
release ‘success’ for the retuning citizen?
Is it realistic to expect prisons to influence the social justice agenda?
“…it is difficult to imagine how prisons can contribute significantly to positive offender
outcomes, far less ameliorate the further deprivations which are subsequently carried back
into the communities already burdened by high levels of disadvantage and social insecurity
and where the extra capacities required of communities for successful resettlement in terms
of tolerance, acceptance and inclusion are a tall order”. Jackie Tombs and Laura Piacentini
Laura Piacentini began by posing a number of questions: What would measurement look
like? How should we capture human narrative? How can we weave a human rights story
into prison discourse? Is there any synergy and commonality between Russia and Scotland?
(Her area of study).
What do we mean by ‘successes in prison? Is it all about good relations? Prisoners have to
engage in complex relationships; officers are ‘socially excluded’ in a way. Environmental,
relational and institutional needs limit success due to disconnect.
Is there a social justice agenda to prisons? Can there ever be? Can an officer be socially
just? Is there a connection between social justice and human rights in custody? When does a
complaint become about rights?
Prisons as places have an emotional quality - where the building and approach to jails and
punishment is inscribed in the DNA of the prison and cultural attitudes of staff. Cultural
DNA of society at large also has an influence on prisons. Scotland’s zeitgeist is committed to
reform and social justice and there is a general acceptance that prisons need to change; this
needs to be achieved through a rights based agenda.
How can we measure a successful prison? How can we create synergy between justice and
human rights without sacrificing the essential prison duties? How can this be reconfigured?
The Russians missed a step in understanding the purpose of prisons.
As prisons grow then freedom shrinks. Prisons represent social failure and we should accept
collective responsibility. At the time of the Megrahi release - Salmond spoke about penal
values and tried to set such an agenda.
71
When the SPS visited the penal estate in Norway and Iceland they were surprised by the
belief that Anders Breivik was socially created and there was sorrow that society had let him
down. We need to convince Scottish society to accept such views, which admittedly will be a
hard task. We too often pathologize the individual as a ‘monster’, but there is also collective
ownership. How do we come to a socially collective responsibility? Of course, we recognise
that such ‘collective discourse’ would not be well received by the public. We need to frame
the discourse, so not to absolve the individual of responsibility.
People do not really think about prison, so have an immediate response that tends to be
reactionary. If they reflected more, then their thoughts could become more nuanced. We
need to instigate discourse to provoke thought. As a society, we need to see prisoners as
people; when we do we start to understand and shift ownership of problems in society.
Can prisons make a difference? Yes, but to what? Society? Individuals? The public are ill
informed and lack awareness of what goes on inside a prison - out of sight and out of mind.
Is it the duty of the penal system to point outwards? And then invite people to accept the
responsibility for “their” prison?
We should sell positive changes by appealing to the future - what we are trying to do is to
prevent further victims. How do we address the hopelessness experienced by prisoners? We
need to allow space to discuss victims within the prison system. There exists a deep and
profound loneliness in prison, the main job of the prison system should be to reconnect
people. Recidivism rates tend to be the accepted measure. Alternative measures about
desistance are needed, even if these are proxy measures around desire to change.
Can prisons ever do it all? Prisons don’t want to become an advert for how to solve all
society’s ills or else they will be victims of their own success and judges will send more
people to prison.
The prison system cannot be successful if it continues to be infused by neoliberal economics.
It would be better if we can we measure ‘value’ instead of ‘success’. The difference prison
can have on an individual is more meaningful. We need to get away from the sense that
prisons are successful or not. What can people get out of the experience? How can we
measure the indefinable human change? How can we measure the difference that has been
made?
A human rights agenda in prison can work. Where prisoners are considered ‘of us’ and ‘with
us’. There is an implicit identification with human rights in Norway, but contested in
England and Wales - we should press discussion on human rights and fuel the debate. We
should empower prisons to become a place of rights. However, this does run the risk of
creating a ‘claim culture’.
Having a rules based approach in prisons can present barriers to relationships, as they are
negative and set limits. Rules and regimes start with a proposition of negativity. Let us try
value driven, softer more intangible measures of how people feel such as hope and sense of
possibility. Can we create narrative ways to find out how people feel within themselves?
Nonetheless, we cannot shy away from quantitative measurement as it is good for staff
morale (although we still risk a ‘51’ being better than ‘50’ mentality). Relationships need to
72
be brought to the fore so we need to take account of people’s stories. It is people, staff and
behaviours that reduce reoffending; that matters and these user’s voice stories can underpin
harder quantitative success rates.
Crime is harmful and can be horrific. Seeing offenders as citizens comes back to the societal
DNA - what does society want for itself? We need a sense of who we are as a people to do it.
There is a sense of this social cohesion in Norway which is not yet apparent in any of the UK
jurisdictions.
What if?
What if prison rules were replaced by bill of rights charter? What if there was a process of
drawing up a bill of prisoners’ rights in a collaborative fashion between staff, prisoners and
visitors?
What next?
What is in our gift? What is within our reach? We should work up and draft a constitution
based on rights to replace constraining rules. If we are all protected by the charter, then a
collective sense that we are all in it together is promoted.
Measurement?
What impressions are we making on others? This perhaps needs to be captured through
emotional feedback.
73
GROUP 10
Subject – A manifesto for ‘custody, community and citizenship for 21st century
Scotland’.
Objective: How do we create ‘spaces for change’ and community solidarity for a ‘fairer
society: fairer justice’?
Points to consider
What would be in a future ‘fairer society; fairer justice’ manifesto for change?
How are aspirations to be translated into a concrete ‘roadmap’ to change?
“This country is a paradoxical tapestry of rich resources, inventive humanity, gross
inequalities, and persistent levels of poor health and deprivation. Against that backdrop, the
public services of the future must not only continue to provide a safety net for the vulnerable,
but make a coherent contribution to a stronger, healthier, economically viable and more
equitable society.” Sir Campbell Christie
Community and Engagement
Individuals and communities need to be involved to a greater extent in criminal justice. By
empowering the public to involve themselves, we can overcome some of our major
organisational issues such as lack of accountability, top-down governance and short-term
agendas driven by performance concerns.
The question was asked: what are the wider community interests not being represented in
prisons? Although no answer was given, this was recognised as a key gap in our
understanding of communities and their role in the prison system. Given the idea of
citizenship-involvement, there is an imperative for SPS to ask communities what their
priorities are when SPS sets its own. This would facilitate and encourage local involvement,
and break down the perception, both internal and external, of the prison system as a
monolithic, remote national service.
We need to take steps to address the public’s penal punitivism. There is an emotive,
reactionary drive to exclude the other/the different, but it has been demonstrated that a better
understanding of individual offenders’ cases can engender a more measured, rehabilitative-
focussed response. We should be aiming to encourage community/citizen cohesion,
emphasising facets that bind us together rather than divide us.
This requires the involvement of alternative media to propagate new ideas and values to
counter traditional media responses to crime and punishment, in order to achieve a more open
and balanced conversation. Alternative media would also enable an equalised, non-top-
down, lateral exchange of knowledge and ideas, facilitating and encouraging greater public
involvement.
74
The reactionary, punitive response of the public is fuelled by a lack of understanding the
consequences of what they desire. Alongside a counter-narrative to punitivism, we need to
educate the public as to the costs/benefits of various penal responses.
Justice is too important a facet of society to be left to the judiciary alone. It needs to be a
civil institution, adopting a more public, citizen-alliance position.
While the aspiration is for nation-wide creation and support of communities to involve
themselves in prisons, this cannot be started on a macro-scale level. It is, in the words of the
group, about ‘lighting wee fires’, encouraging and empowering local groups to involve
themselves. Existing pockets must be nurtured – community builders and leaders already
exist. There is a need for a larger scope/strategy in order to nationally unify and help flourish
what are otherwise disparate pockets.
There was some debate as to whether we should seek to support and equip local councils to
become community leaders by promoting a more equalised form of democratic involvement,
or bypass them in favour of individuals who have arisen from the community itself:
community leaders as ‘activists’, emphasising the participative counterpoint to democratic
representation. However, it was recognised there was a need for standards for whatever local
individuals/officials/participation is envisaged and that these standards must be in line with
organisational/system values.
The appetite to become involved in crime and justice matters already exists in local
communities, under the guise of local problems. People will be willing to participate because
participation will empower them to seek and achieve their own solutions. This approach will
require closing the social distance between various stakeholders – judges, organisations,
citizens and offenders. It will also require greater mutual understanding, personalised
relationships, sympathetic emotions and both symbolic and practical support.
The group defined ‘community’ as about more than the concepts of safety and security – the
typical, divisive concept evoked by punitive/protective ideologies that seek to create an
us/them divide between the public and offenders. Community is about giving ex-prisoners a
space and importantly for other members, a chance to flourish.
Inter-Organisational Coordination
The group discussed the following as key values for prison: citizenship, care, compassion and
human flourishing.
Inspired by the proposals of the Christie Commission, the group argued that there is a need to
examine the macro-level response to offending and its social roots. As an issue this goes
beyond prison and social work as individual organisations and requires reform across the
entire criminal justice system.
There is a risk of criminal justice organisations undermining one another. In a system that
emphasises public involvement, there is an even greater need for the criminal justice system
to present a unified, rational face to communities, held together by shared values in order to
guide their action. Values have to be considered not only for an individual institution, but for
the whole system. It is not only thinking we need to join-up, but values and a unified
75
narrative for the offender, victims, families, communities and other stakeholders that the
criminal justice system envisages.
In involving additional partners, we should strive to bring in stakeholders beyond the ‘usual
suspects’. The question was raised: who would lead this unified, cross-institution effort to
develop and oversee values? There was also an emphasis that, if we are to work with other
organisations to develop such values, we must first learn each other’s languages.
Prison Values
It was suggested that we should reconsider the terminology of ‘offender’. We aspire, with a
desistance process, to enable an individual to achieve the status of a law-abiding citizen, but
the suspended status of ‘offender’ risks hampering that enablement.
Politics/policy rarely impacts the frontline of any organisation, including prisons. As one
group member phrased it, ‘culture eats policy for breakfast’, and it was recognised that if we
want to change practice, we need to effect a wholesale change in organisational culture, from
top to bottom.
If we are to emphasise the importance of community involvement in prisons, we must first
create an organisation that is willing to engage with communities and has both the inclination
and space to accommodate them.
Citizenship must become an expanded and defined ideology within prisons, both to enable
prisoners to become such, but also to understand what contribution members of the public
can make. We must understand the rights, relationships, resources, roles and responsibilities
that constitute our ideal citizen. We must promote positive visibility of prisons and prisoners
in order to engage the community.
The question was raised: what changes would local prisons require to become leaders at the
local level? And what relationships, at what levels, would be required?
Societal Focus
If we are to be serious about emphasising citizenship within the criminal justice system, we
need to envisage the larger life-picture that surrounds it as an issue. The criminal justice
system is only dealing with the tip of a socio-economic iceberg that requires health, housing,
education and other institutions to be involved if we are to develop and equip communities to
enable active citizenship.
We know, or at least between all our partners we know, what local resources communities
possess or require. We therefore require a common platform to enable not only the sharing of
these resources, but of knowledge, ideas and activities. If one council falls behind it can be
held accountable and/or aided, whereas if another council succeeds, its ideas can be
propagated.
Local resources can also assist us in translating desistance into action, by allowing us a
greater understanding and utilisation of local resources (such as housing, charities, education)
in a bottom-up, assistance/cooperation model of problem solving.
76
77
CLOSING ADDRESSES
MICHAEL MATHESON MSP, CABINET SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Mr Matheson took the opportunity to thank the many distinguished contributors who had
made themselves available for these proceedings, the Scottish Prison Service for hosting the
occasion and the Universities and Scottish Government for supporting its organisation.
The Symposium had built on a very successful event last year during which new radical
approaches to managing Women in Custody were discussed. In Scotland there was a real
commitment to a radical reappraisal of penal thinking and commitment to shifting the mind-
set of what custody should be about in 21st century Scotland.
Mr Matheson remarked that last year, on coming into his role as Cabinet Secretary for
Justice, he felt he was stepping into an ‘echo chamber’ within which so many voices over so
many years had called for penal reform, especially for women in custody. In response, he
had taken the decision to embark on a bold and imaginative path for small scale community
custody settings for women. However, Scotland still faced considerable challenges in how it
used its prisons and voices continued to be raised as to why our rate of incarceration remains
stubbornly high in comparative international terms.
This Symposium had been a real opportunity to debate not only how we use prisons in
Scotland, but also why we use prison as punishment. There was an exciting chance to do
things differently in Scotland by re-examining the nature and purpose of our penal
institutions and practices. Social and health inequalities were evident in much of our prison
population and policy with young people now involved a raft of early interventions. A
similar approach was required for the adult population.
Mr Matheson recognised that there are many serious offenders who required to be in custody
for lengthy periods for the safety and protection of public and to manage and control their
risk of perpetrating further harm. Nonetheless, extensive research had shown that prison was
not necessarily the best or most effective disposal for a significant proportion of those
currently incarcerated – the homeless; the addicted; the mentally ill; the inadequate; the
disadvantaged.
The prison estate needed to be fit for purpose and the Service had made great strides in recent
years in providing improved accommodation through new build jails and refurbishment. The
continuing modernisation of the penal estate had helped to transform the physical landscape
of prisons, improving the custodial environment.
However, it was not simply a question of a brighter, healthier and more modern buildings.
Prisons also needed to be fit for purpose to support a socially just approach to the people in
custodial care through constructive regime provision and positive opportunities for self-
improvement. It was our objective in Scotland to assist those on the journey back to the
community acquire the ability to cope, achieve health and well-being and embrace a positive
outlook in relation to family stability, employment opportunities and pro-social citizenship.
Desistance was a central objective.
78
Working together across Government, SPS, the Universities and partner agencies in Local
Authorities and the Third Sector, the collective challenge was to create real opportunities for
all in custodial care to help them make life-changing and life-improving choices.
Mr Matheson was determined for Scotland to be in the vanguard within the international
community in developing imaginative penal policy predicated on social justice. There was a
need to break down social barriers in Scotland through a collaborative approach to tackling
inequality and promoting social justice. We are short of succeeding as a society when we
continue to have one of the highest rates of imprisonment in Western Europe. Commitment
was needed to change society‘s attitudes to incarceration though collective voices promoting
a more enlightened and evidence based approach.
Mr Matheson was confident we would learn from the Symposium deliberations and that they
would help us to find new, imaginative and innovative ways to address the needs of those in
custody, their families and their communities and in so doing, help us to create a safer, fairer,
more inclusive and more just Scotland.
COLIN MCCONNELL, SPS CHIEF EXECUTIVE
The Chief Executive said that bold ideas had emerged from Symposium proceedings and that
participants had risen to the challenge in arguing for a rational debate on the role of prisons in
Scotland and. He thanked all who had contributed so imaginatively to the discussions
throughout the Symposium. The next task was to start to deliver change.
The group discussions considered the many problems which beset that section of the
population sent into custody – from the social inequalities and injustice’s experienced in
‘communities of fate’ to the challenges we faced in creating new ‘spaces for change’ and
instilling community solidarity to support returning citizens.
A key point to emerge was that desistance in the long term would only be only possible if an
individual could move into a new identity – not just that of ‘ex-offender’. If that new identity
was not reflected in others’ eyes then it would be difficult for the individual to believe in it.
Maintaining a positive identity on release was a key challenge.
The main task of the Symposium was to examine social inequalities reflected in, and
reproduced by, the penal system and to consider whether and how a future penal system
might challenge and disrupt these inequalities. The Symposium deliberations had led to a
series of propositions for change. Although the Symposium was closing, that should not be
seen as the end. On the contrary, it was the beginning of new and challenging conversation.
Everyone in the room had a role to play in spreading the messages emerging from the
proceedings and it was incumbent on all to continue to advocate and argue for a social justice
approach as to how we use our prisons in Scotland. This was an opportunity to change things
for the better and we really need to believe that we can make a difference.
A fundamental role of prison was to help people in custodial care maximise opportunities
through building upon their strengths and assets to equip them to face their personal
challenges and achieve their goals through becoming an active, pro-social citizen.
79
If we were to assist people we needed to help them help themselves. We needed to involve
them in shaping their own future through the decisions they take and the choices they make.
We needed to think and work collectively to give returning citizens the support they required
to make a go of it.
So our thinking in Scotland could have a real and dramatic impact and we needed to continue
to push at boundaries.
Mr McConnell thanked everyone involved in organising the Symposium and everyone who
had given their time to attend.
THERESA MEDHURST
Mrs Medhurst closed the conference by thanking everyone for their attendance and their
insightful and thought-provoking contributions. She was especially grateful to those who had
travelled considerable distances from overseas.
The next steps would be to reflect on the Symposium discussions and produce a record of
proceedings and a ‘manifesto for change’.
Mrs Medhurst extended particular thanks to:
The Symposium plenary Chair – Gill Robinson.
Guest Speakers - Lesley McAra, Alison Phipps, Erwin James and Fergus McNeill.
Scottish Government and SPS Speakers - Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Michael
Matheson and Chief Executive, Colin McConnell.
Group leads and Discussants - Rod Earle, Yvonne Gailey, Anna Schliehe, Sarah
Armstrong, Kirstin Anderson, Marguerite Schinkel, Briege Nugent, Jamie Bennett,
Alison Liebling, Jim Kerr, Beth Weaver and Rhona Hotchkiss.
Organising Committee - Colin McConnell, Neil Rennick. Gill Robinson, Kirstin
Anderson, Laura Piacentini, Graham Leicester, Richard Sparks, Fergus McNeill and
Sarah Armstrong.
Scribing Unit - Stuart Henderson, Emma Heffernan, Mhairi Gavin, Griff Williams
and Kirstin Leath.
Conference Team - Tom Fox, Rebecca Wright, Jo Watt, Karen Copland, Janice Reid
and the Staff of Speakeasy Productions.
Conference Co-ordinating Manager - Jim Carnie
80
81
ANNEX 1
DAY 1 FEEDBACK SLIDES
GROUP 1: SOCIAL INEQUALITIES AND EXPERIENCES OF THE PENAL
SYSTEM
Consensus
1. Significance of Kilbrandon Philosophy
2. Public Expectations
3. Shared Responsibility
Disagreement
1. Points of Intervention
2. Custody as Last Resort or ‘Appropriate’
Propositions
1. We should move from an indicator-driven performance culture to a value-driven one.
2. We need to harness inclusivity/participation and human rights for a socially just society.
3. We need to decide whether prison is a sanction of last resort. Our actions then need to be
consistent with that decision.
GROUP 2: USES AND ABUSES OF PENAL CONFINEMENT
Consensus
1. Inappropriate uses of prison as replacement of welfare state and prison to punish poverty
2. Prison (spaces and institutional dynamics) is intrinsically damaging
3. Sentencers need to have ‘skin in the game’
Disagreement
1. Role of emotions
2. Ability to mitigate control
3. Weight of public opinion
4. victim/offender nexus
5. Youth culture/diversion as causes of declining populations
Propositions
1. DO NO HARM – different than doing good
Confinement innately disempowering and excluding: working towards less exclusionary
forms of penal control
2. Raising the age of criminal responsibility to 18
82
3. Right response to the right people: no prison for those who don’t need it and support and
aftercare for those who do;
GROUP 3: POSITIVE IDENTITIES, CUSTODY AND RELEASE
Consensus
1. Every interaction matters
2. Relationships
3. Bringing outside in
4. Humanising
5. Pockets of normality
Disagreement
1. Role of the judiciary
2. Public punitiveness
Propositions
1. Are we as welfarist as we think we are (if so, why are we failing)?
2. What is the reality of what we are returning people to?
3. How do we change the way in which people who have left prison are viewed?
GROUP 4: THE USE AND MISUSE OF MEASUREMENT IN PENAL PRACTICE
Consensus
1. “Key” PI language wrong
2. Balance qualitative/quantitative outcomes
3. Positive opportunity of measurement
4. User voice- human narrative
5. Local vs Central
Disagreement
1. Influence over outcomes
2. Local vs Central
Propositions
1. Measurement needs to capture the human narrative.
2. Measurement needs to include prisons’ place in upholding of social order.
3. Should consider moral culture of practice, challenging areas of inertia or prejudicial
approach.
4. Should include cross organizational “joined up justice” approach.
83
GROUP 5: LIFE TRANSITIONS, INCLUSION AND PATHWAYS TO DESISTANCE
Propositions (1)
1. It’s all about community. Community is more than a place, it is more than statutory or
even voluntary input – it’s a manner of relating or an experience of belonging. It’s about
ensuring that everyone (not just people coming out of prison) has somewhere where their
lived experience is heard and valued. It has to include the possibility for all involved to
contribute.
2. Allowing these ‘communities’ to flourish requires vision, commitment, collaboration and
a preparedness to take risks. This has to come from Scottish Government and be
replicated at every level below.
3. The vision of community can only be operationalised through collectivism; that
collectivism has to include an acceptance of the need for accountability. Government at
all levels has to incentivise and support accountability. Without accountability and
collectivism there will be no sustainability.
Propositions (2)
1. Acknowledge individual needs, ‘desistance’ isn’t a class or a programme that you do
and that’s it.
2. Treat ‘prisoners’ as fellow human beings. Give them the chance to become/behave/be
ordinary people. Be ambitious about how local communities can respond. Why not – e.g.,
welcome packs, rooms for returning citizens.
3. Comprehensive/ongoing public education/discussion about redemption or
requalification or recovery or rehabilitation. Talk about language and attitudes that need to
change and lead to change.
4. Care – Connectivity – Community – Courage
DAY 2 FEEDBACK SLIDES
GROUP 6: WHAT IS PUBLIC OPINION? HOW IS IT FORMED? HOW
‘PUNITIVE’ IS IT?
1. Courage for public, prison service and prisoners;
2. Conversation on different levels, public opinion not homogenous: national & local;
3. Negotiation - allow for distrust & emotion;
4. Greater exchange communities & prison – dedicated liaison staff/volunteers
5. Introduction of champions, social media, documentaries, arts – make it personal;
6. Focus on communities affected (prisons & return).
GROUP 7: IS IT REALLY POSSIBLE TO SECURE/INFLUENCE POLITICAL BUY-
IN FOR PENAL CHANGE IN LIGHT OF COMPETING ELECTORAL, SOCIAL
AND ECONOMIC PRIORITIES?
What if?
84
1. Risk Dominance became Trust Dominance;
2. Both the political leaders and public had a more proportionate understanding of who was in
prison;
3. We seized the window of opportunity right now that exists in Scotland where crime is not a
major party political driver and manifestos are not directly opposing;
4. We gave greater ownership of prisons to the local communities where they are situated.
What next?
1. Prisons shaped on an ‘intelligent trust model’;
2. Defuse with data the myth that ‘red top’ propaganda on high profile cases represents all
prisoners;
3. Hold a cross party summit that includes community members, people with convictions,
policy makes, professionals and academics to have a vibrant discussion on how we tackle
more minor crimes and have community ownership;
4. Communities / Local Authorities consider and are charged with community usage of prison
buildings that is a shared community facility and prisoners are involved in its operation.
Challenge): Allowing these “communities” to flourish requires vision, commitment,
collaboration and a preparedness to take risks. This has to come from Scottish Government
and be replicated at every level.
GROUP 8: HOW CAN COMMUNITIES AND CIVIL SOCIETY BETTER SUPPORT
REINTEGRATION? HOW CAN WE CHALLENGE “OTHERING” AND THE
“CANCELLATION OF CITIZENSHIP”?
What if?
1. Living wage;
2. Incentives to employment;
3. Unintended consequences (home);
4. Stigma, shame;
5. Appropriate training.
What next?
1. Savings for release;
2. Prison leading by example;
3. Policy change;
4. Mutual aid and opportunities;
5. Co-op model and linking.
GROUP 9: CAN PRISON EVER REALLY HAVE AN IMPACT ON COMMUNITY
FACTORS (POST RELEASE) BEYOND ITS (APPARENT) CONTROL?
What if?
85
1. Prison rules were replaced by a bill of rights for all who live in, work in and visit prisons?
2. We could extend that rights instead of rules approach to the whole criminal justice system?
3. Used the language of emotion in prisons- concentrating on what and how people feel?
4. In addition to measuring differently and measuring different things we measured for a
different audience? i.e. people on the receiving end.
What next?
1. A ‘Constitution for Custody’- a rights based approach to imprisonment.
Challenge: Measurement needs to capture the human narrative.
Response
Our focus needs to be on terms like ‘feeling’, ‘hope’, ‘aspiration’ and ‘possibility’
Social cohesiveness is better than social order.
GROUP 10: HOW DO WE CREATE “SPACES FOR CHANGE” AND COMMUNITY
SOLIDARITY FOR A “FAIRER SOCIETY: FAIRER JUSTICE”?
What if?
1. Strong Collective Set of Values;
2. Narrative to Counter the ‘Punitive’;
3. Promoting the Community Leadership Role of Politicians, Public Sector Leaders and Civil
Society;
4. System that Enables a Personalised Approach;
5. Criminal Justice System Engaging with Communities alongside Health, Economic,
Education, Democratic Systems.
What next?
1. Develop Cross-Institution Values (Christie and CJ Reform);
2. Collaboration to Develop Narrative;
3. All CJ Partners Ensuring Leaders Engage Effectively with Communities Around an
Agreed Narrative (Standards?);
4. Applying the 5 Rs;
5. Commence Conversations Immediately.
Challenge: DO NO HARM – that’s different from doing good.
Response
Community Leadership is all of our responsibilities. We need to have the confidence to
challenge the punitive narrative and promote what brings us together rather than what sets us
apart.
86
ANNEX 2 - PROGRAMME
Reimagining Custody, Community and Citizenship for 21st Century Scotland
An international symposium hosted by the Scottish Prison Service
Edinburgh 2nd & 3rd June 2016
8.30-8.40 Briefing meeting for facilitators and
scribes
8.30-9.00 Registration
9.00 Welcome and Opening Theresa Medhurst
Director of Strategy and
Innovation, Scottish Prison
Service
First Minister of Scotland
(video address)
9.10 Chief Executive Welcome Colin McConnell
Chief Executive, Scottish Prison
Service
9.20 Culture – Scene setting Prof Lesley McAra – “Crime and
punishment in a small nation:
Why welfarism matters”
Prof Alison Phipps – “Working
towards multilateral integration –
some lessons from the refugee and
asylum experience”
10.20 Instructions and directions for groupwork
– outline of key themes; questions, tasks
Pre-recorded material from Radio
Barlinnie
Gill Robinson
10.30 Coffee
10.45 Session 1
Social inequalities and experiences of the
penal system
Group 1 Inequalities, ‘communities of
fate’ and social justice
Group 2 Uses and abuses of penal
confinement
Rod Earle
Anna Schliehe and Sarah
Armstrong
87
Group 3 Positive identities, custody and
release
Group 4 The use and misuse of
measurement in penal practice
Group 5 Life transitions, inclusion and
pathways to desistance
Marguerite Schinkel and Briege
Nugent
Jamie Bennett and Alison Liebling
Beth Weaver
12.45 Lunch
13.30 Session 2
Social inequalities and experiences of the
penal system (repeated)
Discussants, facilitators, scribes remain
with original group
Participants to sign up to groups at
morning registration and move to new
topic
15.15 Coffee
15.30 Groups feedback combined
(10 mins max + response time)
Group 1 morning & afternoon synthesised
Group 2 morning & afternoon synthesised
Group 3 morning & afternoon synthesised
Group 4 morning & afternoon synthesised
Group 5 morning & afternoon synthesised
Gill Robinson
17.00 Close for day
18.15 Bus leaves for Castle
19.00/19.30 Dinner
9.00 Introduction to Day 2 proceedings
Teresa Medhurst
9.05 Reflections on Day 1 proceedings
Fergus McNeill
9.15 Challenges – scene setting
Real challenges and experiences
Erwin James – “The challenges of
‘requalifying’ as a citizen”
88
9.35 Instructions and directions for Day 2
Gill Robinson
9.40 Groups - addressing challenges exercise:
‘What’s next?’ & ‘What if?’
Group 6 What factors influence public
opinion on matters of crime, punishment,
prisons and reintegration?
Group 7 Is it really possible to
secure/influence political buy-in for penal
change in light competing electoral, social
and economic priorities?
Group 8 How can communities and civil
society better support reintegration? How
can we challenge ‘othering’ and the
‘cancellation of citizenship’?
Group 9 Can prison ever really have an
impact on community factors (post
release) beyond its (apparent) control?
Group 10 How do we create ‘spaces for
change’ and community solidarity for a
‘fairer society: fairer justice’?
Erwin James
Sarah Armstrong
Beth Weaver
Laura Piacentini
Mark Smith
11.00 Coffee
11.15 Group Feedback (10 mins max + response
time)
12.40 Address from the Cabinet Secretary for
Justice
Closing remarks
Michael Matheson MSP
Colin McConnell
Teresa Medhurst
1.00 Lunch and end of Day 2
89
ANNEX 3
PARTICIPANTS
Alison Urie Vox Liminis
Bernadette Monaghan Volunteer Glasgow
Christian McNeill Elements of Wellbeing
Clubby X Scottish Prison Service
Colin McConnell Scottish Prison Service
Dina Aitken Howard League
Dr Anna Schliehe Cambridge University
Dr Beth Weaver Strathclyde University
Dr Breige Nugent Edinburgh University
Dr Carla Cesaroni Ontario University
Dr Cisca Joldersma Ministry of Justice, Netherlands
Dr Gill Robinson Scottish Prison Service
Dr James Carnie Scottish Prison Service
Dr Jamie Bennett HM Prison Service
Dr Kirstin Anderson Consultant
Dr Marguerite Schinkel Glasgow University
Dr Rod Earle Open University
Dr Sarah Armstrong Glasgow University
Emma Heffernan Scottish Prison Service
Erwin James The Guardian
Gordon Liddell Theatre Nemo
Griff Williams Edinburgh University
James Kerr Scottish Prison Service
Jane Moffat Scottish Government
Janice Reid Scottish Prison Service
Jim Farish HM Inspectorate of Prisons (Scotland)
Jo Watt Scottish Prison Service
Judith Robertson Scottish Human Rights Commission
Karen Copland Scottish Prison Service
Kerry Morgan Scottish Government
Kirsten Hawlitschek EuroPris
Kirstin Leath Scottish Prison Service
Lisa McKenzie Howard League
Lisa Taylor Scottish Government
Lord Bracadale High Court of Justiciary
Mark Smith Edinburgh University
Martin Cawley Turning Point, Scotland
Mhairi Gavin Strathclyde University
Michael Matheson Cabinet Secretary for Justice
Natalie Beal Scottish Prison Service
Neil Rennick Scottish Government
Ondine Tennant Scottish Sentencing Council
Pete White Positive Prisons
Peter Van Der Sande Ministry of Justice, Netherlands
90
Phil Fairlie Scottish Prison Service
Phil Thomas Scottish Prison Service
Prof Alison Liebling Cambridge University
Prof Alison Phipps Glasgow University
Prof Fergus McNeill Glasgow University
Prof Laura Piacentini Strathclyde University
Prof Lesley McAra Edinburgh University
Prof Nancy Loucks Families Outside
Rebecca Wright Scottish Prison Service
Rhona Hotchkiss Scottish Prison Service
Rob Strachan Scottish Prison Service
Stuart Henderson Scottish Prison Service
Stuart Pomfret Scottish Prison Service
Teresa Medhurst Scottish Prison Service
Tom Fox Scottish Prison Service
Tom Halpin Criminal Justice Voluntary Sector Forum
Tracey Curran Victim Support Scotland
Wayne Stevenson COSLA
Yvonne Gailey Risk Management Authority
91
ANNEX 4
PARTICIPANTS’ FEEDBACK
‘Inspiring, Challenging and Fruitful.’
‘This kind of seminar takes place too little.’
‘I liked the format very much. We had good discussions, good speakers and facilitators.’
‘Although the time was limited, we touched a lot of important issues that can play a role in
the changing of the penal policy in the future.’
‘Thanks for the invitation to be here. Happy to have this experience.’
‘Day one contained some really interesting and engaging discussion. My concern was that
they were very aspirational. My concern from day one was reduced and [the sessions]
provided confidence in the challenge ahead.’
‘Erwin was great and evidenced the power of the user voice.’
‘I am pleased that everyone I have spoken to has, more or less, the same agenda and ideas
about what is required to assist the people in our care to become responsible citizens in our
communities. We need to get the basics right; housing benefit, access to GP/Health Services
and housing.’
‘It has been a really positive event with so much rich contributions being made throughout. I
think some of the ideas that have been produced are very progressive and I hope we can use
these a platform for moving forward. I very much enjoyed it! Is there any chance you can
share the slides that were produced? The first two speakers were excellent.’
‘The symposium successfully created the context and opportunity for dialogue and creation
of a ‘common narrative’ on what the future of penal policy in 21st century Scotland must
consider and respond to. This now needs a common narrative to be shared with wider
audiences [other portfolios beyond justice], delivered by multilateral partners, organizations
and individuals who can provide ‘common’ leadership. Many thanks to SPS.’ Tom Halpin,
SACRO
‘Well organized. High level of debate (in terms of depth and quality), meaningful. Excellent
in terms of cross disciplinary nature of participants and level of knowledge and expertise of
speakers and facilitators.’
‘Productive!’
‘Always good to bring academics, practitioners and others together. Keeps it real, ambitious
and informed. People are much more reasoned in their observations and criticisms when the
object of them is sitting across the table from them. Let’s keep the connections going.’
92
‘Thank you again for the opportunity to think and speak ‘outside the box.’ It would be
encouraging to see, as part of the summary/conference report, a synopsis of what proposals
could and will be taken forward, along with a work plan as to how this might happen. What
will the timing be? Who might help? An action plan or manifesto would keep this from being
another ‘feel good’ event that disappears after a few weeks.’
‘The whole conference was superb particular the contributions from all SPS staff.’
‘I was struck by how engaged, thoughtful and participatory all who came here were.’
‘The Chief Exec was engaged in a meaningful way. However, the Cabinet Secretary should
really have been here for the duration. His absence was noticeable but I hope he takes on
board the ambitious recommendations.’
