145TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING
EXPERTS’
PAPERSVISITING
EXPERTS’ PAPERS

THE EFFECTIVE RESETTLEMENT OF OFFENDERSBY STRENGTHENING ‘COMMUNITY REINTEGRATION FACTORS’PART ONE
Steve Pitts*

I. INTRODUCTION
A. The Importance of Effective Resettlement
The effective resettlement of offenders is a critical matter – one that affects not only offenders, but their
victims, families and, directly and indirectly, communities and society as a whole.
Successful resettlement means fewer offences, fewer victims, more settled communities and the potential
for ex-offenders to contribute more beneficially to society. The benefits are not only personal and social:financially, in the United Kingdom, we have estimated the cost of offending by prisoners to be about £11billion per year. We also estimate that offending, and the response to offending, by one individual can be as
much as £1 million over a lifetime.
And yet we also know that it is possible to improve resettlement and reduce reoffending. Our mostrecent research shows that we can reduce reoffending by between 10 and 30%, against a predicted rate,according to the approach we take. We also know that what works best are approaches that:(i) improve offenders’ basic skills;(ii) improve employability (but note that improved employability must in turn lead to real jobs, and besustained); or that(iii) help offenders to think and see the world and their place in it more constructively and with hope.
Of course, in order to sustain employment people also need somewhere secure and stable to live.
By addressing effective resettlement through community reintegration, we are therefore addressing the
key issues. The number of prisoners with ‘criminogenic ’ employment and accommodation needs in Englandand Wales – that is, needs which research indicates are relevant to reoffending – are about 65% and 43%
respectively. But most offenders are socially disadvantaged and have multiple barriers to employment. Thisis an important issue for correctional services. But it is clearly also an important issue for others: criminal
justice agencies cannot solve employment and accommodation problems alone. We need to work withpartners – public, private and third sector. I want to talk about all three.
But first a personal note: I believe strongly in the power of partnership. I also extend that belief tointernational partnership. I observe that we appear to be witnessing an increase in the pace of developmentof work in justice – and much of that increase is led by sharing experience and learning across international
borders. We all want to improve the effectiveness of resettlement: this course was an excellent opportunity
to achieve this goal through sharing our approaches and our learning mutually.

B. Paper Overview
A word about the structure of my paper:(i) I would like to begin with an overview of my organization, the National Offender Management* Head of International Relations and External Programmes, National Offender Management Service, Ministry of Justice,England and Wales, United Kingdom.

3

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.82

Service, or NOMS – its aims and structure;(ii) I will follow this with a brief introduction to our partnerships in order to make the link between
partnerships and structure;(iii) Third, I will speak about the sentencing frameworks. Naturally these play a significant part inshaping the work that NOMS delivers;(iv) Next, the Reducing Re-offending Framework, which embraces the assessment of offender risks andneeds, case management and interventions;(v) All the foregoing provides the background and support for work on reintegration, social inclusion
and resettlement. We have invested a great deal of effort and energy in this direction. I would liketo expand on this area in the paper, speaking in some detail about developments I feel sure will
be of value and interest, including our ‘pathway’ approach to tackling offender reintegration andreoffending, and approaches to motivating change;(vi) Following a look at this broad picture I am going to focus on the crucial areas of employment andaccommodation;(vii) Next, I describe our partnerships in detail. I think you will be interested in our range of partners:
public, private and voluntary. I plan to discuss both strategy and policy and a good number of caseexamples illustrating different, challenging and I hope useful approaches;(viii) Finally, I will conclude with a brief look at some of our very latest developments. These are intended
to take us a significant step further in engaging and supporting communities in working together– to reduce reoffending and to increase reintegration. My last points will look at some trends inevaluation. I suggest it will become increasingly important in most of our countries, as we competeinternally for limited funds, to demonstrate our impact and our value for money.
The overall approach in this paper is therefore to start with the larger picture and then to moveprogressively to case examples and the detail.

II. THE NATIONAL OFFENDER MANAGEMENT SERVICE
A. What is NOMS?
The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) is new. It was created in April 2008 as an executive
agency of the Ministry of Justice with the goal of helping prison and probation services work together
effectively and efficiently to manage offenders throughout their sentences.
The Director General of NOMS is responsible to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justiceand sits on the Board of the Ministry, chaired by the Permanent Secretary. The responsibility of the NOMS
Agency, on behalf of the Secretary of State, is to deliver the sentences and orders of the courts of Englandand Wales by:•••commissioning adult offender services in custody and the community from public, private and third
sector organizations;providing the public prison service; andoverseeing the Boards and Trusts which provide the public probation services.

The Agency is responsible for ensuring the number of proven offences committed by adult reoffenders is
reduced by 10% between 2005 and 2011. By delivering this it will contribute to the wider Ministry of JusticeDepartmental Strategic Objectives which outline what the Ministry of Justice will deliver to the public by
2011.
In operating through providers and partners in the public, private and third sectors, NOMS endeavours tomanage offenders in an integrated way. What work needs to be done – and who does the work - is based onevidence and driven by ensuring value for money for the public.
NOMS manages offenders throughout both their custodial and community sentences, working witharound 260,000 offenders a year. We carry out prison sentences in England and Wales: there are 135
prisons, of which 124 are run by the public sector and 11 by private contractors. We also manage offenders
on community sentences, and provide services to offenders, victims, witnesses and the courts. There are

4

145TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

42 probation areas – areas which have recently become Trusts – a change designed to provide an increased
level of independence and clear accountability for delivery, whether by the Trust or through its partners.
NOMS aims to help offenders change their lives in order to reduce their chances of reoffending. NOMS
met or exceeded 27 of 28 national performance targets and the number of reoffences committed fell 11.1%
between 2005 and 2007. The number of reoffences classified as serious fell by 9.8% over the same period.
Like most government departments around the world we are required to make efficiency savings. We met
our £81 million efficiency savings target for 2008/09 with an even larger savings target of £171 million for
2009–2010.

B. Delivering to the Public
NOMS is an Agency of the Ministry of Justice. As such we are responsible for one of the four Departmental
Strategic Objectives (DSOs): DSO 3 – to protect the public and reduce reoffending. DSOs are in turn reflectedin NOMS’ responsibility to deliver two Public Service Agreements or PSAs:
The first is PSA 23 – Making Communities Safer. PSA 23 involves cross governmental priority action of
reducing reoffending through the improved management of offenders and involves a reoffending reduction
target of 10% by 2011.
The second is PSA 16. PSA 16 is to increase the proportion of socially excluded adults in settled
accommodation and employment, education or training. Significantly, this PSA is led by the Cabinet Office.
Note that both PSAs involve NOMS working together with other Government departments and are drivers forcollaboration. This collaborative approach is reflected in partnerships with other sectors which I will turn tolater.
NOMS manages the achievement of PSAs through delivering to annual targets for the employment ofoffenders under supervision, at termination of order or licence, and upon release. Targets are both numericand based on a percentage of orders: for example, last year we were required to ensure that 14,430 offenders
under supervision in the community found, and sustained, employment. This target was exceeded bymore than 2,000 people into work - the number being 16,982. We were also required to ensure that 40%
of offenders were in employment at termination of their order or licence. The figure achieved was 45%. A
lower figure of 26% was applied to prisoners at the point of release, a figure met precisely.
In relation to accommodation, targets include the percentage of offenders in settled or suitableaccommodation at the end of their order or licence and upon release. The targets are 70% and 80%, withan achievement of 78% and 86% respectively. Whilst we can take some satisfaction in achieving theseresults, the real value of sharing them is that they provide an excellent example of partnership – between
government departments and with private and third sector organizations. These partnerships simply could
not have been achieved working on our own.
Much more will be said about these partnerships later. Our work to deliver targets also leads directly tothe next part of the paper on organizational structure.

C. Organizational Structure
The NOMS organizational structure is new. NOMS, like the Ministry of Justice of which it is an agency,
has been established following a major programme of structural change. Change is intended to create,
amongst other things, increased clarity and accountability between the Government’s national strategies
for community safety and reducing reoffending and the responsibility of NOMS to deliver ‘on the ground’.
Delivery is organized through ten Directors of Offender Management, or DOMS, nine for each of the
English regions and one for Wales. DOMS have the task of achieving results and value for money throughcommissioning public, private and third sector stakeholders and delivery partners. This work includes
requiring operational prison and probation services to deliver regional reducing reoffending strategies.
Regional strategies are therefore a cascaded version of national strategies which are agreed interdepartmentally by a range of Government departments responsible for areas such as education, employment,
housing and health, as well as justice. The national cross-Government Reducing Re-offending Board is the5

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.82

most senior level example of a partnership to reduce reoffending.
Just as strategies are cascaded, so are budgets devolved to DOMS so that they can use them to meetregional need – work which is delivered in collaboration with other government services and other sectors
at the regional or Welsh level. Regional partnerships involve private or third sector services working
alongside the public services to resettle offenders. The 135 prisons and 42 Probation Trusts are in turn able
to form local partnerships to address locally identified needs.
The point I wish to emphasize is that partnerships are at the centre of every aspect of delivery, at every
level – central, regional and local – and with every sector, whether public, private, or the third or voluntary
sector.

D. Statutory Partnerships
I would like to take a moment next to describe some of the statutory or public partnerships before
turning later to private and voluntary sector partnerships.
Community Safety Partnerships, or CSRs, are a new arrangement in place only since April 2010. Theybring together police, local authorities (including their responsibility for housing), fire and rescue, health andprobation, together with suggestions for working with prisons, other parts of the criminal justice system
including Youth Offending Services, and the voluntary sector, to reduce reoffending. Budgets devolved
from central government departments are then combined by agencies closer to the ground, working in
partnership to meet identified patterns of need. CSRs are a good example of this model in operation:
CSR member organizations work together to deliver work according to the ASPIRE model, first developedby the probation service. ASPIRE provides partners with a relatively simple model for co-operation. The fiveco-operative ASPIRE steps are:
•
•
•
•
•

A ssess profile of reoffending in the area including social exclusion data ;S trategically P lan for action;
I mplement the plan, drawing on case managed intervention, mainstream and commissioned services;
R eview performance;
E valuate success to review outcomes and value for money.

CSPs place a statutory duty on organizations to co-operate. This duty is set out in Section 108 of the
Policing and Crime Act 2009. I would like to quote the argument put forward in support of this approach:“Success in reducing reoffending can only be achieved by local partners working beyond traditionalorganizational boundaries. More effective partnership working as a result of these changes will help toreduce crime and reoffending, protect the public and improve public confidence in the criminal justicesystem, the police and in other local partners, in a way that allows people to see and feel the difference intheir local communities”.
The CSP Executive Summary continues: “Adults and young people convicted of offences are oftensome of the most socially excluded within society. The majority of offenders have complex and often deeprooted health and social problems, such as substance misuse, mental health problems, homelessness, highlevels of unemployment and possibly debt and financial problems. Tackling these problems is important
for addressing the offender’s problems and providing ‘pathways out of offending’, and to break the intergenerational cycle of offending and associated family breakdown”. CSPs therefore give local expression to
the national aim of reducing reoffending through reducing exclusion.
Because CSPs are so new, it is not yet possible to provide examples of completed projects. But I canprovide examples of work delivered as a result of the preceding Crime and Disorder Act of 1998. The 1998
Act created Crime and Disorder Partnerships (CDRPs). A national dissemination programme, known as the
Beacon Scheme, has subsequently celebrated and promoted some of the most successful and innovative
partnerships. Four of the areas selected for Beacon status focussed on creating safer communities throughreducing reoffending. All have had to demonstrate six ‘hallmarks’ of excellence:•

6

Empowered and Effective Leadership;

145TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

•
•
•
•
•

Visible and Constructive Accountability;
Intelligence-led Business Processes;
Effective and Responsive Delivery Structures;
Engaged Communities;
Appropriate Skills and Knowledge.

Examples of partnership practice, facilitated by the multi-agency community approach, include:(i) The Safer Sunderland Partnership: Sunderland is the largest city in the north-east of England.
The Sunderland project aimed to improve the rate of young offenders engaged in education,
employment or training. Sixty local businesses were approached, many of them corporate victims
of crime. Offenders were then placed with them to provide unpaid work and gain work experience,so contributing to restorative justice. As well as the skills specific to the employment sector, theoffenders learnt basic aspects of employment including timekeeping and dress. By 2008 Sunderlandachieved 91% of young offenders in education training or employment, exceeding the national
average by 20%.
(ii) A scheme in the City of Leicestershire involves companies in offering two-week mentored support
to young offenders in what is often a first step in experiencing employment.
(iii) Another scheme in Sunderland engaged young offenders in the design and development of projects
to reduce reoffending. This provided a positive learning experience as well as producing usefulintervention materials including DVDs on the effects of substance misuse and knife crime.
(iv) The Sunderland partnership also piloted a scheme for the male perpetrators of domestic violence. A
development of the multi-agency approach includes a hostel for eight men who are removed from thedomestic home and receive interventions to reduce violence, whilst at the same time agencies workwith the victims, and the children in the 98% of cases in which children are also involved.
(v) Tower Hamlets London – Safe Exit Diversion Scheme. This scheme works with women involvedin street prostitution through linking criminal justice services, local authorities and third sector
organizations. Following an holistic assessment of needs, women can be referred to one of 12
agencies. Well over 50% of women referred completed the scheme and had their cases discontinued.
(vi) The “Be Safe Bolton” scheme demonstrated the benefits of information and intelligence gathering
and was able to ensure police and reintegration resources were targeted at offenders with thehighest risk of harm or conviction. Local agencies have identified “Single Points of Contact” forprisoners approaching release. The intelligence focuses improvement work on localities with highcrime rates, and helps identify the most successful approaches. It was one of the first to involve
residents in deciding the focus of community service work by offenders. Known as “Community
Payback”, more than 50% of community service work is targeted following “Community Walks” onwhich residents decide on priorities to improve local safety. “Alley-gaters” to prevent run-throughsby groups of young people were one of the first developments.
(vii) Other schemes addressing offender employment include “Community Hubs” in Tower Hamlets,
London which links employers and employment support. Prisoners are, where possible, met at theprison gate. Ex-offenders are engaged in the meeting service and in delivering the employment
programme, a model which also develops their own skills and helps them make life changes. The
scheme employs male and female ex-offender mentors, and also tries to address specific faiths.
Other schemes map the offenders’ experience in gaining work and then involve partnership agencies
in working together to improve the process.
CSPs are only one example of agencies working together at the local level. Other statutory partnerships
work with specific groups of offenders, including MAPPA partnerships to co-ordinate work with those
offenders that present a higher risk of harm, and PPO partnerships working with Prolific and other Priority
Offenders. Others target drug mis-users or deliver intensive case management with recently released
prisoners who have served short sentences.
“Intensive Alternative to Custody” projects work closely with courts. They may combine community
service work, electronic monitoring, group work programmes, and police surveillance, the aim being todivert offenders from custodial sentences.

7

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.82

E. NOMS: Some Facts and Figures
About 50% of NOMS’ total budget is spent on public prisons, about 5% on private prisons (anotherexample of work with the private sector), and 23% on probation services. The probation caseload is about
250,000, and the prison population, about 83,000 in 2009, has just passed 85,000. Both these population
figures need to be seen in the context of a ‘flow’ through the system: during 2008, there were 134,000 first
receptions into custody and 205,000 started Probation Service supervision.
About 5% of prisoners are female and 14% are foreign nationals. The majority of prisoners are sentenced
for offences involving violence, sexual offences, robbery or burglary. The largest number are serving
sentences of more than four years, although short-term prisoners, serving less than 12 months, accountfor a large proportion of receptions and discharges – about 60,000 per year, in spite of the relatively small
proportion in prison at any one time. The majority of short-term prisoners spend six weeks or fewer inprison, a length which poses difficulty in arranging purposeful activity.
It is clear that many countries face similar problems in relation to reducing their prison population. These
include ‘re-balancing’ custodial sentences in favour of sentences served partly or wholly in the community,
reducing reoffending, and demonstrating value for money. There is also an increasingly global set of
guidance and regulations, and of course more movement of people. These issues in common reinforce thevalue of international sharing and learning.
But has the ‘science ’ of transfer kept up with the pace of transfer? Working closely with the European
Union and international networks such as the European Probation Organisation (the CEP), we have begun,
through pilot projects and research, to explore what contributes to successful transfer. This is a topic in
its own right, but it will of interest to know that some of the emerging evidence points to the importanceof adaptation, to culture as well as legal framework, of learning from failure as well as success, and oftransferring ideas rather than detailed methods. We have also seen that how a method is delivered can beas important, even more important, than the method itself – and that the vital ingredient of motivated staff
and leaders needs to be backed up by opinion formers – the judiciary, media and politicians. It may also bebeneficial to resist too fast an implementation of a promising practice. ‘What works ’ may become ‘What
works and who works, where and how ?’.

III. THE SENTENCING FRAMEWORK
A. The Sentencing Framework
The England and Wales sentencing framework, like the effective practice and resettlement frameworks
which follow, has a relatively recent genesis. The framework was designed with support of resettlement as
one of its aims.
1. The Purposes of Sentencing
The 2003 Criminal Justice Act sets out the five purposes of sentencing:• the punishment of offenders;• the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence);• the reform and rehabilitation of offenders;• the protection of the public; and• making reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences.
A number of important principles underpin the sentencing framework. These include the need to ensurethat sentences are fair and proportional to the offence, and that sentences of imprisonment are delivered ina seamless fashion from prison to the community as a ‘whole sentence ’. Purposes of sentencing should be
addressed in both the custodial and aftercare stages of the sentence. This principle directly supports theresettlement framework.
2. The Question of Offence Seriousness
Whilst courts are obliged to have regard to these principles, sentence will generally be determinedaccording to seriousness of the offence. Seriousness is made up of:• harm caused by the offence; and8

145TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS•

culpability of the offender in committing it.

There is also a presumption that recent and relevant previous convictions make an offence more serious.
Thresholds of penalty are based on seriousness:• offences that are so serious that only custody will represent a sufficient response;• offences that are serious enough to warrant a community sentence.
In cases where neither of these thresholds is reached then a fine or a discharge will be appropriate.
3. Prison Sentences
The structure of prison sentence depends on sentence length. Implementation is progressive:(a) Sentences under 12 months (currently no supervised licence). The intention is:•
A custodial period of 2-13 weeks; a licence period of 6-9 months;•
Court sets licence conditions;•
Includes executive recall.
(b) Sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment or longer:•
Are served half in custody and half in community;•
A Case Manager agrees an intervention plan and conditions;•
Includes executive recall.
(c) Intermittent and Suspended (court handles breach) options;(d) In the case of a life sentence, or indeterminate and extended sentences for serious and public
protection cases, the Parole Board decides the release date.
The intention of the Act is that many of the options applicable to community sentences are also available
on post-release licence.
4. Community Sentences
Since the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, there has been a single community order for
offenders aged 18 or over that can comprise up to 12 requirements depending on the offence and the offender.
These are:• unpaid work (formerly community service/community punishment) – a requirement to complete
between 40 and 300 hours’ unpaid work;• activity – for example to attend basic skills classes;• programme – there are several designed to reduce the prospects of reoffending;• prohibited activity – requirement not do so something that is likely to lead to further offences ornuisance;• curfew – electronically monitored;• exclusion – not much used as no reliable electronic monitoring yet available;• residence – requirement to reside only where approved by a probation officer;• mental health treatment (requires offender’s consent);• drug rehabilitation (requires offender’s consent);• alcohol treatment (requires offender’s consent);• supervision – meetings with probation officer to address needs/offending behaviour;• attendance centre – three hours of activity, usually on Saturday afternoons, for between a minimum
total of 12 hours and a maximum of 36 in total.
Typically, the more serious the offence and the more extensive the offender’s needs, the more requirements
there will be. Most orders will comprise one or two requirements but there are packages of several available
where required. The court tailors the order as appropriate and is guided by the probation service through a presentence report.

9

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.82

IV. THE EFFECTIVE PRACTICE, OR ‘WHAT WORKS’, FRAMEWORKNOMS has introduced three systems to reduce reoffending:•••

An O ffender A ssessment Sys tem (OASys ) – designed to assess risk and needs and to inform casemanagement;
The National Offender Management Model – intended to manage offenders safely and effectively,
including managing prisoners consistently from prison to the community;
Interventions - including unpaid work, employability programmes, and accredited programmes toaddress a wide range of offending-related or ‘criminogenic‘ needs including ‘thinking skills’, domestic
violence, sex offending, and drug or alcohol misuse.

The effective practice framework flows naturally from the sentencing framework. Although they may atfirst appear only indirectly related to resettlement, closer examination shows a direct relationship.

A. The OASys Assessment System
OASys has been developed jointly by the prison and probation services. It is an IT-based system whichassesses offending-related need and risk of reconviction and serious harm. There is on-going validation of
accuracy against actual reconviction. The OASys tool also guides individual sentence planning, measureschange, and provides management information. Data is aggregated centrally, regionally and locally to support
analysis and service planning – of NOMS and stakeholders.
OASys measures a wide range of factors statistically shown to be relevant to offending. These include
education, training and employability, accommodation, financial management and income, relationships,
lifestyle and associates, drug and alcohol mis-use, emotional well-being, and thinking skills and attitudes.
The risk assessment element measures harm to the public, children, staff, prisoners, offenders themselves,
and to adults known to the offender, indicating whether risk is low, medium, high or very high. Action to
manage risk is then triggered including through MAPPA arrangements described later.
OASys data may be analysed in many ways: data demonstrates the offending-related needs of anational probation sample by type of need and by gender. The data might also, for example, be analysedby prison or probation caseload or by region or city. Our OASys data shows that the most common needsof offenders, related to their offending , include education, employment, with a wide range of other needs
including ‘thinking skills’ (such as problem solving), accommodation and drug problems not far behind. This
complexity of need makes our work more difficult. This point will be returned to later.

B. The National Offender Management Model
The National Offender Management Model is underpinned by a number of principles intended to support
resettlement. These include:• One Offender Manager, an individual probation officer, who manages the case throughout thesentence (including time in prison) to provide continuity;• The Offender Manager is community based – even for prisoners;• One sentence plan is developed for the entire sentence;• A system of resource “Tiers” allocates resources according to risk and needs;• The concept of the “Offender Management Team” – all responsible agencies operate to common
agreed goals.
The model provides the means by which NOMS ensures the right services are harnessed from within
the service and from partners, and delivered to each offender according to risks and needs assessed through
OASys assessment.

C. Interventions – The “What Works Core Curriculum”
The third system is referred to as the “Core Curriculum”. This is the suite of interventions mostclosely associated with ‘what works’ – interventions based on tested independent research evidence ofeffectiveness.

10

145TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERSNOMS ‘what works’ interventions are based on a process of accreditation. Accreditation is carried out
by an independent group of international experts – the “Accreditation Panel”. The panel has developed
Interventions Criteria against which new approaches are assessed. Key criteria are:• a clear model of change;• specified offender selection criteria;• targeting of offending risk factors;• employing effective methods;• skills orientated;• appropriate sequencing, duration and intensity of intervention;• motivation and engagement;• continuity of services;• maintenance of integrity;• evaluation and monitoring.
The core curriculum contains more than 20 programmes, and is continuing to expand. The creation of
NOMS provides an opportunity to rationalize programmes historically developed separately by the prisonand probation services and to build continuity of programme design and delivery. For example, sex offender
treatment begun in prison can be reinforced post-release.
The programme range includes cognitive skills, substance misuse, sex offender treatment, violence andemotional management, women offenders, drink impaired drivers, and resettlement. Most are designed forgroup delivery. However there are also programmes for delivery to individuals, who might for example live
in an isolated area where it would be impractical to deliver to a group.
It is important to note that we know from experience and research that programmes are only effective
when delivered as intended by well-trained, managed and supported staff. Delivery quality is so importantthat NOMS has developed detailed guidance, audit and support to ensure these standards are met in prisonsand the community.

D. ‘What Works’ Evaluation
Evaluation evidence is promising. The 2006 Evaluation Cohort allows comparison with year 2000 results.
The frequency of reoffending reduced by an average of 22.9%. For offences classified as most serious, thereduction was a reduction of 11.1%. Over the same period, the proportion of offenders reoffending fell by
10.7%.
This translates into significantly fewer victims and reduced costs associated with crime.

V. SOCIAL EXCLUSION, COMMUNITY REINTEGRATION
AND RESETTLEMENT
A. Development of the Overall Approach
I now move to social exclusion, community reintegration and resettlement.
Genesis of the resettlement and community reintegration framework has followed a similar timescale
to the sentencing and ‘what works’ frameworks. In 2001 the Government’s Social Exclusion Unit (SEU)
published a report on prisoner resettlement and social exclusion. The findings were startling and showed,
for example, that prisoners were far more likely than the general population to be unemployed (67% of presentence prisoners and 5% of the general public respectively), to have no qualifications, to be homeless, andto suffer from mental disorders.
The NOMS reintegration and resettlement framework is based on the Social Exclusion Unit’s work. The
report, which was researched and prepared in close collaboration with the Prison and Probation Services,
proposed a needs-based ‘pathway’ approach through which offenders’ needs are addressed via crossgovernment agreement and action.

11

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.82

As noted by Maguire and Raynor (2006), the SEU’s location in the office of the Deputy Prime Ministergave the recommendations political weight and allowed development of a cross-departmental approach tosocial inclusion and reducing reoffending. A national strategy and action plan on reducing reoffending (2004)
extended the pathway approach to community sentences.
The resettlement framework comprises seven rehabilitation ‘pathways’ for men and women. Eachpathway addresses areas of work critical to resettlement (and to work with offenders in the community).
However, when applied to resettlement, the pathways require prisons and probation areas to work closely
together to ensure that pathways are continuous from custody to community. The ‘pathways’ are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Accommodation;
Education, training and employment;
Health;Drugs and alcohol;
Finance;
Families;
Attitudes, thinking and behaviour.

Two additional ‘pathways’ have recently been added for work with women. The ‘pathways’ areunderpinned by four cross-cutting themes:••••

Assessment and Case Management;
Diversity;
Public Protection;
Partnerships.

One of the most far-reaching recommendations of the SEU report encouraged prisons to think interms of ‘mainstream permeability’ , the idea that prison walls should not be barriers to prisoner access to
mainstream services. Government departments have responsibility for developing policy on offender accessto mainstream services. This recommendation has speeded up the introduction of mainstream staff working
closely in prisons, often through a system of ‘in-reach ’ staff co-located with prison staff in resettlement
units.
The pathway approach has enabled us to gain a national, regional and local picture of resettlement needand to involve other departments and partnerships based on this accurate picture. When OASys needs
are placed within the pathway structure we see that education, employment, thinking skills, relationships(including family), substance misuse, and accommodation are at the top of the list. This provides us withclear and impartial evidence on which to base priorities in strategy, policy and practice.

B. Lessons in Resettlement
In parallel to the work of the SEU, a number of evaluated development projects including the Resettlement
Pathfinders (1999- 2003) demonstrated some vital characteristics of effective resettlement.
But firstly, what do we mean by resettlement? In 2001 the UK Association of Chief Officers of Probation
defined it thus:“A systematic and evidenced-based process by which actions are taken to work with the offender in custodyand on release , so that communities are better protected from harm and reoffending is significantly reduced.
It encompasses the totality of work with prisoners , their families and significant others in partnership withstatutory and voluntary organizations.”
The pathfinders found resettlement was more effective when:
•
•
•
•
•

12

The sentence plan is based on sound assessment of risks and needs;
Intervention begins as soon as possible after sentence;
Intervention includes attention to attitudes and thinking;Attention is given to practical needs, with links to mainstream provision and community facilities;
Case management is delivered ‘through the prison gate’ and includes work on motivation.

145TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

The echoes of the effective practice framework described earlier will be evident. The Social Exclusion
Unit report and resettlement pathfinders were followed by the National Reducing Re-offending Strategy andaction plan. These have since shaped resettlement at the central, regional and local levels.

C. The Importance of Personal and Social Factors in Inclusion, Reducing Reoffending andResettlement
I want to conclude this first paper by describing some new and exciting developments in inclusion,
reducing reoffending and resettlement. These focus on the interaction of personal and social factors insupporting change and integration.
1. DesistanceFirst I would like to do draw attention to the rise in understanding of what helps offenders to desist fromreoffending. Desistence theory emphasizes long term change over short term control, and the collective
interest of the community in integration of offenders. The focus is on supporting offenders to see themselvesin a new and more positive light with hope for the future. Desistence theory may argue that individuals need
a combination of motivation, human capital and social capital in order to succeed. Human capital includes
the capacity of the individual to make changes and achieve goals. Social capital includes factors such as
employment and supportive family or other relationships.
Successful resettlement therefore depends on helping offenders in all three areas, recognizing that progressin all is unlikely to be direct or continuous. It is said that 90% of offenders remain ambiguous about their future
until and even beyond apparently stable reintegration.
2. Motivation(i) F.O.R. a Change
F.O.R. a Change is a resettlement programme which draws on desistence theory, motivational theory, theproven effectiveness of cognitive behavioural work, and practical support to engage offenders in planninga new future. The aim is to create both confidence and commitment to change. The programme builds onthe motivational cycle of change to move individuals through five stages of accepting the need for change,
recognizing problems, defining how to overcome problems, developing their own plan for change, andcontrolling of risks of relapse.
The programme involves 12 two-hour sessions, delivered in groups and individual sessions, with support
post-release offered by the probation service or by the voluntary sector. One of the most successful andinnovative features of the programmes is the “Community Market Place”. This innovative approach involves
inviting representatives of public agencies and voluntary organizations into the prison where they set up“Market Stalls” displaying the services they offer. Prisoners are able to walk around the ‘market place’ andto approach organizations that would be helpful to them, making appointments to follow up these contacts
once they are released. Prisoners therefore become active rather than dependent participants in their own
resettlement and feel the rewards of their own positive action. This in effect is building social capital, andtaken as a whole, the programme aims to improve motivation, confidence and community opportunities.
The F.O.R. a Change programme has been run in several male and female prisons with good success andhas received accreditation by the UK’s panel of independent experts.
Consideration of this programme will lead suitably to part two of this paper which will consider employment
and accommodation strategy, and the partnerships and projects which deliver the strategy, in detail.

13