•
The Right Honourable
Ministry
of Justice
Elizabeth Truss MP
Lord Chancellor & Secretary
of State for Justice
Bob Neill MP
Chairman
Justice Committee
House of Commons
London SW1AOAA
MoJ ref: 36028
August2016
PRISON ESTATE TRANSFORMATION and IPP SENTENCES
Thank you for your letter of 26 July about the department's plans to reform the prison estate and those
held on IPP sentences. It remains my intention to make changes to the physical estate to make it safer,
more efficient and to enable a greater focus on rehabilitation. As I know you are aware the current prison
estate is overcrowded and out of date, and the physical environmental conditions can also be very poor.
Improving the estate will provide the essential infrastructure and foundation for the wider prison reforms to
build upon.
We still want therefore to build new prisons fit for the twenty-first century and close and sell the old and
ineffective prisons. We are in the process of establishing the preferred locations for the new prisons
based on a number of factors including demand and site availability. At the same time we are continuing
to develop our strategy for potential future closures. I will of course provide you with the detail of these
plans once they are finalised.
I am aware of the concerns about prisoners serving IPP sentences and I will be looking at all the issues
and options in this area. You will however be aware already of the work being undertaken to increase
opportunities for prisoners serving IPP sentences to reduce their identified risks and progress through
their sentences towards release. This includes enhanced case management for IPP cases where it has
been identified that they are struggling to progress and a Progression Regime for IPPs and others who
are ineligible for open conditions. This specialist regime is designed to re-introduce the responsibilities,
tasks and routines associated with daily life in the community and to allow the prisoner to pursue activities
and relationships which support rehabilitation. I can confirm this work, the details of which have been
provided by my predecessor in earlier correspondence, will continue.
You have asked also for information on the number of places on offending behaviour programmes that
have been available to IPPs for the last 5 years. I have provided this information below. Accredited
programmes however are not a mandatory requirement for IPP prisoners. There are many ways in which
prisoners may reduce their risks, e.g. through accessing the Progression Regime as outlined above,
education, vocational work, one to one work with psychologists etc. Completion of a programme does not
automatically mean that risk has been reduced. As you will see from the table there has been a drop in
accredited programmes in custody since 2011. This can be explained as being a consequence of the
change in investment focus on higher intensity programmes and changes to commissioning arrangements
in relation to substance misuse services. I have explained these in more detail below.
T 020 3334 3555
F 0870 761 n53
E [email protected]
www.gov.uk/moj
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
Total Prison Accredited Programmes for Last 5 Years:
2014/15
2015/16
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
Accredited
7968
Programme Starts
17099
12374
8995
8746
Accredited
Programme Actual
7020
Completions*
14801
11116
8016
7590.5
*Please note these differ from commissioned completions which assumes a base level of attrition from
commissioned starts
Change in Investment Focus to Higher Intensity Programmes
While there has been a substantial drop in the volume of accredited programme starts since 2011, the
overall value of NOMS investment in accredited programmes has remained broadly stable since 2011 /12.
This is due to an increased investment in the delivery of high intensity programmes for prisoners with a
high and medium risk of reoffending. These programmes are longer, more complex, and often demand a
more highly trained workforce.
Evidence shows that interventions for prisoners with a high and medium risk of reoffending are likely to be
more effective as the effect of programmes can be negligible for low risk prisoners, or even cause harm
(increase the risk of reoffending ).
Whilst accredited programmes are not commissioned specifically for indeterminate sentenced prisoners,
increasing investment in higher intensity programmes has benefited them, improving access to required
programmes in a timely manner.
Changes in Commissioning of Substance Misuse Services & Interventions
Responsibility for funding clinical drug and alcohol testing and non-clinical substance misuse interventions
for prisoners and offenders in the community in England transferred to the Department of Health (OH) in
April 2011 (separate arrangements exist in Wales). This was in part in response to Lord Patel's report on
Reducing Drug-Related Crime and Rehabilitating Offenders published in September 2010.
Since April 2013 responsibility for commissioning integrated drug treatment services in custody in
England has been the responsibility of NHS England (responsibility rests with NHS Local Health Boards in
Wales). As part of integrating services local commissioners and providers have chosen to deliver a range
of evidence based recovery focussed interventions which incorporate both clinical and non-clinical
interventions for substance misuse. These interventions do not necessarily include NOMS' accredited
programmes and are therefore not recorded as such, which accounts for reductions in the overall level of
programme outcomes reported.
I hope that this information is helpful and we will no doubt discuss in more detail when I appear before the
Committee. Thank you again for your letter.
Best wishes,
ELIZABETH TRUSS MP 2