Meeting the Prime Ministers Crime Reduction Goals-

Transcription

1 Meeting the Prime Ministers Crime Reduction Goals- In the Prime Minister s speech to the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, on Better Public Services (15 March ) he identified ten key results within the public service, including the reduction of crime, and reduction of reoffending. There was no detail; primarily because there is no plan. Justice and Corrections officials are to come back with a plan to achieve those goals over the next six weeks. Three days later Finance Minister Bill English made it clear (Q and A -(18 March) that the law and order system, corrections staffing, and prisons are long-term cost drivers. He justified the $900m to be spent on the new Wiri 960 bed prison as a cost that would be spread over years. There are currently 1500 spare beds in the system. Another 960 prisoners within the system is going to cost the taxpayer around $90m more a year in operating costs. But as he explained, We'd be better not having to lock more people up, but the fact is there are bad people out there who should be locked up. It would seem that the government expects officials to design a criminal justice system that will reduce crime and re-offending and reduce long term cost drivers, while at the same time maintaining and even expanding the prison estate. Can it be done? What are those jurisdictions doing who are faced with the same challenges. Over the next three issues, Rethinking will take a close look at what other nations are doing, and what can be learnt from the experience of others. In the first of the series we focus on the issue of imprisonment, which in any jurisdiction, is the greatest cost driver of all. We consider the cost-effectiveness of prisons, and how New Zealand compares with other advanced democracies. Executive Summary We conclude that, with the exception of the United States, New Zealand compares unfavourably with similar jurisdictions. We imprison offenders at a rate 25% higher than England and Wales, and 33% higher than Australia. In NZ, between 2005 and 2009, and in the face of a stable crime rate, o the rate of imprisonment rose by 15%, o the % rate of people sent to prison increased by 25%, o Offenders were sent to prison for very short sentences. Currently, 70% of all offenders in prison will be out in six months. We remand offenders in custody at a rate of 43 per 100,000, compared to 30 per 100,000 in Australia, and 25 per 100,000 in the UK. Maori are 6 times more likely to be imprisoned than non-maori, and 11 times more likely to be remanded in custody. We imprison people of ethnicity more disproportionately than almost anywhere in the world. African Americans in the United States comprise 13% of the general population and 42% of the prison population. New Zealand exceeds that; Maori make up 15% of the general population and 51% of the prison population.

2 Does Imprisonment Work? Imprisonment is the most punitive and the most expensive of all sentencing options. There is a very small group, (about 5-7% of the current prison population) that should be in prison for reasons of public safety. However, if the government wants to reduce crime in a cost effective way, sending too many people to prison is a poor choice, for the following reasons: There is no evidence that imprisonment acts as a deterrent; 1 There is evidence that imprisonment is criminogenic, i.e. causes crime, 2 For young people, prior incarceration (including remand) is a more accurate predictor of recidivism than gang membership or poor parental control; 3 There is no evidence that on average prison is more cost-effective at preventing reoffending than community sentences. 4 Will Sending People to Prison Impact on the Crime Rate? There is no correlation between imprisonment levels and the crime rate. Countries come into four categories: Countries where crime has gone down, as the prison population has increased: namely, England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, United States, Australia, Canada 5 and France; Countries where crime has increased, as the prison population has increased: the Republic of Ireland and New Zealand; States where crime has gone down as the incarceration rate has gone down: the Netherlands and California; and Finland, where crime is up but the incarceration rate is down. How many People Should There Be in Prison? As columnist Brian Rudman comments : Twisted economic logic for jails NZ Herald, 21 March a 2009 Treasury report noted that within the OECD, our incarceration figures were surpassed only by 1 Brown, D (2010) The limited benefit of prison in controlling crime. Issues in Criminal Justice 22(1): p Mauer M and Chesney-Lind M (eds) (2002) Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment The New Press New York 3 Holman B and Ziedenberg J, The Dangers of Detention - the Impact of Incarcerating Youth in Detention and Other Secure Facilities Justice Policy Institute Report Analysis in a 2010 report on short-sentenced prisoners, found that the cost of a six-week stay in prison was 4,500 and that during that time many prisoners would undertake no education or other rehabilitative work. In contrast, the cost of a highintensity two-year community order, containing 80 hours of unpaid work and mandatory accredited programmes was just 4,200. Other shorter community sentences cost much less. NAO. 'Managing offenders on short custodial sentences' , HC431, p Crime in Canada has been decreasing over time (12 per cent between 2005 and 2009), however Statistics Canada present their crime data as a rate by population so it has been excluded in figure x below.

3 Mexico, the Czech Republic, Poland and the United States. We lock each other up at "significantly higher" rates than Australia, England, Ireland and Canada. Treasury noted that in the previous decade, our incarceration rates had leapt from 150 per 100,000 to 195 per 100,000 and that "given that New Zealand's imprisonment rate is already one of the highest in the OECD and recent increases have had little impact on recorded crime rates, it is unlikely that further increases in our imprisonment rate will be the most cost effective way to achieve lower crime rates". The 1999 level of 150 per 100,000 is achievable. It is just below the current imprisonment level in England and Wales (152), but above that of Australia (134), and we have never been good at beating the Australians. It represents a 25% decrease in our present prison population, and a potential annual saving of $200m. Key areas of focus should be: 1. Reducing the number of persons sentenced to prison for short sentences; 2. Reducing the number of persons remanded in custody; 3. Conducting a systems review into the level of Maori over-representation in the criminal justice system Conclusion As a nation, we cannot effectively reduce the cost of crime, unless we have a strategy to reduce imprisonment levels. In our next issue, we look at those nations and states that are achieving significant reductions in the imprisonment rate, while at the same time achieving a reduction in the crime rate. Read Rethinking s Full Analysis Read Ministry of Justice - Comparing International Justice Systems a briefing for the House of Commons Justice Committee, (February 2012) Comparing Internal Criminal Justice Systems In times of fiscal constraint, a number of advanced democracies, including New Zealand, governments are asking their officials to put in place systems capable of preventing crime, and where these are not effective, to develop other responses to detect and punish it. All developed countries aspire to rehabilitate the criminals they catch to a greater or lesser extent. Yet the responses to crime can vary substantially from place to place, as do the costs of criminal justice systems and the outcomes they achieve.

4 Prison rate per 100,000 population It is therefore timely to look at how well New Zealand is doing in comparison to other nations. While comparisons of this kind are never easy, they do give a broad indication of where New Zealand sits in relation to its democratic neighbours, and what it might do to be more cost effective. Last month, the UK National Audit Office published a comparative study, Ministry of Justice - Comparing International Justice Systems a briefing for the House of Commons Justice Committee, (February 2012) In which it compared 12 jurisdictions, including New Zealand. The international comparison puts New Zealand in a negative light. New Zealand is a Punitive Nation New Zealand ranks second only to the USA of those advanced democracies chosen for comparison Imprisonment is the most punitive and the most expensive of all sentencing options. If the Prime Minister wants to reduce crime, sending too many people to prison is a poor choice, because: There is no evidence that imprisonment acts as a deterrent; 6 There is evidence that imprisonment is criminogenic, i.e. causes crime, 7 For young people, prior incarceration (including remand) is a more accurate predictor of recidivism than gang membership or poor parental control; 8 6 Brown, D (2010) The limited benefit of prison in controlling crime. Issues in Criminal Justice 22(1): p Mauer M and Chesney-Lind M (eds) (2002) Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment The New Press New York

5 Percentage point change (%) There is no evidence that on average prison is more cost-effective at preventing reoffending than community sentences. 9 Increase in Imprisonment Rates New Zealand has had a steady increase in imprisonment rates over the last 20 years, with its first reduction last year. The graph below compares jurisdictions in terms of rates between with New Zealand at the top end of the increase, despite a stable crime rate over the last 20 years. Note the recent dip in the imprisonment rate in USA, due to a concerted effort on the part of a number of states, to reduce levels of imprisonment. Comparison of imprisonment rates, 2005 to % 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% -15% -20% -25% -30% -35% -29% -12% -1% 1% 6% 7% 7% 8% 9% 12% 14% 15% Source: Walmsley, R. (unpublished) incarceration data, and national statistical bodies' population data. Relationship Between the Imprisonment Rate and Crime Rate Politicians and others are often asked to speculate on the relationship between prison numbers and levels of crime. A simple comparison of these indicates no consistent correlations (see figure below). The countries come into four categories: 8 Holman B and Ziedenberg J, The Dangers of Detention - the Impact of Incarcerating Youth in Detention and Other Secure Facilities Justice Policy Institute Report Analysis in a 2010 report on short-sentenced prisoners, found that the cost of a six-week stay in prison was 4,500 and that during that time many prisoners would undertake no education or other rehabilitative work. In contrast, the cost of a highintensity two-year community order, containing 80 hours of unpaid work and mandatory accredited programmes was just 4,200. Other shorter community sentences cost much less. NAO. 'Managing offenders on short custodial sentences' , HC431, p. 12.

6 Countries where crime has gone down, as the prison population has increased: namely, England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, United States, Australia, Canada 10 and France; Countries where crime has increased, as the prison population has increased: the Republic of Ireland and New Zealand; States where crime has gone down as the incarceration rate has gone down: the Netherlands and California; and Finland, where crime is up but the incarceration rate is down. Figure Changes in crime numbers and incarceration rates, Country Percentage point change in the number of crimes, Percentage points change in incarceration rate, England and Wales -22% 7% Scotland -19% -14% Australia -15% 7% California -15% -1% Northern Ireland -11% 8% United States -8% 1% Netherlands -7% -29% France -7% 6% Finland 2% -12% New Zealand 4% 12% Republic of Ireland 12% 15% NOTES 1. United States and California crime data only includes violent and property crimes. France incarceration rate is based on Metropolitan France. Source: NAO analysis of justice organisations published crime data, Walmsley, R. (unpublished) incarceration data, and statistical bodies' population data. New Zealand had a 4% rise in crime between , and a 12% rise in the imprisonment rate. Compare that with Netherlands, with a 7% drop in the crime rate, and a 29% reduction in the imprisonment rate. Why are our Imprisonment Levels So High? The measure mostly used in New Zealand to describe imprisonment levels, is the number of people in prison at any given time, i.e. the stock, which then gives a rate per 100,000. The other measure, not commonly quoted, is the flow into prison over a set period e.g. 1 year. In countries where those sent to prison typically receive longer sentences, the flow will only be slightly larger than the stock. In countries where short custodial sentences are used frequently, flow will be much larger than stock. 10 Crime in Canada has been decreasing over time (12 per cent between 2005 and 2009), however Statistics Canada present their crime data as a rate by population so it has been excluded in figure x below.

7 The next graph reveals an alarming difference in the use of incarceration in New Zealand. The flow into prisons has increased by 21.5% between 2005 and Figure Numbers of imprisonments Country Imprisonments per 100,000 population in 2009/10 Number of imprisonments 2009/10 % change in imprisonments 2005/06 to 2009/10 France , % California , % Scotland , % Canada , % Australia ,665 unavailable New Zealand , % Republic of Ireland England and Wales , % , % Finland 125 6, % NOTES 2. Australia: data from 2005/06 was unavailable Source: NAO analysis of published imprisonment and population data. The most marked trends in comparator countries are the increases in the flow into prison seen in the Republic of Ireland and New Zealand. In the former, the use of prison sentences has almost doubled since ; this appears to be a short-term trend. In New Zealand, by contrast, the latest increases come at the end of a twenty-year period of steady growth 11. If the government wants to reduce crime, it will need to reverse this trend. At present, 70% of all offenders currently in prison will be released in the next six months. Those on short sentences do not receive any therapeutic programmes, and are often without work. The chances of the reoffending on release increases significantly. These are not the bad people referred to by the Finance Minister. Increasingly, they are from marginalised and impoverished communities, with drug and alcohol dependency and mental health issues well able to be dealt with through community based interventions. 11 Statistics New Zealand. 'Table Builder: Convicted Offenders'. Available at:

8 2009 remand rate per 100,000 population Use of Remand New Zealand s remand rate is second only to the United States. Netherlands was the third-highest (39). England and Wales were the third lowest, with 25 remand prisoners per 100,000, Only Ireland (15) and Finland (10) had lower rates (Figure 14, below). Figure Remand rates per 100,000 population (2009) Source: NAO analysis of published documents. As the report points out Remand can be a vital tool for the criminal justice system in ensuring the safety of the public and preventing offenders from absconding it is also an expensive tool. Therefore, reducing the use of remand could be a consideration for countries making cuts to their criminal justice budgets, as long as suitable strategies are in place for assessing and monitoring the risks of offenders released. The impact of remand is similar to that of short sentencing. Young offenders are particularly vulnerable to gang influences, and to forging anti-social associations while in prison. It in turn, contributes to down-stream offending. Race Disproportionality in Prison New Zealand comes under special attention in relation to the over-representation of Maori in prison.

9 White Black Other European Maori Other White Black Hispanic Prison and national populations (%) The figure below shows that that in the UK, USA and New Zealand, one or more ethnic minorities are overrepresented. The report however, goes on to say; In absolute terms, the disproportionate number of Māori in the New Zealand prison system is the most striking statistic. We have always been aware of the issues around Maori over-representation. For Maori males born in 1975, it is estimated that 22 percent had a Corrections managed sentence before their 20th birthday, and 44 percent had a Corrections managed sentence by the age of 35. Corrections managed" includes both custodial sentences and community based sentences. It has always been our belief that African American statistics would be higher. Not so. African Americans in the United States comprise 13% of the general population and 42% of the prison population. By way of contrast, Maori make up 15% of the general population and 51% of the prison population. Figure Prison and National population by ethnicity 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 89% 73% 68% 73% 51% 34% 36% 42% 28% 22% 14% 13% 15% 16% 13% 16% 10% 2% Prison population National population England New Zealand United States NOTES 3. England and Wales: 'other' includes Asian, Mixed background and Chinese or other ethnic group New Zealand and the United States: People can choose to identify with more than one ethnic group, and therefore percentages do not add to 100. Source: NAO analysis of published prison ethnicity and national ethnicity population data. This matter has so concerned the UK National Audit Office, that it wrote a short case study on the issue.

10 New Zealand: case study on incarceration The high prison population of New Zealand, and the overrepresentation of Maori within it, have often been commented upon as surprising facts by academics and other experts internationally. New Zealand was ranked first in the world in a Global Peace Index issued by the Institute for Economics and Peace in The index is based on indicators such as corruption, violence and crime rates. It also frequently features at the top of other league tables for quality of life. In spite of this, however, only 57 per cent of New Zealanders say that they feel safe, a rate comparable with countries such as Bulgaria and Iran. Since at least the mid-1980s, this fact has led New Zealand s political parties to focus on the issue of crime, and has, according to much academic 13 research, led to the growth of penal populism 14. This means the use of harsher sentences without reference to their impact on crime trends or generally agreed opinion about their penal effectiveness. New Zealand is now routinely compared with other countries with a high prison rate, including England and Wales. The criminologists Pratt and Clark wrote in 2005 that The two main political parties here, as in Britain and the United states [ ] got into a ridiculous bidding war over who was going to be toughest on crime. The consequence in all three societies has been a dramatic rise in imprisonment. The Māori imprisonment rate is 700 per 100,000 15, far higher than New Zealand s overall rate of 199 per 100,000, which is already among the highest in the world. The reasons that have been put forward to explain this are: that Maori suffer from structural inequality and systematic criminal justice system bias; that a higher proportion of Māori experience multiple 'drivers of crime': such as poor health, family breakdown, and low rates of economic and social participation; and that the Māori population is also younger than the average for New Zealand, meaning that more Māori fall into the typical offending age range. Source: NAO document review of published New Zealand think-tank and academic research. Summary We conclude that, with the exception of the United States, New Zealand compares unfavourably with similar jurisdictions. We imprison offenders at a rate 25% higher than England and Wales, and 33% higher than Australia. In NZ, between 2005 and 2009, and in the face of a stable crime rate, o the rate of imprisonment rose by 15%, o the % rate of people sent to prison increased by 25%, o Offenders were sent to prison for very short sentences. Currently, 70% of all offenders in prison will be out in six months. We remand offenders in custody at a rate of 43 per 100,000, compared to 30 per 100,000 in Australia, and 25 per 100,000 in the UK. Maori are 6 times more likely to be imprisoned than non-maori, and 11 times more likely to be remanded in custody. We imprison people of ethnicity more disproportionately than almost anywhere in the world. African Americans in the United States comprise 13% of the general Pratt, J., and Clark, M Penal Populism in New Zealand. Punishment & Society, 7 (3) pp accessed, 30/01/20112

11 population and 42% of the prison population. New Zealand exceeds that; Maori make up 15% of the general population and 51% of the prison population. How many People Should There Be in Prison? As columnist Brian Rudman comments : Twisted economic logic for jails NZ Herald, 21 March a 2009 Treasury report noted that within the OECD, our incarceration figures were surpassed only by Mexico, the Czech Republic, Poland and the United States. We lock each other up at "significantly higher" rates than Australia, England, Ireland and Canada. Treasury noted that in the previous decade, our incarceration rates had leapt from 150 per 100,000 to 195 per 100,000 and that "given that New Zealand's imprisonment rate is already one of the highest in the OECD and recent increases have had little impact on recorded crime rates, it is unlikely that further increases in our imprisonment rate will be the most cost effective way to achieve lower crime rates". The 1999 level of 150 per 100,000 is achievable. It is just below the current imprisonment level in England and Wales (152), but above that of Australia (134), and we have never been good at beating the Australians. It represents a 25% decrease in our present prison population, and a potential annual saving of $200m. Key areas of focus should be: 1. Reducing the number of persons sentenced to prison for short sentences; 2. Reducing the number of persons remanded in custody; 3. Conducting a systems review into the level of Maori over-representation in the criminal justice system Conclusion As a nation, we cannot effectively reduce the cost of crime, unless we have a strategy to reduce imprisonment levels. In our next issue, we look at those nations and states that are achieving significant reductions in the imprisonment rate, while at the same time achieving a reduction in the crime rate.

12 Key Facts about Comparator Areas Country Population Legal system Murder rate Prison rate (year) Death penalty Australia 22,820,372 (2/2/2012) Canada 34,605,346 (3rd quarter 2011) California 37,253,956 (2010) Common (2010) Abolished Common (2010) Abolished Common n/a 197 (2010) Retained England & Wales 55,240,500 (mid-2010) Finland 5, 375, 276 (2010) France 65,350,181 (1/1/ 2012) Netherlands 16,727,255 (11/ 2011) New Zealand 4,437,089 (3/2/2012) Northern Ireland Republic of Ireland Common (2011) Abolished Civil (2011) Abolished Civil (2011) Abolished Civil (2011) Abolished Common (2011) Abolished 1,799,400 Common (2011) Abolished 4,581,269 (2011) Scotland 5,222,100 (2010) United States 308,745,538 (2010) Common (2011) Abolished Common / civil (2011) Abolished Common (2010) Retained in some states NOTES 1. Murder and prison rates are by 100,000 national population. Population data comes from published data from national statistics organisations. Murder rate data source: the Twelfth United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (Twelfth UN-CTS, 2009): Prison rate uses data from International Centre for Prison Studies: Source: NAO analysis of published documents from the justice sector and national statistics organisations.