Paper 1: Overview

Proposals

1 This suite of papers addresses the social and fiscal costs of crime. The proposals will enable government to "stay tough, and be smarter" about crime and punishment. The suite contains:

measures to reduce the underlying causes of crime in the longer term, including effective early interventions for at-risk children and their families/whānau;
measures to reduce opportunities for offending, re-offending and to enhance victims' satisfaction in the criminal justice system in the medium term;
measures to alleviate immediate pressures on prison capacity in the short term.

2 This paper summarises the proposals presented in the other papers and outlines issues on the decisions to be made.

Executive summary

The strategy

3 The proposals set out in these papers will enable government to "stay tough, and be smarter" about crime and imprisonment. There is no simple or easy answer that will reduce crime and imprisonment in the short term, at minimal cost, while maintaining community safety. The proposals take a cross-sectoral and strategic approach to reducing crime, re-offending and imprisonment. They comprise complementary and mutually supporting initiatives that protect and promote community safety, retain tough policies for serious and persistent offenders, use resources in better ways, promote victims' and society's interests in crime reduction, and make the justice system more effective.

4 There are smarter ways than prison to prevent crime and to make criminals accountable to their victims and society. Prison is not the most effective or efficient approach to reducing crime. Expanding alternative mechanisms may have lower social and fiscal costs. For serious repeat offenders and hardened criminals, from whom the public must be protected, there is no option other than imprisonment. For some others, the use of shorter prison sentences or non-custodial sanctions will be a smarter use of resources and improve public safety in the longer term and reduce social and fiscal costs.

Elements of the strategy

5 Most of the proposed measures contribute to multiple strands of the strategy. They involve improvements across the criminal justice system and, importantly, across the social sector as a whole. The most important proposals are:

tilting the balance earlier to reduce crime: targeted interventions, such as those directed at young offenders, can provide quick wins. Expanding early interventions that address the precursors of crime will have an impact in the longer term.
reducing re-offending: substantial increases in prisoners' employment, rehabilitation and re-integration can help to reduce re-offending and help them become contributing members of society once their sentences are completed; and
making better use of prison: significant reforms to home detention, community-based sentences, and sentencing and parole policy can help to ensure that prison continues to be used for serious offenders while providing alternatives for less-serious offenders and keeping the community safe;

6 The criminal justice system applies to all, but needs to do far better at stemming the entry of Māori people in particular, and in managing their exit. The over-representation of Māori (and to a lesser extent Pacific peoples) in the criminal justice system is both significant and long-standing. The root causes appear to be centred on socio-economic risk factors rather than ethnicity. The strategy centres on changes to legislation and policy that will apply to all New Zealanders, therefore it will be important to implement these initiatives in ways that are particularly effective for Māori and Pacific peoples. In particular, there is an important role for Māori- and Pacific-based organisations as providers of support, rehabilitation, re-integration, restorative justice, and other programmes. Proposals to achieve the strategy

7 The most important part of the strategy is tilting the balance earlier to reduce crime. Decisions on measures to reduce crime proposed in this suite of papers are likely to have significant effects, particularly in the medium to long term. The more targeted interventions, such as those directed at young offenders, are likely to have a more certain and shorter-term effect.

8 Measures to reduce offending are important in reducing the social and fiscal costs of crime. Decisions on the proposals in these papers to reduce re-offending are likely to have an impact in the short and medium term, through the development, expansion and use of therapeutic, rehabilitative and re-integrative programmes in prisons and in the community.

9 Decisions on the better use of prison are expected to have an impact in the short term (principally through the increased use of home detention) and in the longer term (through the use of a sentencing council and corresponding changes in parole).

10 The proposals address five key issues. The proposals have differing scope, scale and timeliness, and most contribute to multiple issues.

1. The most immediate issue is to address the pressure on prisons until 2011 through measures to reduce demand, such as greater use of home detention for less-serious offenders (see the table below).

2. The better use of prisons longer term includes measures proposed by the Law Commission to manage sentences and parole.

3. Addressing the precursors of crime includes the expansion of effective measures of early intervention; measures to reduce youth offending as well as expanding the availability of drug and alcohol programmes for offenders. These measures are critical to a long-term, sustainable reduction in crime.

4. Māori and Pacific peoples' over-representation in the criminal justice system are addressed by ensuring that the measures proposed are effective for Māori and Pacific peoples and also by investigating the expansion of practical community initiatives to address offending.

5. The deployment of 1,000 additional police has effects on the rest of the justice system, including not only crime reduction, but also increased prosecutions.

11 The specific proposals are set out in the following table:

-	-	---- Better use of prisons ----		------ Reduce crime ------		Costs
Cab. Paper	Operational area	Issue 1: Pre-2011	Issue 2: Post-2011	ssue 3: Precursors	Issue 4: Māori and Pacific peoples issues	Issue 5: Additional police
2	Crime reduction	Situational crime prevention	-	(a) Intervene early; (b) Youth justice (c) Persistent offenders		-
3	Police	-	-	-		Extra judges
4	Custodial remand	Reduce use	-	-		-
5	Courts	Restorative justice	-	-	Implement in ways effective for Māori and Pacific peoples	-
6	Community sentences	Strengthen and increase	-	-	Implement in ways effective for Māori and Pacific peoples	Extra probation
7	Home detention	Sentence of home detention	-	-		-
8	Sentencing policy	-	(a) Sentencing guidelines (b) Reform parole	-		-
9	Preventing re-offending	Treatment units; employment	Re-integration	Further work re drug, and alcohol		-
10	Corrections	New beds Use DR beds	-	-		Extra probation
11	Māori issues	-	-	-	Community involvement	-

Overview of the proposals

12 Full details of all the proposals are in this suite of Cabinet papers. This overview paper groups the proposals into those which:

Make better use of prison resources in the short term (until 2008) and medium term (2009-2011). Proposals that make a difference by 2011 are necessary to minimise the prison construction programme. Expanding home detention, by establishing it as a separate sentence, is the most important measure, particularly in the short term. Well-designed and well-implemented interventions directed at those most at risk of re-offending are also important. In particular, rehabilitative and re-integrative interventions can reduce re-offending risk by prolific and other serious offenders. Some less-intensive and less-expensive interventions can be effective with lower-risk offenders. Other measures in the package involve ensuring that alternatives to prison are credible and effective.
Make better use of prison resources in the longer term (2012 and beyond). Together, sentencing guidelines and parole reforms are expected to result in more transparent and consistent sentencing and to enable better use of scarce resources.
Reduce crime. The most enduring approach for reducing the prison population is to limit the number of offenders for whom imprisonment is the only option. There are no measures that can easily reduce serious crime or address disparities in offending between ethnic groups. Expanding and enhancing intensive, co-ordinated, inter-agency wrap-around measures, targeted at persistent or prolific offenders and their families/whānau, has the potential to reduce crime and re-offending in the medium term. Early intervention is also important, though its benefits will accrue in the longer term. There is an opportunity to develop community-based drug, alcohol and mental health services for offenders. Re-integrative services play a key role in maintaining gains from rehabilitation for prisoners being released into the community. There are opportunities to enhance existing programmes, both in prison and in the community, to reduce re-offending.
Reduce Māori and Pacific peoples' over-representation. It will be important to ensure that the various proposals in this suite of papers are implemented in ways that work specifically for Māori and Pacific peoples. Achieving this will involve more direct engagement with practitioners, and using the justice sector outcomes framework to specifically focus on reducing the current over-representation.

13 For completeness, proposals that deal with the down-stream implications of the 1,000 additional police are included in this package. Implications for the prison construction programme

14 Latest projections indicate that between 2007 and 2011, the demand for prison beds will increase by 1,200, resulting in a potential shortfall of 536 prison beds by 2009, rising to a potential shortfall of 908 by 2011.

15 Construction lead-times mean that there is very little scope to develop new prison beds until the 2009-2011 period. The Department of Corrections' existing construction programme should be sufficient until 2009, with disaster recovery beds used if necessary. The prison beds shortfall emerging between 2009 and 2011 can be managed, either:

through a 10 percent increase in prison capacity (908 new beds sought in Budget 2007). This approach has lower risk but higher cost; or
by a five percent increase (428 new beds sought in Budget 2007 and Budget 2008) and approving the proposals in this suite of papers to reduce demand for beds (this has lower cost but higher risk).

16 Agreeing to the proposals, but not agreeing to the beds that will still be needed, will involve significant risk because it will involve excessive use of disaster recovery beds to cover the shortfall.

Implementation

17 The main implementation steps for Ministers are:

continuing active leadership, including monitoring progress with achieving the strategy and managing risks as they emerge;
communicating the proposals in ways that maximise community support;
enabling the policy changes through legislation. Any material delay, particularly with legislation for home detention, will have consequences for the prison building programme; and
approving financial resources for the proposals that are ready to commence now, s.9(2)(f)(iv).

Introduction

18 The proposals in this suite of papers address five major issues, as follows.

Issue 1: Relieve pressure on prisons pre-2011

19 The growing prison population is the most pressing issue. Managing it involves:

EITHER

(a) The status quo, which involves no new policy measures. s.9(2)(f)(iv) [1]

(b) Reduce the forecast prison population with measures around: situational crime prevention, custodial remand, restorative justice, community sentences, home detention, and prisoner rehabilitation and employment. Of these, home detention will have the largest effect. There will be a residual shortfall and Ministers will need to consider funding around 428 new beds;

Issue 2: Better use of imprisonment post-2011

20 Criminal justice sector measures to improve efficiency and effectiveness in the longer term are: establish a sentencing council to issue sentencing guidelines that improve the consistency and cost-effectiveness of sentences, reform parole, and expand rehabilitative treatment in prisons.

Issue 3: Precursors of crime (longer-term measures)

21 Criminal justice agencies by themselves cannot address the precursors of crime. Other agencies can identify and respond to some of those at greatest risk of future criminality due to health, family circumstances and/or education difficulties. The proposals in this area are: further work on early interventions, initiatives to address youth offending, an initiative for prolific or persistent offenders, and extending alcohol and drug treatment. The gains depend on the results of the further work.

Issue 4: Māori and Pacific peoples' over-representation

22 Māori, and to a lesser extent, Pacific peoples, are over-represented in the criminal justice system. This is a particularly difficult issue, with no simple or single answer. The proposals are to implement the above measures in ways that are relevant for Māori and Pacific peoples, and to initiate a joint approach with practitioners and providers to identify practical solutions.

Issue 5: Flow-through costs of additional police

23 The 1,000 additional police will increase prosecutions and those sentenced. This creates consequential costs not yet in justice sector baselines, including some that warrant consideration now, and some in future Budgets, notably extra prison beds.

Implementation

24 Implementing the measures to address Issues 1, 2, 3 and 4 will require:

ongoing active leadership by Ministers and senior officials;
clear communications to maximise community support;
legislative changes in the near future; and
decisions on the financial resources needed to build capacity in the relevant agencies.

Background

25 On 31 October 2005, Cabinet invited the Ministers of Justice, Police and Corrections to consider packages to reduce prison numbers, both in the short term and the longer term, and to report to the Cabinet Policy Committee (POL) in due course [ s.9(2)(f)(iv) ]. On 19 December 2005, the Cabinet Business Committee noted that the outcomes of the Effective Interventions project will be reported to POL in June 2006 [ s.9(2)(f)(iv) ].

26 Budget 2006 funded the first tranche of the 1,000 additional police and recorded specific fiscal risks for the remaining two tranches, and for between $150 million and $200 million of flow-on costs in the justice sector. This range was identified in advance of Police's deployment decisions. s.9(2)(f)(iv)

Approach

27 Measures to reduce the volume of crime will take time to have a significant effect. Making a substantial reduction in New Zealand's incarceration rate over the next five years will require a shift in society's understanding of crime and how it is dealt with, to permit greater use of alternatives to prison and shorter average sentences. In developing the proposals for this report-back, officials have assumed:

community safety is paramount and must not be compromised;
decisions on Police resources will be fully implemented;
long sentences will remain for the most serious and persistent offenders;
all existing and already-approved interventions will continue;
reducing Māori and Pacific peoples' over-representation is a key priority; and
additional resources will be actively considered (along with other priorities) provided there are clear net benefits to society.

Issue 1: Relieve pressure on prisons

The increasing prison population: 1999 to 2005

28 Despite a 13 percent reduction in overall recorded offences, the prison population has increased because of:

increased detection and prosecution of some crimes;
higher proportions of convicted offenders being sentenced to imprisonment; and
longer sentences and time served.

29 The following table summarises changes observed between 1999 and 2005. Many of the volume increases have occurred predominantly in the period since 2002. These volume increases have led to the selection of the specific proposals in this suite of papers.

Measure (annual volume)	Year to 30-Jun-99	Year to 30-Jun-02	Year to 30-Jun-05	% change '99 to '05
Recorded offences	456,000	436,000	396,000	-13
Cases in court	135,000	128,000	156,000	16
Sentenced to prison	8,200	7,700	10,200	24
Fines imposed	48,500	48,300	52,300	8
Community sentences	35,700	27,300	27,800	-22
Prison population	-	-	-	-
On custodial remand	761	989	1,364	79
Male sentenced prison population	4,776	4,634	5,347	12
Female sentenced prison population	202	196	326	61
Total prison population	5,739	5,819	7,037	23
Home detention population	-	-	-	-
Number on home detention	0	187	383	n/a
Home detention as a percentage of total prison population	0	3.2	5.4	n/a

Sources: Department of Corrections, Ministry of Justice, Statistics New Zealand

30 The 23 percent increase in the prison population in the six years to June 2005 involves approximately 1,300 extra prisoners, of which:

600 are on custodial remand (46 percent of the increase); and
700 are sentenced prisoners (54 percent of the increase).

Forecasts of the prison population 2005 to 2011

31 Forecasts are inherently uncertain, so it will be important to monitor progress and take further action if the measures proposed in this suite of papers prove to be insufficient. This paper presents the mid-point of ranges of estimates and makes explicit provision for the effect of forecast uncertainty, including the range of possible effects that policy changes (both now and in future) may have on prison beds. Changes since the last full forecasts were completed in November 2005 are:

Cabinet's December 2005 decisions on electronic monitoring as a condition of bail, and on home detention; and
decisions on an additional 1,000 front-line police over three years. The additional police are forecast to increase prosecutions by around 5.25 percent, flowing through to community sentences, fines, home detention and prison (both custodial remand and sentenced prisoners).

32 The following table updates the most recent forecasts for the above changes.

Forecast prison beds in use	Sep-07 Beds	Sep-09 Beds	Sep-2011 Beds
Nov. 2005 forecasts, extrapolated to 2011	7,890	8,556	8,886
Electronic monitoring as a condition of bail (Dec 2005)	(120)	(120)	(120)
Home detention (Dec 2005 decision)	(60)	(60)	(60)
Effect of additional police approved in Budget 2006	48	226	250
Total: current projection of prisoner numbers	7,758	8,602	8,956

Source: Ministry of Justice

33 The prison population is growing considerably faster than the general population.

New Zealand incarceration rates	Jun-99 Beds (actual)	6-year increase	Jun-05 Beds (actual)	6-year increase	Sep-11 Beds (forecast)
New Zealand population	3.821m	7.2%	4.098m	4.7%	4.292m
Prison beds in use	5,739	23%	7,036	27%	8,956
Incarceration rate per 100,000 of population	150	14.7%	172	21.5%	209

34 Prison beds fall into three categories:

Permanent - beds available for regular use, for which funding is in baselines.
Supplementary and disaster recovery - lower-quality beds to be used permanently, for which funding is required in baselines on an ongoing basis.
Standard disaster recovery - lower-quality beds held in reserve to enable the Department of Corrections to respond to emergencies, such as the loss of beds due to fire, for which funding is required as they are used.

35 As illustrated below, the prison population has already grown by nearly nine percent since 2005 to reach around 7,700 on 30 June 2006, so the 2011 projection could prove to be too low. The Ministry of Justice will update these forecasts in November 2006. Latest monthly information shows that demand for prison beds is tracking towards the top of the current forecast band and that the Department of Corrections currently must use almost all of its supplementary and standard disaster recovery capacity. New prisons coming on-stream over the next two years will temporarily alleviate this situation.

Forecast and actual supply and demand of prison beds 2005-2007

Source: Department of Corrections

36 The following table sets out the additional beds required for operating the prison system on a day-to-day basis and for the risk that actual beds could track above the "most likely" forecast. The table also quantifies the potential shortfall of beds. The data is for September of each year because the seasonal peak typically occurs in that month.




s. 9(2)(f)(iv)

Source: Department of Corrections

37 It takes around two years to expand a prison and longer to build a new one. There is insufficient lead-time to implement measures that will either significantly reduce demand or supply extra prison beds before 2009. If demand tracks above the predicted upper bound before 2009 then the Department of Corrections will need to use its standard and supplementary disaster recovery capacity and, if necessary, some police and court cells.

38 The two broad approaches for dealing with the shortfall up to the seasonal peak in September 2011 are as follows.

Status quo: build new beds (see Paper Ten)

39 s.9(2)(f)(iv)

Measures to reduce demand by 2011

40 In summary, the measures proposed in this suite of papers to reduce demand for prisons by 2011 involve: more crime prevention (including youth justice), increasing the alternatives to prison, such as home detention, and more rehabilitation services (in prison and in the community). None of these measures will involve shorter sentences or early release, so their net effect is necessarily limited.

41 There are important linkages between some of the measures and they have been developed as a package. Supporting some of the measures, but not others, will reduce the size of the net effect and could lead to some inconsistencies. In particular, the relativity between home detention and community-based sentences could be upset if the proposals relating to only one of them were accepted.

42 In developing the demand reduction measures, officials have identified the:

estimated effect on the prison population and lead-time to achieve the effect;
estimated effect on crime; and
legislative, financial, and other implementation requirements.

Situational crime prevention (see Paper Two)

43 Situational crime prevention involves removing opportunities for crime and to make crime less worthwhile. Specific approaches can include targeting alcohol-related violence, repeat burglaries, and professional car theft. This initiative could save around 10 prison beds s.9(2)(f)(iv)

Custodial remand (see Paper Four)

44 The proportion of defendants remanded in custody, and the proportion of the prison population who are on remand, has increased, particularly since 1999. Two current initiatives are expected to have a significant impact on the remand population over the next few years. First, the Police are preparing to roll out electronic monitoring as a condition of bail. Second, the Ministry of Justice and other agencies are working on ways to make pre-trial court processes more efficient.

45 In addition to work already being done, clarifying the threshold for remand in custody and the relevance of breaches of bail conditions to decisions on remand, will promote consistent decision-making and could result in a modest reduction in the prison population, avoiding a total of around 40 beds by 2011.

46 Other ways to reduce custodial remand require further investigation before firm proposals can be made. The areas for further work are:

streamlining arrangements for appeals from bail decisions; and
investigating defendants' ability to access services (especially housing) that support bail.

47 Radical reform of bail and remand in custody is not recommended because the limited potential gains would be outweighed by the inevitable increase in the risk of offending on bail or absconding.

Expand restorative justice initiatives (see Paper Five)

48 Restorative justice processes require offenders to face their victims, redress the harm caused to victims and the community, and address the causes of their offending. Restorative justice gives victims a voice in the criminal justice system and enables them to receive reparation, apologies, and answers. Good quality restorative justice processes can reduce the number of offenders sentenced to imprisonment, shorten their sentences, and reduce re-offending. Quality is the key to these impacts: processes must be properly designed, providers must be skilled, and programme performance must be monitored.

49 Four proposals to expand restorative justice processes at different stages of the criminal justice system, with a small reduction in the prison population, are:

staged national provision of restorative justice processes for less serious offending, as an option within the existing Police Adult Diversion Scheme (this will reinforce the diversion process, and help offenders address the causes of their offending);
staged national provision of restorative justice processes for more serious offending (this could avoid around 20 prison beds if fully implemented);
staged increases in restorative justice as part of prisoners' re-integration into the community (this will reinforce re-integration processes, and may help reduce re-offending in the longer term); and
development of a national performance framework to ensure restorative justice processes are consistent with best practice principles and enable better co-ordination of service provision across regions.

Community-based sentences (see Paper Six)

50 While community-based sentences will not directly result in prison beds avoided, strong and credible community-based sentences are important for consistency of the system as a whole. Recent consultation with the judiciary has identified concerns about existing community-based sanctions.

51 The proposals involve a clear hierarchy of sentences, based on the degree of restriction on liberty, and supervision, contained within each. Imprisonment is the most severe sentence, followed by home detention. A new tier of community-based sentences is proposed, with two new sentences: electronically-monitored curfew, and intensive supervision. The current community-based sentences, community work and supervision, follow on the next tier. The bottom tiers of the hierarchy include monetary penalties and alternative disposition options, such as conviction and discharge. Community work is available as an option alongside any other community-based sentence, as well as the proposed home detention sentence. There is a greater emphasis at each stage of the hierarchy on the development of offenders' work-related and living skills where required, for example, literacy and numeracy, budgeting, and parenting.

52 In addition to establishing a clear hierarchy for community-based sentences, there is a range of possible enhancements that could be made to the two current community-based sentences. In conjunction with the proposed sentencing structure, these enhancements will respond to many of the judiciary's and others' concerns.

53 Before Cabinet makes final decisions on community-based sentences, further consultation with the judiciary is needed. The Ministry of Justice and the Department of Corrections will report back to POL by s.9(2)(f)(iv) on a package for reform of community-based sentences. s.9(2)(f)(iv)

Home detention (see Paper Seven)

54 This proposal is to establish home detention as a separate sentence, with a maximum term of 12 months, and able to be combined with community work or a fine. It is proposed that home detention be used only in place of imprisonment, with controls to ensure that it is not used in place of community-based sentences. Costs for this proposal are for additional Community Probation Service centres, probation officers, and electronic monitoring.

55 Once fully implemented, it is estimated that the new sentence will avoid around 310 prison beds (in addition to the 60 bed reduction decided in December 2005). There is a greater risk of offending on home detention than in prison. However, this risk is low because home detention has proved to be a successful form of incapacitation. Other advantages of home detention include:

positive support for re-integration and rehabilitation of offenders - enabling employment, accommodation, and family relationships to be maintained;
re-conviction and re-imprisonment rates that are less than one-third of the rates for offenders sentenced to up to 12 months in prison;
high compliance - the rate of recall by the Parole Board for both front-end and pre-parole home detention is below two percent;
lower costs than prison - the annual cost of a person on home detention is $22,000 compared to $59,000 for a minimum-security prisoner.

56 The expected reduction in the prison population from expanding home detention is a key element in reducing the need for additional prison beds. If legislative changes are delayed or deferred, the Department of Corrections could not rely on achieving the reduced bed numbers and could need to re-visit the prison build options. While this risk applies to all the proposed measures, it is particularly significant for home detention.

Expand treatment units, prisoner employment, prisoner training, and community-based treatment programmes (see Paper Nine)

57 The following measures are proposed:

Two new special treatment units in prisons, providing intensive rehabilitation programmes for an additional 100 high-risk prisoners per year.
Two new drug treatment units in prisons, providing programmes for an additional 200 prisoners with significant drug and/or alcohol dependency per year.
Progressively expand participation in market-related employment and training programmes from the current 40 percent to 60 percent of eligible prisoners.
Community-based treatment programmes.

58 These initiatives could avoid around 100 prison beds once fully implemented.

Implications of Issue 1 measures (demand reduction) for the prison estate (See Paper Ten)

59 The number of people serving prison sentences depends on choices made by police, judges, the Parole Board and others as well as on the underlying policy settings. This makes it difficult to accurately predict the effect of policy changes. However, managing the prison estate requires estimating the effects of policy changes. The following table uses the mid-points of ranges of estimates and takes account of overlaps so the same group of offenders is not double-counted.

60 The table reflects the Issue 1 proposals only. It makes no allowance for any reductions from the other proposals for Issues 2, 3, and 4 below because they will have little effect on the prison population before 2011.

		Prison beds avoided
Paper	Proposal	Sept 2007	Sept 2009	Sept 2011
2	Situational crime prevention	10	10	10
4	Less use of custodial remand	-	10	40
5	Expand restorative justice	10	20	20
6	Community sentences	-	-	-
7	Home detention (additional to the 60 beds in Dec. 2005 decisions)	60	310	310
9	Special treatment units, drug treatment units, prisoner employment, and community-based treatment programmes	-	-	100
	Total	80	350	480

61 s.9(2)(f)(iv)



s. 9(2)(f)(iv)

s. 9(2)(f)(iv)

62 s.9(2)(f)(iv)

63 s.9(2)(f)(iv)



s. 9(2)(f)(iv)

Issue 2: Reducing demand for prisons post-2011

64 The measures outlined above should relieve pressure on prisons, but are not large enough to make a significant and enduring change to New Zealand's incarceration rate.

65 The graph below shows that, while New Zealand's incarceration rate is higher than many other comparator countries, rates in most of those countries are increasing in a similar way. To achieve Australia's current incarceration rate, New Zealand would need to reduce its prison population by around 35 percent or 2,700 people by 2011, rather than see it increase by 1,300 as projected above.

Incarceration rates

Source: Department of Corrections

66 To reduce the incarceration rate it will be necessary to take further steps to address the issues that have led to New Zealand's high incarceration rate. The following measures involve more enduring changes to aspects of the criminal justice system. While they are unlikely to reduce the incarceration rate in the short term, they offer the prospect of more effective use of system resources in the longer term. Further measures can be considered as they come to light, by drawing on best practice in overseas jurisdictions and by expanding programmes that demonstrate success in a New Zealand context.

ssue 2: Criminal justice sector measures to reduce demand in the longer term (particularly post 2011)

67 The Issue 2 measures seek to make the criminal justice system more responsive to community needs and resource pressures. They offer the prospect of lower incarceration, though not for some years. The measures are:

sentencing reforms to actively manage time spent in prison;
parole reforms that clarify release dates; and
expanding re-integration services for prisoners.

Sentencing reforms (see Paper Eight)

68 Average sentence lengths have been increasing for many years, including since the 2002 reforms. The following graph illustrates the trend for violent offences. Despite guidance in the Sentencing Act 2002 and guideline judgments from appellate courts, sentencing in New Zealand is largely at judges' discretion. This makes sentence lengths unpredictable and also makes planning for the Department of Corrections' future resource needs difficult.

Average custodial sentence length in New Zealand (overall violent offences)

Source: Department of Corrections

69 The Law Commission's separate paper (see Paper Eight) sets out proposals to establish a sentencing council that will improve consistency and cost-effectiveness of sentences. The council will draft sentencing guidelines for judges that will enable sentencing and parole policy to develop with wider input (including a degree of Ministerial input). Any effect on prison resources will depend upon decisions made by Parliament, how these decisions are reflected in the guidelines, and on how judges implement the guidelines. The council will need to balance calls for it to increase sentence lengths with calls to reduce them.

Parole reforms (see Paper Eight)

70 Those sentenced to more than two years in prison are normally eligible for parole after one-third of their sentence. This early parole eligibility creates uncertainty about the date of actual release, which makes it difficult to administer sentences and to forecast the prison population accurately. Parole Board decisions to decline parole can have the effect of "re-sentencing" some prisoners who, as a result, are detained for longer than intended by the court.

71 The Law Commission proposes legislative reform of parole, so that at least two-thirds of each finite sentence (excluding life imprisonment and preventive detention) is served without exception. To avoid increasing the prison population, these parole reforms rely on implementing measures (such as the sentencing guidelines) to shorten sentences, so that on average, offenders would serve approximately the same time as they currently serve.

Expanding re-integration (see Paper Nine)

72 Ways to expand prisoner re-integration include:

additional Corrections programmes, (for example domestic violence, and Tikanga Māori), for offenders serving community-based sentences. Funding is sought now for this item;
additional community-based re-integrative services for ex-prisoners, such as re-integrative support associated with supported accommodation, mentoring-style support, and encouraging community-led initiatives that support crime-free life-styles. s.9(2)(f)(iv) and
driving skills and defensive driving courses for some people serving community-based sentences. s.9(2)(f)(iv)

Issue 3: Address the precursors of crime

73 The criminal justice system frequently deals with those who have not received, or not responded to, social policy interventions earlier in their life. The following graph illustrates that the prison population could continue to grow faster than the national population despite the Issue 1 and Issue 2 measures outlined above. Additional measures to reduce the volume of crime are warranted.

74 High offending and victimisation rates have an adverse impact on the well-being of communities and families. There are also important inter-generational effects and societal impacts. The negative societal, community and household effects are tangible and on-going for a significant number of people.

Population, muster, and sentence length indexes

75 Minimising the harm involves addressing precursors of crime, particularly for young people who are of the greatest risk of future criminality due to factors such as:

living in unsupportive family structures;
poor health status, such as mental illness and/or drug and alcohol addictions;
poor employment and income status; and
educational under-achievement.

76 These factors clearly go wider than the criminal justice sector. Addressing them will take many years. For example, Finland reduced its incarceration rate gradually over a thirty-year period.

Issue 3: Measures to address the precursors of crime

77 There are already a range of services that target the precursors of serious crime, including early intervention, education, mental health, and drug and alcohol services.

78 Measures to reduce crime involve bolstering the range of existing services as follows:

expanding early interventions;
initiatives to reduce youth offending;
developing a new initiative for prolific or persistent offenders; and
expanding alcohol and drug treatment.

Early interventions (see Paper Two)

79 Existing initiatives provide a strong platform to build on, but there is more that can be done, around:

filling gaps in service coverage, quality and responsiveness in community-based services;
better service co-ordination, to address large variability within and between areas;
improving identification of children and families with additional needs; and
better engagement and retention of families in services.

80 s.9(2)(f)(iv)

Reducing youth offending (see Paper Two)

81 There is a small group of young people who offend repeatedly and are responsible for a large amount of crime. There is a strong case for more intensive intervention to reduce criminality early in life rather than later, for those who present with high-risk factors. Not only can the social and fiscal costs of persistent youth offending be reduced, but it is also clear that the difficulty of altering criminal behaviour increases drastically as offending continues. Even modest results from youth development programmes (in terms of reducing re-offending) can have substantial benefits over time.

82 s.9(2)(f)(iv)

Prolific or persistent offenders (see Paper Two)

83 This measure is based on the successful Tower Project in the United Kingdom and the Canterbury Hot Families initiative, which:

target the families/whānau of highest-risk prolific offenders in specific localities;
provide intensive and coordinated interventions to tackle these families' social needs, including accommodation, employment assistance, benefit support, parenting skills, early childhood education and health needs (especially drug and alcohol treatment and mental health support);
act decisively where people continue to offend despite the support, in particular by arresting offenders and providing speedy referral to the courts.

84 The approach gives prolific offenders a simple choice: "You can access all the necessary components for you to live a crime and drug free life or if you refuse help and there is intelligence that you are committing crime, police proactive activity will concentrate on you."

85 s.9(2)(f)(iv).

Drug and alcohol treatment (see Paper Nine)

86 Between 50 and 60 percent of offenders are affected by alcohol and/or other drugs at the time of their offending and around 50 percent of prisoners have a diagnosable mental disorder. Effective and timely treatment can reduce re-offending rates and imprisonment. However, there are issues with the availability of treatment, and the ability of offenders to access it. The health and criminal justice systems have different objectives and priorities, and decisions on funding and access lie largely with District Health Boards, making it difficult to ensure a consistent approach for offenders across the country.

87 The proposals involve directing officials to report to Ministers on:

the terms of reference for a systematic review of the interface between the addiction and mental health treatment, and criminal justice systems, by s.9(2)(f)(iv)
the availability of community-based alcohol and drug treatment programmes for offenders, and costed packages to expand them, by s.9(2)(f)(iv) ; and
measures to extend judicial supervision of drug and alcohol treatment for offenders appearing in court. Strengthening judicial oversight will give judges the confidence to divert drug- and alcohol-dependent offenders into treatment programmes as an alternative to, or way to minimise, a sentence of imprisonment. International experience shows that this can be cost-effective in reducing re-offending. A wide range of approaches is possible, and work is required to find the best approach for New Zealand. This report-back may be included with the report-back on community sentences, or otherwise as a separate report by s.9(2)(f)(iv).

>Issue 4: Māori and Pacific peoples' over-representation

88 Māori make up approximately 51 percent of the total prison population and 47 percent of the community-based offender population. About one in every 50 Māori males aged between 15 and 40 is currently in prison. In 2003 the sentenced imprisonment rate for non-Māori was around 80 per 100,000 of the population, while for Māori it was around 440 per 100,000, more than five times the non-Māori rate (see the following graph). Māori are more likely than others to experience the risk factors that contribute to criminal behaviour and are more likely to be victims of violent crime.

Current and future trends in disproportionate incarceration rates

Source: Department of Corrections

89 Re-offending rates for Māori offenders are disproportionately high in comparison with non-Māori offenders. As a consequence, not only does the Crown face high costs from operating prisons, but there are other significant long term social and fiscal costs such as the detrimental impacts on the wellbeing of Māori families/ whānau and communities. Indigenous and ethnic populations in other countries, including Australia, face similar issues.

90 A full picture of what is driving the Māori incarceration rate is unclear and there is not a lot of conclusive literature or research to draw on. Evidence suggests the main reason for the over-representation of Māori is the prevalence of specific risk factors that are associated with offending. However, for reasons as yet unclear, Māori are more likely than non-Māori to receive criminal justice system interventions that lead to imprisonment. A concerted effort is required, involving all relevant community groups, Māori institutions and whānau, to identify the causative factors and seek solutions. Māori communities are resilient and should lead the changes to the greatest possible extent, and be supported with resources, additional expertise, and sound policies applied consistently over time.

91 The proposals outlined above apply to all New Zealanders, regardless of ethnicity or race. While implementing the Issue 1, 2, and 3 measures will reduce the absolute number of Māori and Pacific peoples in prison, they will not, of themselves, reduce the proportion of prisoners who are Māori or Pacific peoples. Indeed, some of the proposals could exacerbate disparities. For example, Māori and Pacific peoples may qualify less often for home detention and may tend to breach the conditions more frequently, resulting in them being more likely to serve a term of imprisonment than a sentence of home detention.

92 The issue of reducing offending by Māori and Pacific peoples is a long-standing one. Previous work in this area has not identified specific or quick solutions. In summary, findings to date suggest that:

a better understanding of the interface between the criminal justice system and Māori and Pacific peoples is needed.
these issues cannot be dealt with by the Government alone, interventions are unlikely to be effective if they do not involve Māori and Pacific peoples' communities;
there are currently no interventions specific to Māori and Pacific peoples that will reliably and sustainably affect the patterns of Māori and Pacific peoples' offending;
some existing programmes to rehabilitate Māori offenders are promising but success is often dependent on individuals rather than structures and systems;
there is some evidence of agency disconnection and fragmentation in implementing programmes to address Māori and Pacific peoples' offending levels, suggesting that some gains may be achievable through greater co-ordination of existing programmes;
considerable practitioner expertise and volunteer effort has developed in agencies and in community-based service deliverers;

93 Overall, the criminal justice system needs to do better at stemming the entry of Māori and Pacific peoples', and managing their exit. Issues to address include:

How the Government can best support Māori and Pacific peoples' communities, in particular to reduce victimisation, offending and re-offending;
How the Government can best support families/whānau of offenders involved in remand/bail, restorative justice, family group conferences, home detention, and prisoner re-integration; and
How to remove opportunities for systemic bias, thereby ensuring consistency and fairness for Māori and Pacific peoples at all points in the criminal justice system where there is an element of discretion.

Measures to reduce Māori and Pacific peoples' over-representation

94 There is no obvious answer specific to Māori and Pacific peoples that will reliably and sustainably reduce their offending.

95 It is proposed that the implementation phase of the proposals identified in this suite of papers package address how best to contribute to reducing Māori and Pacific peoples' offending, re-offending and imprisonment rates. This will include working with communities to identify practical initiatives that address the needs of Māori and Pacific peoples at risk in the criminal justice system. It will also include the best ways to implement the specific proposals in this suite of papers, so that they have the maximum possible impact on Māori and Pacific peoples.

96 An investigation of the unintended consequences of discretion at various stages in the criminal justice system and unevenness of decision making will be undertaken. This will include the implications for consistency and fairness for Māori and Pacific peoples, as well as the identification of practical and sustainable ways to address these issues.

97 It is recommended that the revised outcomes framework for the justice sector be used by agencies to report on progress on reducing Māori and Pacific peoples' offending.

Issue 5: Flow-through of costs from 1,000 additional police

98 s.9(2)(f)(iv)

99 s.9(2)(f)(iv)

Implementation

100 The main actions required to ensure that the measures outlined above will have the intended effect are:

ongoing active leadership by Ministers and senior officials;
clear communications to maximise community support;
legislative changes in the near future; and
decisions on the financial resources needed to build capacity in the relevant agencies.

Active leadership by Ministers and senior officials

101 Active leadership in this context involves ensuring that changes are implemented as quickly and effectively as possible, with as much community support and input as possible, and with careful monitoring of progress.

102 Leadership of the implementation effort also involves managing a range of potential risks, including:

Unintended consequences: while the changes aim to lower imprisonment and reduce crime, decisions of police, judges, the Parole Board and others could undermine these intentions, at least in the short term. Managing this risk involves working with the key groups and refining the measures if necessary.
Higher crime: some offenders may re-offend sooner if they receive bail or home detention, instead of custodial remand or a sentence of imprisonment. Publicity around such re-offending may lead victims and others to criticise some of the proposals. Such criticisms are valid for the cases involved, but will need to be balanced against the positive effect of the proposals on the prison population and the overall crime rate, and the reduced social and fiscal costs.
Net-widening: expanding home detention could lead to its use not just for those who will otherwise be sentenced to imprisonment, but also for those currently attracting a lesser community-based sentence. Managing this risk involves carefully drafting the legislation, monitoring trends, and revising the legislation if necessary.
Loss of momentum during implementation: to maintain the momentum of change there will be a steering group of senior officials from a range of departments, reporting regularly to Ministers on progress. This group will also ensure agencies get the right resources to the right places.
Legislation being delayed: if the proposals are not well communicated, or insufficiently supported in the House, the main proposals outlined above may not proceed.

103 s.9(2)(f)(iv)

Taking the work forward

104 The following arrangements will maintain the momentum of the proposals identified in this suite of papers, while managing the ongoing work most effectively:

lead agencies will be responsible for implementing the Cabinet decisions through normal policy and operational processes;
justice sector Chief Executives will report back to the justice sector Ministers, initially on a quarterly basis, on progress;
governance of the report-backs will be by an implementation committee of senior officials from the Department of Corrections, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs, the New Zealand Police, the Ministry of Social Development, Te Puni Kōkiri, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, the State Services Commission and the Treasury;
the senior officials will be supported by a secretariat comprising an official from the Ministry of Justice, the Department of Corrections, New Zealand Police and the Ministry of Social Development. The secretariat will support agencies, especially in the first six months, co-ordinate the report-backs, ensure departments monitor the impact of these measures, and feed the results into future decision making; and
the work will consider the full range of policy development and implementation issues, including:

monitoring progress against specified criteria;

research and evaluation into the effects;

implications for justice sector outcomes; and

any implications for NGO capacity.

Communications approach

105 The Ministry of Justice has reviewed relevant literature and conducted a public opinion poll of 1,000 respondents on public attitudes towards imprisonment and its alternatives. The results will inform the overarching communications strategy and the communications plans for each approved proposal.

106 The literature review on public attitudes towards crime and sentencing found that:

in spite of falling or steady crime rates in most Western countries, public perceptions are that crime levels are increasing;
the public in general understands little about sentencing, the courts, the judiciary and prisons. The general view is that sentencing is too lenient;
the traditional understanding of attitudes towards crime and punishment in the last 20 years is that the public hold punitive attitudes, and are becoming more punitive. This is not always the case;
public opinion polls may not give a true picture of public attitudes; and
public attitudes can be changed by providing information.

107 The public opinion poll provides up-to-date information on public attitudes towards the use of imprisonment and the use of alternatives to imprisonment in New Zealand. It also provides a base for monitoring any future changes in these attitudes. The questions were related to:

awareness of sentences (other than prison);
perceptions of an appropriate sentence for a second-time burglar;
perceptions of appropriate length of prison sentence; and
how best to reduce overcrowding in New Zealand prisons.

108 The poll found results consistent with similar overseas surveys. The greatest share of respondents (39 percent) favoured using other ways to punish offenders. Just over a quarter of respondents (29 percent) favoured building more prisons, while 14 percent expressed a preference for releasing non-violent offenders earlier.

109 A high-level communications strategy, working across Government and across the social sector and justice agencies, is needed to support the proposals in this paper. To date communications activity has focused on informing the public debate on crime levels, what works in reducing crime, and the appropriate role of imprisonment. Ministers, in particular the Ministers of Justice and Corrections, have spoken at various conferences on these issues, and have been visible in the media. The Ministry of Justice is developing web pages and fact sheets to support this. Once Cabinet decisions are made, separate communication plans will be required to support implementation of the measures.

Legislation, capacity building, and financial resources

110 Implementing the proposals requires legislation, extra financial resources, and careful sequencing. Implementation details are set out in the companion papers and summarised below.

111 Officials envisage that the Criminal Justice Remedial Matters Amendment Bill (on the legislative timetable with a priority 2) will be the vehicle for legislative changes, and will be introduced in October 2006, for passage no later than April 2007. This is so the legislative changes can help deal with the predicted September 2007 seasonal peak in the prison population. Delaying this legislation, or the other key implementation steps, will result in further substantial pressure on prisons.

112 The proposals which require legislation are:

custodial remand;
home detention;
community-based sentences;
the sentencing council and sentencing guidelines; and
parole reforms.

113 s.9(2)(f)(iv) However, to achieve a reduction in prison bed numbers when they are needed, some initiatives must commence as soon as possible, as noted in the table below.

114 s.9(2)(f)(iv)

; and
;

115 The effects for the Crown of the proposals in this suite of papers are shown in the table below. The annual operating costs shown are those which apply once each proposal in fully operational (see recommendations 15 and 17). s.9(2)(f)(iv)


















s. 9(2)(f)(iv)

Treaty of Waitangi implications

116 There are no direct Treaty of Waitangi claim risks arising from these proposals. Ensuring that the criminal justice system is responsive to all peoples, including Māori, will minimise the risk to the Crown of future contemporary Treaty claims, that is, those arising out of Crown acts or omissions after 21 September 1992.

Human rights issues

117 The proposals in this suite of papers are intended to be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993. The policy objectives, particularly reducing the prison population over time, reducing the over-representation of Māori and Pacific peoples, and greater consistency in sentencing and parole decisions, have the clear potential to contribute to the greater realisation of human rights not only for offenders, but for victims and the wider community.

118 Rights issues will need to be carefully considered as the proposals are developed further, particularly in preparing any legislation, operational policies and programmes. For example, there is an increased potential for breaches of human rights if greater use is made of police and court cells for extended periods.

119 Timely and sufficient consultation with the human rights teams in the Ministry of Justice and the Crown Law Office will be important.

Gender implications

120 While female imprisonment is increasing significantly, males remain the overwhelming majority of prisoners. Measures that reduce imprisonment apply to both genders and so the direct impact will be greatest for males. Measures to increase home detention will continue to be designed to avoid the risk of increased family violence.

Disabilities perspective

121 In some cases health and disability issues contribute to offending. Proposals to further develop drug and alcohol, and mental health services in the community may assist those with disabilities, by enabling some people to avoid unnecessary imprisonment.

Consultation

122 The proposals set out in this paper were developed by an inter-agency group, comprising officials from Child Youth and Family, the Department of Corrections, Ministry of Justice, the New Zealand Police, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Ministry of Social Development, the State Services Commission and the Treasury. The inter-agency group consulted with officials from the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health, Department of Labour, the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs, Te Puni Kōkiri, and the Ministry of Women's Affairs.

Officials' recommended approach

123 The Issue 1 measures (reduce demand for prison beds) are more effective than the status quo because they avoid building as many prison beds, with better social and financial outcomes. The Issue 2, 3 and 4 measures should, over time, reduce the entrenched drivers of prison growth and support growing social cohesion and crime reduction. Accordingly, all consulted agencies support the proposals for addressing Issues 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the costs now sought in Issue 5 to manage the effect of the additional 1,000 police.

Recommendations

124 It is recommended that the Cabinet Policy Committee:

1 agree to proceed with a criminal justice sector package, which includes measures to:

1.1 relieve pressures on prisons before 2011;

1.2 make better use of prison after 2011;

1.3 address the precursors of crime;

1.4 reduce the over-representation of Māori and Pacific peoples in the criminal justice system;

1.5 manage the effect of 1,000 additional police on other agencies;

2 note that Ministers have two options to relieve pressures on prisons before 2011:

2.1 defer any policy changes at this time (status quo); or

2.2 to proceed with measures to manage the forecast prison population downwards by 2011;

3 note that proposals to make better use of prison resources post 2011 are to introduce a Sentencing Council and sentencing guidelines; to reform parole; and to expand prisoner re-integration programmes;

4 note that longer-term measures to address precursors of crime include early intervention; initiatives to reduce youth offending; measures to address persistent or prolific offending; and further work on drug and alcohol treatment;

5 note that measures to address over-representation of Māori and Pacific peoples include involving Māori and Pacific peoples' perspectives in implementing the measures in this suite of papers; investigating the unintended consequences of discretion in the criminal justice system; and using the outcomes framework to report on progress in reducing Māori and Pacific peoples' over-representation;

6 note that the proposals to reflect the impact of additional police include increasing the baselines of justice sector agencies to reflect the volume pressures arising from the expanded police force;

Implementation

7. note that research on public attitudes will inform the communications strategy;

8 note that subject to the decisions of Ministers, officials will work on the next phase of a communications strategy and report back to Ministers;

9 note that Ministers have been engaged in public discussions on these issues and that public reaction to date has been largely positive;

10 direct the Ministry of Justice, the New Zealand Police, and the Department of Corrections, to report back to the Ministers of Justice, Police, and Corrections each quarter, commencing s.9(2)(f)(iv) on implementation;

Financial implications

11 s.9(2)(f)(iv):

12 s.9(2)(f)(iv)

13. s.9(2)(f)(iv)

14. s.9(2)(f)(iv) :

;

;

;

;

;

;

;

;

15. s.9(2)(f)(iv) :

;

;

;

;

16. s.9(2)(f)(iv) :

.

.

Hon Mark Burton
Minister of Justice

On behalf of:

Hon Dr Michael Cullen, Attorney-General Hon Steve Maharey, Minister of Education Hon Phil Goff, Minister for Pacific Island Affairs Hon Annette King, Minister of Police Hon Pete Hodgson, Minister of Health Hon Parekura Horomia, Minister of Māori Affairs Hon Ruth Dyson, Associate Minister of Social Development and Employment Hon Chris Carter, Minister of Housing Hon Rick Barker, Minister for Courts Hon David Benson-Pope, Minister of Social Development and Employment Hon Damien O'Connor, Minister of Corrections

Footnotes

s.9(2)(f)(iv)