A matter of funding
Jennifer Armstrong considers some challenges facing Circles of Support and Accountability
Circles of Support and Accountability have two main, interconnected aims: to protect the public and to reduce re-offending. A Circle comprises trained volunteers, usually four, and the offender, known as the core member. Volunteers are supervised by a paid coordinator and work with other bodies such as the probation service, police and Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA). The Circle seeks to help the core member, a high-risk sex offender now living in the community, to establish an independent, non-offending way of life. The Circle supports the core member through regular meetings, befriending them while not becoming friends in the usual meaning of that word. Most importantly, volunteers believe that change is possible. At the same time, they will hold the core member to account by challenging attitudes and behaviour that may signal a risk to the community. This can result in a return to prison.
Circles fit in well with Quakers’ wider approach to criminal justice. Friends were instrumental in introducing Circles to this country and a high proportion of volunteers have Quaker links. In my Circle, one is a Friend and two have close ties with Friends. All of us are involved in other aspects of the criminal justice system: a prison visitor, a worker in a hostel that provides accommodation for sex offenders, a volunteer with an organisation that helps people leaving prison (Footprints), a restorative justice facilitator and a magistrate. Two attend Meeting for Worship in prison.
I recently arranged for my Circle, including our core member, to meet Crispin Blunt MP, parliamentary under-secretary of state for prisons and probation at the Ministry of Justice. This was not an easy thing to set up but I felt strongly that he should hear about the work of Circles from those who practise it and, in particular, from someone who has benefited from it. We concentrated on what Circles can provide that the statutory authorities cannot. We talked about our availability and flexibility but, more so, the fact that volunteers are ordinary people willing to stand alongside someone who most of society utterly despises and who faces a great uphill struggle to regain a foothold in the community.
We may have got that message across but I am not sure how we scored on the matter of funding. Apparently, it costs on average £11,000 to run a Circle. This surprised my Circle as, leaving aside the paid coordinator, we have small overheads because we can share transport and meet in a church hall that is rent-free. Others have clearly not been so fortunate. Even so, funded Circles would be a small part of the government’s criminal justice budget. I understand that only one core member has reoffended in the ten years that Circles have been operating. Is that not impressive – if ‘payment by results’ must be the way forward then do we not qualify? I am angry that we have to rely on hand-outs from charities. I think it very sad that something as innovative and effective as Circles should be funded in this precarious, ad hoc way. Some regions have managed to obtain quite large sums while others have not. In Circles South West, which covers six counties, our local coordinator works part-time on a short-term contract that, unless money is available for renewal, will end in March 2012. Surely this is not the way to run such a potentially powerful project.
Comments
That Circles have so quickly become valued and respected as a just and humane community contribution to reducing sexual reoffending, is in no small measure due to the passion and care of the 450 volunteers now involved. It is also testament to the skills of the professionally qualified local Coordinators who recruit,train and support, sometimes uncertain and nervous volunteers through the challenging and high-risk situations that can arise; inevitable given the risks of serious sexual reoffending that pertain. Coordinator costs which are indeed the main expense of a Circles budget are modest, and well-justified! Nobody is making money out of Circles that’s for sure. The Coordinators also work on enthusing local statutory partners ,many of whom support their local Project from their own budgets, increasingly reduced by public sector cuts. Circles are not after-all a ‘statutory requirement’ as yet - though we are making progress in raising their profile all the time. Jennifer is also in error in quoting just one Core Member as ‘reoffending’ in the past ten years. Some 160 Circles have been provided over this period, and there have been 7 reconvictions for sexual offences, with sum recalls to custody for breaches of licence conditions etc. The low figures are impressive and of course a recall is not a failure when it prevents a further abuse.‘Hand-outs from charities’ which Jennifer so dislikes are an entirely approrpiate way of charities being funded, and in ensuring we can keep some independence from government. There will always be need for a balance in funding for Circles from government ( the ‘accountability’ interest- holders) and from charities and the public ( bringing a wider appreciation of ‘support’ and reintegration.) And Circles UK now, as the national umbrella charity is looking to see how we can engage in the various commissioning opportunities that are being promoted. I trust too that local Meetings will continue to support this great restorative service, having been in the vanguard of Circles since their arrival from Canada at the beginning of the century! Stephen Hanvey Chief Executive Circles UK
By stephenh on 12th January 2012 - 14:32
I am a volunteer with Oxford Circles. During the time I have been with them we have had several awards and The Home Office has paid for 18 months - possibly more. I consider that this service should be funded regularly by the Home Office and inspected by a central body. I object to the whole idea that organisations like Circles should live from hand to mouth with a substantial part of their employees time used in trying to raise money when they should be using their professional skills for the Core Members.
By SarahL on 12th January 2012 - 14:55
There is always a tension between raising money, gaining support and carrying out the service. Raising the profile and raising the money is about educating the public and enabling them to show their support, and to press for funding from other sources. There are advantages to what can be called an edgy” charity, in some independence from an Establishment which can be popularist.”
By Chattell on 13th January 2012 - 10:03
I really appreciated Jennifer Armstrong’s thoughtful article about Circles, which is grounded in her long experience of the Criminal Justice system. Like SarahL I believe Circles deserves to be nationally funded and inspected. The figures, even allowing for Stephen Hanvey’s correction, are a startling reflection of the effectiveness of Circles and the transformative effect they can have on the Core member and the wider community. At the prison I visit, as a member of a Quaker Chaplaincy team, many Life Prisoners (not sex offenders) have asked if they too can be part of a circle of support and accountability when they are released.
By Kevin Redpath on 19th January 2012 - 11:12
Please login to add a comment
