Community-based services as alternatives to incarceration

I am seeking information regarding the use of community-based services as alternatives to incarceration, particularly in relation to rehabilitation and reintegration. Previous prison reports have highlighted failings in mental health support and rehabilitation programs. While it is acknowledged that some prisoners require incarceration for the protection of the public, others are incarcerated for repeat offending and could potentially benefit from more effective community-based interventions.  

It is noted that the United Kingdom amended the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act on 23 October 2023 to improve rehabilitation. In contrast, Jersey has not implemented similar changes. This has resulted in a situation where individuals relocating to Jersey from the UK benefit from reduced reporting requirements, while Jersey residents are subjected to harsher reporting obligations, particularly in terms of employment. 

Specifically, please provide: 

1. Any policies, strategies, or guidance that outline when community service or other non-custodial interventions are considered more appropriate than prison for rehabilitation purposes. 

2. Any data, reports, or evaluations from the last five years comparing reoffending rates, outcomes, or effectiveness between prisoners serving custodial sentences and those completing community service or other non-custodial interventions.  

3. Any financial assessments comparing the cost of custodial sentences versus community-based rehabilitation programs.  

4. Details of eligibility criteria for offenders to be considered for community service or non-custodial programs.  

5. Any safeguards or oversight mechanisms to ensure that community-based rehabilitation is delivered fairly, safely, and effectively.  

6. Any internal or external reviews, audits, or evaluations of the relative effectiveness of custodial versus community-based rehabilitation over the last five years.  

7. Any proposals or considerations for amending the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Jersey) Law to reflect approaches in the United Kingdom that facilitate rehabilitation, particularly for repeat offenders who do not pose a serious risk to the public.  

8. Any assessments or reviews addressing the discrepancy in reporting obligations and rehabilitation opportunities between Jersey residents and individuals relocating from the UK. 

This request seeks to clarify the States of Jersey’s approach to rehabilitation, particularly the role of community-based programs as an alternative to imprisonment, in light of evidence of failings in existing prison rehabilitation programs and the inequality compared with UK reforms.  

In response to questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8, the Scheduled Public Authority does not hold information to provide an answer, therefore Article 3 of the Freedom of Information Law has been applied. The Scheduled Public Authority is not operational 

and does not manage cases or set operational policies.  

In answer to question 7, there are currently no plans to amend the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Jersey) Law 2001.    

For the purposes of this Law, information is held by a public authority if – 

(a)     it is held by the authority, otherwise than on behalf of another person; or 

(b)     it is held by another person on behalf of the authority