Impact case study database

The impact of this work has manifested itself in important changes made by key professional PH bodies to their structural, governance and training approaches to incorporate PHEL. The paragraphs below expand on the information summarised in §1, above:

4.1 Development of Knowledge and skills training for the PH workforce

In order to deliver new PHEL training, knowledge and skills for the PH workforce, Public Health England (PHE), the executive agency sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Care and charged with responsibility for PH in the UK, commissioned Viens and Coggon to write the accompanying background guidance paper [ 3.3]: Public Health Ethics in Practice (PHEiP). This paper crucially explains how PHEL underpins the various professional skills set out in the Public Health Skills and Knowledge Framework (PHSKF) – the Interim Director of Public Health for Southampton confirming that the latter is an “ integral part of my role” and that “ it informs my everyday decision-making” [ 5.6]. [ 3.3] made good a conspicuous deficit in previous PH skills and training since, as noted by PHE: “ there was no UK central guidance on public health ethics available to practitioners”, a situation about which “ a concern [had been] expressed by the workforce” [ 5.2]. This guidance accompanies and informs the work setting out the standards required for the PH profession and is hosted on uk.gov website. Users of the PHSKF are referred to [ 3.3] on p.9 on the “ professional and ethical underpinnings” of the tool and the fundamental principles of “ legal and ethical practice” [ 5.3]. The practical significance of the new training materials and its successful adoption as the basis for PHEL training is attested by the organisation that commissioned it: “ PHE were very happy with the end product after a long journey: it was useful tool for front line workers which practitioners could refer to, to help to navigate challenging PH situations in an ethical way.” [ 5.2]

In terms of its adoption by the PH workforce, the Programme Manager of PHE confirmed that “ *I know that public health workers reference the document when preparing evidence for professional registration, and universities delivering public health curricular reference it.*” [ 5.2]. In the Southampton area for example, we have confirmation that “ various members of the Public Health Team [at Southampton City Council] had used PHEiP, when participating in, or delivering, professional development activities.” [ 5.5] For example we understand that PH speciality training involves trainees “ using the case studies to consider broad ethical questions, and relating these to a topic at hand” [ 5.5]. The Director of Public Health at Southampton City Council explains how “ [t]he PHEiP paper is used … to help practitioners navigate the less clear cut ethical aspects of public health issues. For example, the Coca Cola truck visiting Southampton has local economic benefits in drawing people into the City … but ultimately… this could also contribute to other health issues such as diabetes” [ 5.6]. Indeed, one of the case studies in the paper concerns childhood obesity, and the same source testifies that “ The case studies are beneficial in informing ethical decision-making in practice by helping me to think about the issues in a conceptually holistic way” [ 5.6]. An NHS Public Health Consultant in a different region in England furthermore testifies that “ I use the skills and knowledge developed to provide a clear rationale to underpin the decisions I make at work: how I support the teams I manage, the values that I want to bring to my engagement with other services, and how I prioritise service delivery. And my decision making and ability to act is informed by a clear framework, thereby reducing my personal vulnerabilities and increasing my confidence around decision making.” [ 5.7]

Giving a more general picture: between its publication in April 2017 and 31 December 2019, the background paper had been downloaded from the gov.uk site 3752 times, and analysis of the data by PHE shows the number of downloads increasing every year from a modest 759 in 2017, with 1368 downloads in 2018 and 1624 more in 2019 [ 5.4]. Data for 2020 are not available, but data to 31 December 2019 suggests a large number of PH professionals have accessed the document, and potentially over 30% of the UK public health workforce (i.e. at least 3000 people).

4.2 New examination and Assessment of PHEL skills and knowledge for professional validation, ensuring PHEL became a core competence for PH workforce

Informed by [ 3.2] and accompanying interactions between the researchers and relevant PH organisations (i.e. the activity described in §2 involving presentations by Coggon and Viens at practitioner workshops, their response to the 2014 FPH consultation, and Viens’s Impacting Health Outcomes project) FPH added ethics content to its ‘Part A examination’ (Public Health Training), which is the exam used by the profession to test candidates' knowledge and understanding of the scientific basis of PH, and their ability to apply their knowledge and skills to its practice. In [ 3.2] Viens and Coggon had highlighted the shortcomings of PH professionals’ PHEL education and training, and FPH confirms that prior to adopting the research conclusions of Viens and Coggon, the Part A examination “ previously had a much narrower and more limited ethics component” focusing on research ethics and issues around personal integrity, honesty and record keeping. The research of Viens and Coggon “ provided a seminal and necessary basis for devising and designing rigorous new questions relating to ethics and law”, and these have been added to the Part A question banks, becoming “ a core competency of public health training and assessment” (namely the Public Health Knowledge and Skills Framework). [ 5.1]

The FPH evidence goes on to attest more generally that: “The research and its practical application have changed the shape of education, training and assessment of the public health workforce …” As a consequence of the research of Viens and Coggon therefore, expectations on PH practitioners are such that registration by the UKPHR now requires demonstration of PHEL competence. [ 5.1]

4.3 Embedding PHEL into the activities and practices of professional public health bodies

As a result of the SLS research’s “ crucial contribution to public health ethics” [ 5.1], the activity and practices of key PH bodies have been changed in order more deeply to embed PHEL culture and values. This is shown in a number of ways. For example, PHE amended its key reference platform for PH professionals, so that the PHSKF now states on p.9 that “… the standards, frameworks, and guidance related to personal conduct and legal and ethical practice…” form the basis of that tool, and that they are “ relevant to all workers, paid and voluntary, regardless of sector” [ 5.3]. This signifies an important change of emphasis in the organisations representing PH, which moved to place PHEL at the foundation of their mission as a result of the research. The research now informs regional PH practice in England, and it has also led to significant improvements to PH practices and procedures outside of England. For example, an NHS Public Health Consultant reports that, using the research, she has “ worked with Public Health Wales to develop some tools for managing resource based on ethical considerations. This has helped local authorities and public health agencies deliver services according to defined and clear ethics-based underpinning providing a clear rationale for decision making.” [ 5.7] Collaboration with key personnel at PHE and FPH has also led to the co-production with them of new materials for PH professionals published in the FPH’s official journal, the Journal of Public Health [ 5.8] – “ This work is helping to inform training for public health consultants, registrars and practitioners.” [ 5.7]

The second main impact of the research on the activities and practices of PH bodies is that it has provided the knowledge basis for the creation by the FPH of The Faculty of Public Health Ethics Committee – an internal ethics committee that allows the FPH to drive focus on ethical development in educational, policy and practice aspects of the profession. FPH evidence confirms that the Committee was “ established in consultation with Viens and Coggon” after a significant high-level workshop on PH values at Royal College of Physicians was held in London in 2015, where Viens and Coggon presented on the urgent need to promote education and training in public health ethics and law and for a better understanding of the moral mandate of PH. The Committee reports directly to the Faculty Public Health Board, and testimonial evidence from the FPH confirms that the impact of the Committee has been widespread: “ The Committee has since undertaken a number of important projects and supported the Board and other public health organisations around a number of important issues” [ 5.1]. Examples of these issues referred to by the FPH include: “ work by all Royal Colleges to divest from fossil fuels, issues around data sharing between NHS and Home office for migrants, and advising around ethical and legal dimensions of various issues” [ 5.1]. FPH is explicit that the research underpins this activity, and that furthermore: “ Viens and Coggon have been leading thinkers and supporters of many of the activities.” [ 5.1]

The Committee established on the principles of the underpinning research has led to the formation of local PH ethics committees elsewhere in the UK, including in Scotland and Northern Ireland, which is testament to the further reach of the research. The forum in Scotland, according to the FPH, “ *has become the first pilot site in Europe for development of a code of ethics for public health practice.*” [ 5.1]. This has helped the PH bodies further to embed knowledge and understanding of PHEL in the practice of the PH workforce.

Research by Davey and by Hjalmarsson, critiquing the ‘Draconian’ approach and advocating for empirically informed policy, has been used to influence three distinct groups of law- and policy-makers. We describe these three impacts here:

4.1 Shaping law and policy relating to the deterrence of opportunistic fraud

In the case of Versloot Dredging BV v HDI Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG, The DC Merwestone [2017] AC 1 [ 5.2], the Supreme Court unexpectedly reversed the long-standing position that any dishonesty meant that the entire claim was forfeit. The law was altered so that the underwriter did not have a defence where the dishonest statement was found not to be relevant to the insurer’s ultimate liability. The Supreme Court decision is ‘ one of the most significant insurance cases to be decided in recent years’ and it ‘led to an important change in insurance law’ [ 5.3] .

As a result of Davey’s conversations with Queen’s Counsel arguing Versloot Dredging before the Supreme Court, [ 3.1] was the primary academic material included in the bundle presented to the court in [ 5.2] and was referred to by Lord Mance during oral submissions on ‘ multiple occasions, and it was the subject of discussion’ [ 5.3]. During detailed argument of the evidence presented in [ 3.1] in the Supreme Court, Richard Lord QC was asked by Lord Mance for the underlying empirical research cited. These sources were supplied via junior counsel Tom Bird for submission to the court, counsel confirming that:

‘We cited and relied on Professor Davey’s research in our written argument before the Supreme Court.’ [ 5.3]

This form of direct engagement with active litigation is unusual and reflects the utility of the arguments made to highly contentious litigation. As confirmed by counsel:

‘The article advanced a number of powerful arguments including the fact that one of the main justifications for the rule (that it deterred fraud) took no account of the modern research on deterrence. … What was particularly original about Professor Davey’s criticism and research was the way it drew upon empirical data (specifically, on deterrence) and used it to test some of the assumptions supporting the existing law. As far as I know, this was the first time that such data had been applied in this context.’ [ 5.3].

Indirect reference to the arguments submitted (including sceptical references to whether courts should consider empirical evidence) was made at paras [10], [98], [108]. These arguments were not present in earlier judicial analysis.

The underlying research is also likely to influence future litigation, as a leading QC noted: ‘ Professor Davey’s research is likely to have particular impact in shaping the development of the law by providing insights for solicitors and barristers advising clients and arguing insurance fraud issues in the courts’. [ 5.10]

Furthermore, Simon Rainey, a leading practitioner and Deputy High Court judge cited Davey’s research [ 3.1] as the source for the change in judicial attitudes on the forfeiture rule, and in particular for the new judicial view that “… whilst deterring fraud is of course a noble policy objective, it must be said that the efficacy of the forfeiture rule in achieving this end is doubtful” ([ 5.1], at para 5.41).

4.2 Changing insurance industry practice in counter-fraud activities

Davey’s research was used and his recommendations implemented by the Insurance Fraud Taskforce (the Taskforce), the official Government body responsible set up to ‘ investigate the causes of fraudulent behaviour and recommend solutions to reduce the level of insurance fraud in order to ultimately lower costs and protect the interests of honest consumers.’ Taskforce membership included the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and other responsible insurance industry bodies, and set down guidance on best practice for the entire British insurance industry.

The impact of Davey’s research through its take-up and implementation by the Taskforce are evidenced by sources [ 5.4] to [ 5.9]: a) The statement by the Taskforce chair, David Herzell [ 5.4], b) the Taskforce recommendations to the ABI and Chartered Institute of Insurers (CII) [ 5.5], c) adoption of Davey’s recommendations by the ABI [ 5.6] following independent corroborating industry research (as recommended by Davey) [ 5.7] and [ 5.8] as well as take-up within the insurance industry [ 5.9] . We detail these in turn here.

a) The statement by the Taskforce Chair, David Herzell:

The Task Force Chair’s letter [ 5.4] confirms Davey’s pivotal role in shaping its approach:

‘The Taskforce … wished to know why otherwise honest people were prepared to lie when purchasing insurance or making a claim. … In preparation for the work of the Taskforce members were provided with copies of research published by Professor Davey and Katie Richards and in particular their work on fraud and behavioural economics. Professor Davey … reviewed the subject of behavioural economics with the group and suggested changes that could be made to improve matters together with the overall customer experience. These suggestions were accepted and implemented by the Taskforce. Customer behaviour is discussed in several places in the final report and in particular at pages 37-41 and 53-54 where the issue of behavioural economics in insurance is reviewed. The contribution made by Professor Davey is acknowledged in Para 3.44 of the report’.

b) The Taskforce recommendations to the ABI and Chartered Institute of Insurers (CII)

Davey’s recommendations to the Taskforce during 2015 [ 3.4] were adopted as the basis for Taskforce recommendations. These recommendations appeared in [ 5.5] as an action point: ‘ The ABI and CII should commission research on behavioural economics. The research should be available to all and the ABI should encourage take up of the conclusions through its voluntary best practice guidance’.

c) Adoption of Davey’s recommendations by the ABI following independent corroborating industry research (as recommended by Davey)

As a result of Davey’s research-based recommendations being implemented by the Taskforce therefore, independent experimental economics research was commissioned in 2018, to test to effectiveness of ‘nudges’ as behavioural interventions that Davey recommended. That report [ 5.7]is recognised as ‘ground-breaking’ with ‘extremely promising’ results by a key industry figure , and its results were promoted to the ‘insurance CEO community’ by the ABI and other trade bodies [ 5.6]. Crucially, it also independently verifies the analysis offered by Davey in [ 3.1] both in terms of preventing fraud and also saving on enforcement costs [ 5.7].

In order to ensure easy adoption of these techniques by insurers, the insurance industry has designed an implementation blueprint. The ABI explained the likely benefits of adopting these techniques in the foreword to the report ([ 5.7] , p. 3).

‘… honest customers are rightly fed-up with subsidising fraudsters and expect insurers to take a tough stance on fraud. This is not merely a bald assertion, but rather one that is backed-up results of testing carried out by Decision Technology. This view is also shared by consumer representatives on the Government’s Insurance Fraud Taskforce who called upon the industry to develop a public communications strategy.’

This, as [ 5.4] confirms, is a reference to Professor Davey’s role on the Taskforce. An account of the process and findings is written up for an academic audience. [ 5.8]

Evidence of the impact of Davey’s recommendations on practice within the insurance industry is provided by a fraud expert practitioner and member of the Insurance Fraud Taskforce who confirms: ‘ as a result of Professor Davey’s research, and in particular its presentation to key industry representatives at the Taskforce in 2015, it has become standard practice in the insurance industry to take into account the insights of behavioural science in developing approaches to reducing levels of fraud. This specifically includes the effective measurement of process changes, strategies to encourage non-fraud behaviours and highlight the risk of perpetuating fraud.’ [ 5.9]

4.3 Informing and influencing specialist legal practice

Senior and experienced legal practitioners and other-counter fraud specialists have described (in [ 5.9] – [ 5.13]) how they have benefitted from and have been informed by the research. Referring to both [ 3.4] and [ 3.5], one expert practitioner writes: ‘ Professor Davey’s research has crucially informed the legal services that I provide to insurers, and has enabled me better to support insurers in implementing the changes to their own counter fraud measures, particularly in first party insurance claims.’ [ 5.9]. Referring more specifically to [ 3.5], a QC testifies that the research ‘ enriches the evidence which is taken into account [in assessing the prevalence of opportunistic insurance fraud], *and in doing so, challenges assumptions about the level or prevalence of insurance fraud.*’ [ 5.10] According to the same source, the value of Davey’s research for the insurance industry is that it ‘ encourages a more efficient allocation of resources by insurers and those acting for them in attempts to combat insurance fraud. This increases the prospect of fraud being challenged appropriately, and reduces the likelihood of genuine claims being considered to be fraudulent - with payment either denied, or delayed, leading to increased costs and potentially to serious injustice in individual cases.’ [ 5.10]

[ 3.1] has informed senior and experienced legal practitioners: one confirms that the research has been ‘ invaluable’ to her, and that it is ‘ provided clarity on a number of issues’, citing as ‘ particularly valuable’ for developing and informing her own legal practice Davey’s findings on the limited role of judges in deterring fraud, the benefits of the insights of behavioural science for clients and on the use of fraud clauses in contracts [ 5.11]. Another notes: ‘ Davey’s research demonstrates that far more can and should be done at every stage of the insurance process to influence seemingly honest policyholders to make better decisions through the use of modern forms of technology and communication’ and that it ‘ has potential to further, change market practice for the better.’ [ 5.12].

On Hjalmarsson’s research, senior commercial barrister and Deputy High Court Judge (QBD) Peter MacDonald Eggers QC confirms that he has found [ 3.3] (article on legal judgments on insurers’ use of contempt of court as a means of combatting fraudulent insurance claims) ‘ informative and illuminating in its incisive analysis’, as ‘ especially astute’ and that it has ‘ enriched my own knowledge and understanding’ of the relevant developments [ 5.13].

4.1 Putting on the policy agenda the continuing support needs of families of people sentenced to IPP

The project and related activities resulted in substantially raised awareness and understanding of the issues facing families of indeterminate-sentenced IPP prisoners by key stakeholders including the Ministry of Justice, the Parole Board for England and Wales, HM Prisons and Probation Service and voluntary sector organisations. The Head of Policy at PRT considered that the issue “ had previously been substantially neglected by policy-makers since the prospective repeal of the IPP sentence in 2012” [ 5.1].

A parliamentary launch event in October 2018 for [ 3.1] was sponsored by Jo Stevens MP, with Robert Neill MP (Chair, Justice Committee) and Martin Jones (Chief Executive, Parole Board) responding to the report. It was attended by senior representatives of HMPPS, the Parole Board and other relevant organisations. Martin Jones stated that “ the evidence-based research had provided key insights which were of great interest to the Parole Board” [ 5.2]. Dr Annison’s research, in the view of PRT, “ put the issue of families of people serving IPPs firmly on the agenda” [ 5.1]. Government support was indicated by Robert Buckland QC MP’s statement (then Minister of State, Ministry of Justice) to the House of Commons in June 2019 that, “ We are very much aware of the work of Professor Harry Annison, who works in partnership with the Prison Reform Trust and has already given us an important insight into the impact on families of their loved ones serving IPP sentences. I am looking forward to seeing the conclusions of the next stage of his work, which is currently being supported by IPP and family leads from Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service.” [ 5.3]

As part of the PRT collaborative project that resulted in ‘A Helping Hand’ [ 3.6], a Stakeholder Roundtable was held in April 2019 to discuss preliminary findings and recommendations. This was attended by senior representatives of HMPPS, National Probation Service, Parole Board, POPS (‘Partners of Prisoners’, national family charity) and chaired by the PRT. This enabled a better understanding of existing developments in related areas such as the emerging roll-out of the Families Agenda in criminal justice, as well as understanding the constraints faced by organizations as well as opportunities to achieve our emerging draft recommendations. The subsequent policy report ‘A Helping Hand’, was published with the Prison Reform Trust and “ was welcomed across the criminal justice system. A launch event on 6^th November 2019 in Winchester was well-attended and clearly demonstrated the support and interest of a range of practitioners in the sector.” [ 5.1]

While HMPPS did develop a Families Strategy from 2017, this activity “ did not cover any unique aspects of the experience of families of those serving IPP sentences.” Dr Annison’s work “ provided compelling evidence that really got the families’ voices heard by both staff and politicians” [ 5.4].

Wider awareness of the issues facing families of people serving IPP has also been achieved by the publication of supporting pieces in the prison newspaper Inside Time, the Probation Quarterly practitioner journal, the influential Russell Webster criminal justice blog; the HMPPS ‘Insights’ blog and voluntary sector body Clinks. The ‘A Helping Hand’ report was also featured exclusively in The Guardian by Home Affairs Correspondent Jamie Grierson [ 5.5].

4.2 Changing policy and practice by (and in collaboration with) national organisations including the Parole Board, HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) and Spurgeons children’s charity

As regards the Parole Board, “ When Dr Annison first contacted [us], there was very little specific resource for families of prisoners in the parole system, either in terms of information available for families or to have their voice heard.” [ 5.2] The research and subsequent ‘A Helping Hand’ report “ presented a very compelling rationale which directly informed the Board’s decision to establish a specific policy workstream on families of prisoners” [ 5.2].

For HMPPS, the research and ‘A Helping Hand’ report was “ particularly helpful in informing our policy and practice in relation to how we support IPP prisoners and their families, with some added benefits to the broader group of prisoners serving indeterminate sentences.” [ 5.4] One key output emerging as a result of Dr Annison’s work was the development of publications targeted at families. These were identified as one key means to achieve some of the recommendations of ‘A Helping Hand’. Those developed collaboratively with Dr Annison include:

• ‘Offering a Helping Hand: Resources and guidance for families and others supporting people serving IPP’ booklet, published by Spurgeons children’s charity in July 2020 [ 5.6]

• ‘Information for Families or Friends of Prisoners Having a Parole Review’, published by Parole Board for England and Wales in August 2020. This includes sections targeted specifically at indeterminate-sentenced prisoners. [ 5.7]

• ‘A guide for the families & significant others of those serving Indeterminate Sentences in prisons’, was intended for publication by HM Prison and Probation Service in November 2020, but has been delayed “ due to the impact of the pandemic” and now “ will be published by HMPPS, following COVID-19 related delays, in January 2021” [ 5.4]

All publications have been distributed online and in hard copy to key stakeholders, including being distributed to all prisons and relevant personnel. Prior to these publications, “ there has been very little guidance tailored to families and free of jargon, and families often don’t understand the process and don’t know what’s going on. This is a major step forward that has pulled directly from Dr Annison’s work with families of IPP prisoners.” [ 5.4]. For the Parole Board, “ The recommendations from Harry and Christina’s research provided a clear message about the gap in information for families and friends about parole, and [identified] where something could be developed…that could make quite a difference to a lot of people” [ 5.8]. The Board’s ‘Information for Families…’ booklet [ 5.7] comes directly “ off the back of recommendations from research undertaken by experts from Southampton Law School…on the impact of the IPP sentence on families” [ 5.7].

Annison’s research, and subsequent collaboration, also led to the following activities and publications targeted at relevant practitioners:

• The HMPPS staff training course ‘Life and IPP Prisoners’ was updated in 2020, with “ the insights from ‘A Helping Hand’ report [used] to inform the redesign of that training” [ 5.4].

• A new supplementary information sheet on the experiences of families of people serving IPP was made available to Parole Board members in October 2020, by the Parole Board as part of a wider updating of member guidance.

• The Parole Board also published in October 2020 guidance for people sentenced to IPP (and those supporting them) on applying to terminate their licence. The need for advice and support in ending the licence period was a key message from our research with families.

The HMPPS Head of Indeterminate Sentence Operational Support considered that changes to the HMPPS staff training was “ particularly important in light of the concern mentioned in the ‘A Helping Hand’ report about lack of awareness of IPP by many staff, particularly in prisons, where staff turnover/movements can be high.” [ 5.4] Changes include “ greater emphasis on recognising the sense of injustice that families feel” about IPP and staff recognising “ the need to provide clear, simple information to families so that they understand processes and what is happening to their loved ones” [ 5.4].

The information sheet for Parole Board members provides an “ aide-memoire for members as they consider cases of the anxiety that families will be going through” [ 5.2]. In addition the ‘Offering A Helping Hand’ booklet produced with Spurgeons, though targeted at families, also serves as a useful tool for practitioners and volunteers supporting them.

4.3 Ensuring that voices of families of people sentenced to IPP are heard, and needs and lived experiences recognised

Relevant practitioners – including prison officers and family support workers – attending the launch for ‘A Helping Hand’ [ 3.5] reported gaining a better understanding “ of the impact of the sentence on families”, and of “ the huge information/communication gap which exists” between criminal justice organisations and families [ 5.9]. Their feedback on planned action included: “ sharing the research findings” with staff they manage (for example “ distribute to the [Offender Management Unit] hub”); ensuring that “ relevant information [is] provided in the [prison] visitor centre”; and exploring if “ families could be involved with sentence planning board” meetings for IPP prisoners [ 5.9]. These individual efforts are strengthened by HMPPS work in updating its training to “ directly reference the impact of the IPP”, using “ the feedback from families” [ 5.4].

National charity Pact, who support parents and children affected by criminal justice, testify to the positive change brought about by the research: ‘ One difficulty identified in 2017-18 was the lack of information and guidance that people could rely on, when trying to support families affected by the IPP sentence. Dr Annison’s work … meets this need.’ [5.10] Pact also run the Ministry of Justice-funded Prisoners’ Families Helpline. They “ provided informal ongoing support” for Dr Annison’s research from 2017 onwards, and have welcomed the ‘Offering a Helping Hand’ booklet, sharing it “ with all of our relevant helpline staff, so that they are better equipped to provide support to families in this situation” [ 5.10].

Invisible Walls is an award-winning initiative at HMP Winchester, whose Family Interventions Co-ordinator stated that “ feeling heard and realizing that their experience is shared by others can be massive help to prisoners and their families; the [Offering a Helping Hand] leaflet does that but also links to further useful information from the Parole Board and HMPPS for example.” [ 5.10]. The feedback received from families they work with to date “ has been really positive” [ 5.10].

Families have reported, “ Your [Offering a Helping Hand] booklet is excellent Harry and the guidance and support in it has been very very much needed for 15 years. It is very informative, and sympathetic to everyone involved.” [ 5.10] POPS, another national charity supporting families affected by criminal justice, told us that the impacts achieved by Dr Annison “ are important steps that, within the confines of the substantial political constraints on the IPP issue, address some of the key needs identified by ‘A Helping Hand’ and indeed which we had identified in our own work with families.” [ 5.10]

COVID-19 has had a devastating impact on the criminal justice system from early 2020. Reflecting on the particular challenges posed by the pandemic, Invisible Walls stated “ This is a particularly difficult time for those in the prison system, and the support and guidance of Southampton Law School has been very helpful for both IPP prisoners and their families.” [ 5.10]