Improving the lives of women and girls in the criminal justice system will involve more than “new rehabilitation techniques and smarter ways of managing prisoners” as was suggested by David Cameron in his recent prison reform speech.

Listening, understanding, validating, valuing and holding hope for women when they can’t hold it for themselves may be more compelling ways of making a difference, according to debates among practitioners and academics at a conference at Sheffield Hallam last week. Undoubtedly, for the most serious and dangerous female offenders, imprisonment may be an appropriate and necessary response. However, this is a minority group within the current prison population and we need to be mindful that experiences of trauma (often as a result of relationships) feature strongly in many women’s pathways into crime.

The experiences of mothers in prison

The experience of imprisonment can ‘re-traumatise’ women by separating them from their children and requiring them to ‘fit in’ with a system which has been designed for men. At the conference, a former prisoner described how the allotted time for phone calls home was between 3 and 4 in the afternoon, precisely the time when children would be walking back from school so not at home to take the call.  She also described how she was rushed into making a decision about whether to apply to keep her baby with her in a Mother and Baby Unit during her prison sentence and how prison staff ‘advised’ that her baby may be better off being cared for in the community.

We heard about one woman who had been returned to prison after giving birth to her baby and put in a cell without being given sanitary towels, another who was placed in segregation, just a few weeks after giving birth. Given the dehumanising nature of these experiences, it’s clear that a crucial element of support for women in conflict with the law should be for this harm to be repaired by creating new, nurturing relationships which offer hope for a different way of relating, as women attempt to build a better future for themselves and their children.

 What’s needed and what’s missing? 

For example, key workers in women’s community centres and staff in prison Mother and Baby Units can provide positive templates for healthy relationships. Interventions which foster connection and communication between imprisoned mothers and their children are also essential.  But it’s not just these interpersonal relationships which matter but also the relationship which society has with women in conflict with the law.  What we ‘do with’ women lawbreakers needs to be considered in the context of how women’s lives (and inter alia their experiences of prison) are different from men’s.

David Cameron’s proposal for increasing the use of community sentences for women offenders (especially those with young children) is welcome. However, what’s missing is an explicit recognition that women who commit crime are often already traumatised by their experiences as victims of crime, particularly domestic and sexual assault at the hands of men.  For some women, prison is the best home they’ve ever had and, in a shocking indictment of the systems which are meant to protect women, the safest place they’ve ever known. Thus a commitment to addressing the violence and abuse of women and girls, including preventative measures as well as responsive ones, is a serious omission in his proposals.

Creating a positive future

As the primary care-givers of children women are disadvantaged in the workplace which means that women in conflict with the law have limited opportunities for creating more positive futures for themselves. And policy drive in criminal justice has a strong male bias.  So I wonder if, as the Government considers its ideas for “full-on prison reform”, is it not about time that wider issues of inequality and social injustice (and the gendered nature of these) become a key part of criminal justice rhetoric?

One of the more controversial policies introduced during the last parliament to reduce migration to the UK was the family income threshold.

Since July 2012, UK citizens and settled residents must show they earn at least £18,600 if they want to bring their spouse here from outside of the EU. By 2015, just over 40% of British employees did not earn enough to qualify, as the latest Migration Observatory report shows.

The policy was designed to reduce the likelihood that family migrants who come to the UK might place a financial ‘burden on the state’ and—particularly — that they might receive welfare benefits such as tax credits and housing benefit.

But the income threshold raises some difficult philosophical and empirical questions for people who are interested in welfare, poverty and discrimination.

Should all UK citizens have the same right to live here with the person they love? Clearly there would be outcry if the Government were to decide that most men should be allowed to choose a foreign spouse but most women should not; or that Londoners should have an easier time bringing their partner here than people living in the rest of the UK.

The family income threshold does not do this: it discriminates only on income. However, because people’s gender, place of residence and age affect their income, it also affects whether they can bring a non-EU spouse to the UK.

In 2015, a majority (55%) of female British employees did not meet the income threshold, compared to 27% of men. Immigration rules require the income to be earned by the UK-resident partner rather than their spouse living abroad, because of concerns they will stop working after coming to the UK. This will also affect women more than men, because they are less likely to be the main breadwinner in the family. While family migrants have lower employment rates than the UK average, at least half of them do work after they arrive, according to the available data.

Londoners also earn higher wages than people outside the capital so are more likely to be able to bring a partner than those in the regions – 27% of British employees in London did not earn enough in 2015, while outside the capital that figure was 43%.

For people concerned with tackling poverty in the UK, the income threshold raises several empirical questions that remain largely unanswered. Does the income threshold reduce the incidence of poverty in the UK by preventing the entry of people with low income? Does it increase the risk of poverty for the individual families concerned, by preventing UK citizens from bringing a second earner into the household? And if the threshold only delays entry to the UK while a couple is waiting to acquire sufficient savings or income, how will this delay affect the integration prospects of the non-EEA spouse once they do arrive? These longer-term possibilities could be quite important in shaping the overall impacts of the policy, but they remain very difficult to quantify.

Three years ago, Bite The Ballot (BTB) launched National Voter Registration Drive (NVRD), a campaign to get as many young people on the electoral register as possible in a single week of co-ordinated national action. During BTB’s NVRD 2015 campaign, we put 441,000 people on the electoral register, breaking the record previously held by (US campaign) Rock The Vote, and making history. This week marks the third annual NVRD, and it is bigger and more impactful than ever.

Founded in a classroom in 2010, BTB is a party-neutral movement on a mission to engage, inform, and inspire citizens age 16-25 to register to vote and stake a claim in society, sparking a journey of active citizenship among a generation and ultimately leading to a more just society and a stronger democracy.

By developing and delivering resources to younger citizens in classrooms, campuses, community centres, faith centres, youth clubs, public spaces and online platforms, BTB has engaged and registered millions of people in the UK. From our acclaimed interactive democracy workshop, ‘The Basics’, to our popular voter advice application, Verto, BTB has been breaking ground as it innovates and delivers resources created by young people for young people with the ambition of making sure that every citizen believes that their opinions matter and that expressing them counts.

BTB knows that engaging young people in democratic participation is vital to a healthy and diverse democracy. With 800,000 people reported to have fallen off the electoral register due to changes to the voter registration system in June 2014, our democracy is neither strong nor representative. This is why campaigns like NVRD are vital.

Between 1-7 February thousands of people around the UK will join BTB and engage young people and marginalised communities in voter registration activities, from workshops and registration drives to discussions with decision makers and film screenings.

For instance, in the Black Country, our Community Engagement Officer (CEO), Jessica, will be engaging people across Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton, running workshops in sixth form colleges and holding voter registration drives in public spaces like local libraries. She is one of seven inspiring young CEOs around the country who are running peer to peer engagement activities and empowering people in their areas to express their opinions and participate in democracy.

“As a Community Engagement Officer, I see it as my role to build and facilitate relationships between those living/working in community groups (be it schools, youth groups, support groups) and local decision makers” says Jessica.

“Whilst voter registration is at the heart of the work I do, what is important to me is trying to  create cohesion and continuity in my community partnerships. By delivering Bite The Ballot’s interactive democracy workshop ‘The Basics’, I hope to establish a platform where communities then keep me in mind for further engagement/awareness work, particularly in the coming months with local and PCC elections and the impending EU referendum.

“The National Voter Registration Drive has been a platform for me to cement the relationships I have built so far by running events throughout the week alongside community partners as well as targeting new actors and creating new links. During campaigns week, events ranging from voter registration rallies and student union democracy races to ‘The Basics’ and ‘Make a Manifesto’ are part of the Black Country’s push to generate discussions about politics and inspire citizens to register to vote.”

The National Voter Registration Drive is taking place nationwide between 1-7 February 2016. Find out more about Bite The Ballot on its website: bitetheballot.co.uk  and go to the NVRD website to find out more about NVRD.  

Contact Jessica by email [email protected]

Going to court can be confusing, intimidating, and frustrating for anyone.  For young adults (aged 18 to 24), who make up roughly a third of people sentenced in criminal courts each year, these reactions are intensified.

Criminal justice interventions aimed at adults but applied to this age group often fail to prevent further offending.  In fact  young adults serving community orders have the highest breach rates. We believe these two facts are related.

Our courts can and should play a leading role in reducing crime and ensuring a fairer justice system. There is clear evidence that how decisions in court are made and how the process feels to participants (a concept known as procedural fairness) can be as important as the sentence itself to young people’s perceptions. A number of studies have demonstrated that defendants reporting high levels of procedural fairness are more likely to comply with court orders, to perceive laws and legal institutions as legitimate authorities, and to obey the law in the future. But we know that standard practice in adult courts generates a number of important barriers: the process can be difficult to understand and follow, intimidating, and leave participants feeling disengaged and unfairly treated. This is particularly important for young people, who are especially attuned to perceptions of unfairness and signs of respect.

In a new report, [Young adults in court: developing a tailored approach], we outline a number of feasible adaptations to standard court practice for young adults.  These include measures such as use of simplified language to aid participants’ understanding, taking steps to ensure the process is comprehended, encouraging family participation, and adapting the courtroom environment to make it more conducive to engagement. Taken together, we believe that these adaptations hold out the prospect of increasing perceptions of procedural fairness and improving rehabilitation for this distinct population.

Many of these changes are relatively modest.  And much of this practice already exists, at least in aspiration, in our youth courts.  Since the youth court was established by the Children Act 1908, we have learned much more about the variable and protracted development of the young brain, and undergone more than a century of social change. Today, a hard cut-off between jurisdictions based only on chronological age makes increasingly less sense.  Aspects of justice system practice in England and Wales have adjusted in recognition of this – for example, adult sentencing decisions include maturity as a mitigating factor, and the Crown Prosecution Service takes maturity into account as part of its public interest test. But this approach has not yet reached the court process itself.

In the course of our research, we spoke with many court stakeholders who inherently recognised a need to develop a tailored approach for young adults, and who were enthusiastic about delivering adapted practice.  The Lord Chancellor has recently lent his support to the concept of specialist “problem-solving” courts which would play a more active role in the process of rehabilitation. We hope that this may signal a willingness to allow interested areas to pilot new approaches.  To this end, in the next phase of this work, the Centre for Justice Innovation and the Transition to Adulthood Alliance are keen to work with a small number of courts to plan, implement, and evaluate pilot young adult court approaches. We believe that our courts can provide a better response to offending by young adults, and in so doing make a positive difference both to their lives and to our communities.

Centre for Justice Innovation

Today’s new immigration statistics from the Office of National Statistics show another rise in net migration to 336,000 in the year to June 2015, with numbers of new arrivals rising from both within the EU (net 180,000) and outside the EU (net 201,000) . This leaves the government yet further away from the target of “tens of thousands” that both David Cameron and Theresa May have stuck to in the face of repeated failures, writes Steve Ballinger.

Yet unlike the last stats, released in August, these are far less likely to attract much media attention, overshadowed by the Prime Minister setting out his case for bombing attacks on ISIS in Syria, and the repercussions of yesterday’s Comprehensive Spending Review.

It’s worth looking at the new immigration statistics in the light of both of these events.

The horrific attacks in Paris on 13 November provided yet another reminder, if one was needed, of the evil of an organization like ISIS that will take innocent lives to further its twisted aims. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians have been at the sharp end of it’s advance through Iraq and Syria and have fled for their lives – causing neighbouring countries to play host to thousands of refugees in a crisis that has spilled over into Europe

Britain has agreed to resettle 20,000 Syrians directly from the region. Some have also made their way through Europe and today’s statistics show a modest increase in asylum applications made in the UK – many from Syria, Eritrea, Iran and Sudan.

The number of asylum applications, however, remains but a tiny percentage of the overall immigration figures. Just 29,000 applications were lodged in the year to September 2015. The overwhelming majority of people in today’s new immigration statistics are not  refugees – they are here from the EU, or from non-EU countries, to work because our economy is outperforming those of our neighbours.

The public is concerned about high immigration – they don’t think the Government has got a grip and the repeated failures to get anywhere near the Home Secretary’s self-imposed target just undermines trust further. But many still think we should do our bit for refugees fleeing from ISIS or other terrors around the world, who need our protection and still make up a very small proportion of people coming to Britain.

Offering protection to terrified civilians, many of them Muslims, who are fleeing from ISIS, also shows that the story peddled by these extremists – that Muslims and non-Muslims cannot live peacefully together – is simply wrong. Britain has offered a place of safety to those who most need it since the First World War and well before – and we will continue to do so today.

Getting ‘tough’ on asylum would run counter to who we are as a nation. On a practical level, it would also make almost no difference to the level of net migration to the UK.

What answer is there, then, for those who remain concerned about pressures that high migration can place on housing, schools and jobs? Perhaps Theresa May could learn something from her colleague (and rival for the Conservative leadership), Chancellor George Osborne. Yesterday he set out the results of his Comprehensive Spending Review – in which he looked at the issues our economy faces and the resources available, and set out a long term plan to handle them.

He had more money than expected. The forecast growth in the economy was, in fact, revised upwards because the net migration target has not been met – showing the net contribution of working migrants to our economy.  But it remains a difficult balancing act – one that requires the Chancellor to look at all the options available and plan his response.

Surely there are grounds for a similarly planned approach to immigration?

A Comprehensive Immigration Review – as proposed by British Future and the Institute of Directors – would look at the different flows of migration to the UK, the target the government has set, and the policy options for bringing the numbers down. It could also look at the impacts of those policies – on business, on the taxes that are paid by working migrants, staffing for services like the NHS, and international students that study at our world-class universities.

That might mean some hard choices. It might mean admitting that immigration is likely to remain higher than the Home Secretary’s target, unless we are willing to deal with some less-welcome impacts. But having a plan that the Government is working towards would, at least, bring some order to the process and help restore public trust on immigration.

This blog was originally posted on the British  Future website.

“I’m not sure I can pronounce any of it, but I’ll give it a go…” England fans were well aware of our nation’s difficulties with foreign languages when we handed out lyrics to La Marseillaise to them at Wembley this evening, under the watchful gaze of Bobby Moore’s statue. But we  still ran out within a few minutes, writes Steve Ballinger – everyone knew straight away why we were doing it.

They all knew they would sing two anthems this evening – and that this was no ordinary football friendly.

On Wembley Way, as we walked towards a Wembley Arch turned red, white and blue with ‘Liberte, Egalite, Franternite’ illuminated below, merchandise vans had sold out of ‘half n half scarves’ in the colours of England and France. An anomaly at most matches – who supports both teams? – they felt entirely apt at tonight’s game.

The atmosphere inside the ground was hard to describe. In many ways it didn’t feel that different – though the Englishman in front of me probably wouldn’t usually wrap himself in France’s Tricolore flag. We sang ‘God Save the Queen’ with gusto. And then the French anthem, the words displayed on Wembley’s giant screens after a campaign on social media and Change.org asking the FA to help us all sing La Marseillaise. The French fans nearby us sang it loud and proud; the English joined in gamely, as one might with an obscure hymn at a wedding. But then the bit we could all get right – “Aux armes, citoyens! Formez vos bataillons! Marchons! Marchons!” – rang out from every voice in Wembley stadium – tens of thousands of voices singing together and reminding us why it was so important that this game should go ahead.

The match itself, only ever a friendly to give Roy Hodgson’s team a taste of playing higher quality opposition,  was wholly overshadowed by the events that proceeded it, as one might expect. England’s opening goal, the first in England colours for Tottenham’s Dele Alli, was a beauty. It was typical of England to win a game where the score didn’t matter.

There was a standing ovation when France’s Lassana Diarra took to the field in the second half, just days after learning that his cousin had been killed in the Paris massacre; and a brief reprise of the French anthem in the 89th minute, as supporters from France waved their flags. A rousing applause followed the final whistle.

Then we all tramped off to queue for the tube home. News that another friendly, in Germany, had been called off due to another security alert, provided a grim reminder that the atrocities in Paris were not a one-off – and that tonight’s game,  important symbol though it was, would not be enough on is own to keep us all safe. But we were glad, all the same, that we had been at Wembley tonight,  part of this important moment of solidarity between two nations.

“An ‘issue’ is a public matter,” he elaborated “when values cherished by the public are felt to be threatened […] it is the very nature of an issue, unlike even widespread trouble, that it cannot very well be defined in terms of the everyday environments of ordinary men. An issue, in fact, often involves a crisis in institutional arrangements.”

There are an estimated 60,000 young people living in the UK who have irregular immigration status. This tag is no mere administrative burden. It compromises their security and safety, their health and wellbeing and our ability to support those who are vulnerable and exploited by others. If you are young, and without the correct papers, then you are likely to be extremely quiet about it: you will try to manage alone the problems this generates. You will be unable to get trusted advice and legal support. You will be unwilling to speak up about this for fear of being deported. You will be unsure about accessing the health and social support that most of us take for granted. You will not know who and what to trust. You will see both light and darkness in remaining invisible.

Last week, at a meeting of European charitable trusts at Paul Hamlyn Foundation, two organisations spoke to the assembled grant makers about what they were doing to make sure the personal troubles of so many become social issues that we address. Just for Kids Law talked about their work helping young migrant – many of whom have grown up as children in the UK – to access higher education. Swarm has developed a web portal through which young people and their families can work out how they can get help with their immigration status problems. Both charities are part of a wider collaboration, started by Paul Hamlyn Foundation and Unbound Philanthropy – two funders working in partnership. Supported Options uses grant making, research, convening, digital technology, story-telling and direct service development to shine a light on the lives of young people trapped by their status, and also to point to policy and practice solutions.

We are rightly transfixed by the continuing refugee crisis and in the UK there has been a huge mobilisation of interest and offers of help from the general public. But we must not lose sight of those – such as young people without papers – whose stories are not being told, and who are not in the limelight. They are as deserving of our attention and our support as any young person in trouble.

In the United States, a growing movement for change – led by United We Dream – has turned many undocumented young people into social activists and campaigners, and in this movement individuals find support and friendship. In the United Kingdom, a similar movement has been much slower in coming – but coming it is. Let Us Learn is a youth-led campaign that has already brought about a change in the law, with a recent Supreme Court decision securing access to higher education funding for many. We must nurture this movement and protect the brave young people who work selflessly for the rights and futures of others. ‘Coming out’ as undocumented and speaking up for one’s rights and the rights of others is to put oneself in peril, but it is probably the only way that young people’s troubles become our social issue. We should reward their courage and dignity by helping them to study and ensuring that they can access legal advice and representation in order to make decisions about their futures from a position of stability and security.

This meeting of the European Foundation Centre’s (EFC) Diversity, Migration, and Integration Thematic Network brought together EFC members for two days in October 2015, to network, learn from one another and identify potential areas of common interest. The Network is chaired by the Barrow Cadbury Trust.

Why were Barrow Cadbury trustees keen to explore social finance opportunities? Some information about the origins and values of the Trust will shed some light on our interest.

The Trust was founded in 1920 by two Birmingham Quakers, Barrow and Geraldine Cadbury, energetic social reformers and generous philanthropists whose particular concerns were health, education and the criminal justice system.

Influenced by Joseph Rowntree, Barrow established the tax-paying Barrow Cadbury Fund (for those projects that fell outside the legal definition of ‘charitable’) alongside the charitable (and much larger) Barrow Cadbury Trust .

Our Quaker values inform the Trust’s ethical approach to its investments. Our approach is to use all our assets, such as our name, our expertise, our convening power, so not just the money.

We have a history of funding via loan finance. In the 1980s for example, we set up two revolving loan funds enabling unemployed people in the West Midlands to start their own businesses.

So the opportunity in 2009 to invest in the Peterborough SIB was timely. We had a century old interest in reducing reoffending. We also had a current track record of working with St Giles Trust so, in terms of partners as well as potential impact, it was a perfect entry point.

What do we look for when we invest?

Of paramount importance to us is the social impact of an investment. Our investments fall into three main categories:

The majority have been ‘programme related’, i.e interventions that we might under other circumstances consider grant aiding. As with our grantmaking, we actively seek to support pilot projects and ‘upstream’ or early interventions.

One of these is Bristol Together, a Community Interest Company that has developed a 5 year bond to raise working capital for buying and refurbishing properties, providing work and training opportunities for ex-offenders.

The impact of this investment is a 5% reoffending rate over 4 years (compared with the national average of 46%). What are the risks? There’s the possibility of overruns on costs and the Bristol housing market is much more unpredictable than London. There have also been cash flow challenges, but the project is currently on track to repay the bond.

We may seek general ways of supporting voluntary sector infrastructure: for example, we have made an equity investment as well as a loan for the purchase and redevelopment of a shoe-polish factory in Vauxhall, now known as the Foundry, a Social Justice and Human Rights Centre providing office and shared community space for 20 voluntary sector organisations.

And thirdly, the Trust is also interested in developing the social investment market; this motivated our investments in Golden Lane Housing for example.

(to be clear: I am referring to the 2013 bond issued through Triodos. We have also invested in the 2014 bond, but this was a mainstream investment in a corporate bond, made through our investment manager. We are delighted that this bond was successfully issued on the mainstream markets. )

We have an endowment of approaching £80 million, and have set aside 5% (ie £4 million) for social investment. Our pockets are not deep, but we are aware of the ‘kite mark effect’, the leverage that even a comparatively modest investment by Barrow Cadbury can afford an enterprise. Our early investment in the Peterborough SIB is a case in point.

Whether an investment relates closely to one of our programmes, or offers an opportunity to develop the market, above all we are keen to ensure significant social value, above and beyond simply savings to the public purse, valuable though they are.

Risk and return

In terms of risk and return, the potential social impact must justify the financial risk. We take a ‘whole portfolio’ view of financial return, so our appetite for risk varies with each investment. We are prepared to take risks, indeed, we believe we should, and have invested in a couple of ventures where we knew the risks were high. One has folded, and we will have to write off that loan, but the other is still making progress.

Whilst we seek considerable social impact, I would describe us as not financially ambitious. If we preserve the real value of the funds available to us over a 10 year period we will be satisfied. (More might be exciting! But it would cause us to question our risk appetite and whether we had the appropriate balance of social to financial return).

Do we become involved in the projects we support?

I have mentioned a couple of instances where I or a member of staff have joined the board of an organisation. This has merits:

• it certainly aids our learning,
• has been useful in developing informative reporting,
• and can strengthen governance.

It fits our principle of using all our assets for social good, but we do not insist on it: of the 15 investments made to date, we only have this kind of direct involvement in three, all at the invitation of the organisation.

The question of impact on our grant making is interesting.

We believe that grant finance is gold dust and must be protected for things that can’t (or should not) be financed any other way.

We remain keen on blended finance (we have made Ethex a grant as well as a loan, for example).

Our grantmaking is in no way reduced in scale or ambition. It has, I suggest, benefitted from a sharpening up of due diligence and from our increasing expertise. We are better placed to discuss with grant holders the appropriateness (or otherwise) of their pursuing other forms of finance.

To conclude, social investment offers a very welcome alternative source of finance, but it is not the only answer and it’s not for everyone: I do worry about some of the rhetoric: criticising so-called ‘grant dependency’ isn’t helpful, nor is characterising charity trustees as ‘risk averse’ when they decide that such new forms of finance are not for them.

But for the Barrow Cadbury Trust, the beauty of social investment can be summarised in four points. We believe that:

• Trusts and foundations can afford to take the financial risk off the shoulders of the delivery organisations.
• Social investment can move money ‘upstream’ to earlier interventions, which we all know can be more effective in the long run and give better value for money, but which are sometimes not affordable in the short term.
• We can help ‘unlock’ mainstream finance for social purposes (from pension funds, new money etc). For example we have now sold £70,000 of our original investment in Golden Lane Housing, bringing more social investors into the market.

And this touches on my fourth ‘beauty’: that the nature of investments is cyclical: as loans are repaid our capital is released so we can make further social investments.

You can watch Anna Southall’s full presentation, as well as other presentations at the event, on Youtube.

The Founder

“I set up Miss Macaroon in 2011 to bring together my passion for making the handed crafted delights that are French macaroons and providing supportive work placements for marginalised young people. Through a family member’s experience in the care system and chance encounters with a young homeless man in my home town I have always felt that I was extremely fortunate not to have been in a precarious situation myself. I dreamt of a business that combined my love of food, its power to create strong connections, a sense of community and nourish supportive relationships, throughout my time at school, university and abroad while setting up my first restaurant.

With help from amazing mentors, board members and University College Birmingham, where I did my catering training, I started producing our delicious French macaroons and ran a pilot training programme in 2011, out of which the Macaroons that Make A Difference programme emerged. To date we have worked with 17 of the most difficult to engage young people. I love making our beautiful product, quality control (taste) testing, and creating new flavours, but the thing that keeps me engaged after baking the 5000^th macaroon of the day is seeing our newest member of staff practicing all of the skills he learnt on the first day he started the MacsMAD course. Initiative, time management, communication and team work are all improved by working in our kitchen. I’m really proud of the huge amount of hard work and commitment to learning and growing he has shown in working to get his apprenticeship and succeed in the Miss Macaroon kitchen, so much so that he is now called ‘Flash’!   With the support from Barrow Cadbury we can now increase the number of training placements, work experiences, mentor support sessions, and paid employment opportunities we can provide for young people who have been involved with the criminal justice system, who have been in care or found themselves homeless.

The new board member

Rosie Ginday’s Miss Macaroon has it all; exquisite hand-made French macaroons and a great cause. So when I was invited to join the board of this CIC I jumped at the chance. I’m very happy to help a project which supports young adults by providing work experience and practical help to guide them into work or education. It’s an exciting company and the energy and enthusiasm oozing from Rosie is highly infectious. She is a fantastic role model, not only for the young adults the organisation helps, but all SME business leaders, including me. Each time I attend a board meeting or catch up with Rosie in between time, I inevitably reflect back on how I can improve my own business. The Board consists of a group of experienced SME leaders with a wealth of experience across all aspects of business and it’s always interesting to get their perspective. However the most rewarding aspect is knowing (hoping!) I can play a small part in improving the work and educational opportunities for some young people. This was brought home to the board recently when one young man who had been given a short term contract at Miss Macaroon came to speak to us about his experience. He was confident, happy and had certainly soaked up some of Rosie’s enthusiasm. It was a pleasure to meet him and confirmed for me the real value of this worthwhile organisation.   I also get to eat some of the product; a perfect indulgence!

The newest full-time member of the team and beneficiary

My name is Zee and I’m 25 years old. I’m a trainee pastry chef doing an apprenticeship at Miss Macaroon. I work in the kitchen and prepare macaroons. I do a lot of the filling, packaging and baking.   When I was in a hostel last January I came across a flyer advertising the MacsMAD course as an opportunity to learn new skills. I had been unemployed for four years so the course was a good opportunity to readjust to a working environment and meet new people. I saw the flyer and thought it was something worth engaging with so I applied to get involved in the MacsMAD course. I met Rosie who helped me as mentor and gave me an introduction in to the catering industry. I also gained my food hygiene qualification. My confidence grew throughout the process. I stayed in touch with Rosie who encouraged me to get some work experience.

I was offered the opportunity to get some experience one day a week and grow in the industry. After that I got offered a position. I then went on to do three days a week. It’s been a good transition I guess to start off on one day then three days, and finally on full time hours. There hasn’t been pressure – I’ve gradually been allowed to fit in. It’s been easier than just going straight in to full time work which would have been a bit more pressure if I hadn’t had the chance to develop the way I have.   I was asked to speak at a board meeting in July and I didn’t know what to expect. I was a bit nervous but excited too. I definitely learned a different side of business and how this is a crucial part, how different minds and skills come together to improve the company. I felt privileged to be involved and it will be great to put on my CV. The opportunity was good for me to express myself about my experience at Miss Macaroon. It reassured me that I wasn’t judged. It was a good experience – definitely something positive to take forward in life. I learnt more about everyone’s roles and more about management.

Miss Macaroon has helped me to get a job in catering. It’s helped with skills, confidence, direction, focus and determination. It’s given me the opportunity to be part of something positive and constructive and to appreciate what skills are required in the work place. Rosie is a good motivator so my confidence has grown. Setting goals is now part of the way I work which I didn’t do before and that’s because of the five year plan we have put in place.

Find out more about Miss Macaroon on their website.   Twitter: @IamMissMacaroon Facebook: MissMacaroonCIC

Some Sudanese are held in detention centres while their appeals for asylum are considered. If their cases fail they face forcible return to Khartoum. That means arrest, interrogation, torture and possible “disappearance” at the hands of the Sudanese security services.   Waging Peace recognises how stressful and lonely it can be for people in detention centres, so we organise a visitor’s group to provide moral support to Sudanese asylum seekers. Mostly the visitors are Sudanese already living in the UK who can offer people reassurance in their native language. However, Dr. Arama, the person I saw on my first visit, spoke perfect English.

It was a suitably cold, grey January day when I arrived at Yarl’s Wood detention centre in Buckinghamshire, just outside London. I had no idea what to expect, and I was nervous, wondering how could I really help. What could I do?    As I prepared myself mentally to meet Dr. Amara, the prison-like atmosphere blindsided me. It wasn’t the back of beyond physical location nor being bussed to a walled-up, barbed wire fenced-in facility. It wasn’t even the frosty reception from the front desk staff who only allow you to proceed once your fingerprints and photographs have been taken. Rather, it was the stark walls, barren but for one or two signs posting stern warnings that no visitor was to take anything – not a pen or paper, not an offering of food, not a book, not a sliver of any humanity from the ‘outside’ world, not even your own belongings – into the visitor lounge.

I had to remind myself that the woman I was about to meet was not a prisoner, she was a person, who happened to be an asylum seeker, there on humanitarian grounds, fleeing extreme conditions in her home country after being victimised by her own government and subjected to torture, rape and further trauma.   “Yarl’s Wood detainees aren’t there because they have been charged with a criminal offence” reported BBC Home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw, “They are people, many of them vulnerable, whose claims for asylum or right to stay in Britain have been rejected or are being challenged.”

Yet, when Dr. Amara had gone to her weekly immigration sign-in 2 weeks ago, she was briskly taken into custody, without warning and with only the clothes on her back. Her personal belongings were taken away, and for several hours she was held in a locked room. No one told her what was happening. They bustled her into a van for the journey to an unknown destination – which turned out to be Yarl’s Wood IRC, several hours away.   Not surprisingly, the experience reminded Dr. Amara of when she had been detained back in Sudan. Her unease increased when she was given “removal directions,” with an airline ticket to return her to Sudan within a week.  She had risked her life to escape from the Sudanese regime and she knew what awaited her if she was forced to return.

When I met her at Yarl’s Wood I had to pass through a security scanner and I was patted down by an officer who made sure I was taking no more than £10 in with me. When the officer was satisfied, she unlocked the door to the visitor lounge and finally I made my way in to find Dr. Amara.   All the while I was wondering how on earth I could help this woman who had endured so much. What can I do? How can we tangibly measure the importance of Waging Peace through our Sudanese Visitor’s Group and visiting people in detention?   I smiled as I approached Dr. Amara and without thinking I opened my arms.  She offered me a brave but sad smile and with no words she collapsed into my arms, sobbing. I gently embraced her and when she was ready, we sat down and talked for the next two hours. It was finally clear to me, the value of what we do.

Through meeting people where they are, we don’t have to ‘do’ anything. In a sense we offer hope and hope is immeasurable.   Below are comments from other Sudanese dissidents who have been visited at detention centres by representatives from Waging Peace.   Mohammed, now living in Cardiff, said, “The Sudanese government troops attacked my area and killed many people so I left Sudan because it was not safe. In 2009 a friend gave me the number for Waging Peace while I was being detained at Campsfield detention centre.  I was at Campsfield for nearly 11 months. I didn’t speak any English and wasn’t able to speak to many people because I didn’t have the language ability. To give me something to do and also help other people, I got work inside Campsfield. I was very depressed. It was difficult to be locked away, not speaking English, after my long and frightening journey from Sudan.”  

Dr. Ahmed, now living in London, told me, “You supported me with many things – especially hope.  At least I talked to someone. Even simply saying ‘hello’ helped me. Waging Peace also contacted my lawyer and if I wasn’t happy with something or I didn’t understand they would act on my behalf and support me.”     Ezzeldin, now living in Manchester, remembers, “I didn’t have family or friends to talk to and I was scared. I knew if I was sent back home I would die. I needed support and help with my asylum application. I totally broke down when I arrived. I tried to commit suicide two times while I was in detention. Waging Peace gave me emotional support and helped contact my lawyer. Unfortunately no Sudanese Visitors Group visits were allowed because of my mental state so I was very lonely. When I received a phone call from Waging Peace it felt like I received a message from God. Waging Peace’s support was a lifeline for me.”