List of Conclusions and Recommendations
249. Our conclusions and recommendations are as follows:
The use of custodial sentences and the prison
population
1. The increased prison population places
enormous strains on the Prison Service and, given the budget constraints
in which it operates, has an adverse effect on the regimes of
prisons and the amount of rehabilitative work which can be done
in them. An indication of this is the reduction in the number
of hours prisoners are spending in purposeful activity. The Government
must not allow the rapidly increasing prison population to diminish
the quality of regimes and must be prepared to fund the Service
to this end. We welcome the fact that the target for purposeful
activity for 1998/99 has been increased (paragraph 16).
2. The rapidly escalating prison population
makes it of paramount importance to investigate credible alternatives
to custody and to use them wherever appropriate. Prison will always
be necessary for the most dangerous and/or persistent criminals,
but it must be closely targeted on them, with other offenders
being given non-custodial sentences which are effective and in
which sentencers and the public have confidence (paragraph 17).
3. We note the insistence of HM Chief Inspector
of Prisons that there are many people in custody who do not need
to be there. We do not seek to question the judgements of sentencers
but we do ask the Government to consider urgently the use and
desirability of custodial sentences for those offenders—young
offenders and female offenders—mentioned by Sir David Ramsbotham
(paragraph 18).
4. We emphatically reject the suggestion [made
to us by one set of witnesses] that a prison population of 200,000
is either desirable or feasible (paragraph 19).
Probation hostels
5. Probation orders with a requirement of
residence in a hostel allow serious offenders to be dealt with
in the community, while still offering significant protection
to the public, and are cheaper than prison. They are therefore
a credible alternative to prison. We recommend that the Home Office
assesses whether an unoccupied bed rate of around 17 per cent
represents an efficient use of resources; that it commissions
research to assess the effectiveness of hostels in terms of reconvictions;
and that, if such results demonstrate a reasonable level of success
compared to prison and other community sentences, it encourages
the greater use of probation orders with requirements to reside
in hostels as an alternative to imprisonment in appropriate cases;
and that it ensures there is adequate provision of hostel places
to facilitate such a shift in sentencing practice (paragraph 44).
Protecting the public
6. For as long as they are locked up, prison
affords the greatest degree of protection to the public from criminals
and will always need to fulfill this role. However, nearly all
prisoners are released at some point and at present rarely have
to confront their offending behaviour in order to be rehabilitated
to the same extent as those who have taken part in the more intensive
forms of probation. At this point it is not so clear that prison
has protected the public in the long term. If community sentences
are effective at weaning offenders away from a criminal lifestyle,
they may, in many cases, offer the most effective long-term protection
of the public (paragraph 45).
Probation Service access to police records
7. We recommend that the Home Office act quickly
to ensure that the probation service's information technology
systems can directly access the relevant records held by police
systems, regarding the offenders with whom they are working. While
waiting for this to be implemented we urge police forces to comply
with the recent three day limit introduced to provide probation
services with the information they require (paragraph 60).
Reoffending
8. Overall reconviction rates for custodial
and non-custodial sentences suggest that there is little to choose
between them in terms of effectiveness in reducing reoffending.
However, some evidence suggests that the most successful forms
of community sentence can reduce reoffending more effectively
than prison. Two qualifications need to be made to this finding
however: reoffending rates are still high, even under the more
effective programmes; and the research on which such conclusions
concerning the effectiveness of community sentences should be
made is often inadequate (paragraph 61).
Assessing the effectiveness of community sentences
9. The absence of rigorous assessment of the
effectiveness of community sentences is astonishing. Without it
confidence in them must be limited and sentencing policy a matter
of guess-work and optimism. We welcome the importance which the
Probation Inspectorate are giving to assessing effectiveness and
the fact that many probation services now recognise the importance
of being able to demonstrate that community sentences work. However,
when viewed in the context of the overall expenditure on the criminal
justice system, and the further costs of crime both to the victims
and to society, the figures spent nationally on research are risibly
minuscule. The Government should rectify this, take a long term
view and ensure that community sentences are adequately assessed
(paragraph 62).
Punishment and retribution
10. There is no standard measurement of punishment.
While prison deprives criminals of their liberty, community sentences
can and should be rigorous. They should make demands in terms
of hours worked, for example, on community service, and also in
the psychologically challenging practice of forcing offenders
to confront their criminal behaviour and its effects—something
they may never be required to do in prison. More needs to be done
to make the public aware of this kind of work carried out with
offenders given community sentences (paragraph 65).
Costs
11. There is no straightforward way of making
a simple comparison between the total costs involved of sending
someone to prison or of giving them a community sentence. It costs
more for the state to keep offenders in prison than to sentence
them to community sentences, but there are also additional costs
associated with imprisonment not accounted for here, including,
for example, family breakdown and loss of employment. The hidden
cost of community sentences, on the other hand, is that of the
further crimes committed by offenders in the community, which
would have been avoided had custodial sentences been imposed (paragraph
67).
12. While we recognise the difficulties in
doing so, we recommend that the Home Office commission comparative
research on the full costs of the use of custodial and non-custodial
sentences, not just in terms of direct government expenditure,
but also accounting for the wider social costs involved. Such
research would allow decisions concerning the use of custody to
be taken on a more informed basis (paragraph 68).
National Standards
13. We agree with ACOP that National Standards
are a minimum basic set of requirements. We were therefore alarmed
to discover how frequently they are not adhered to. We recognise
that limited resources affect compliance rates with National Standards
.... However, we urge all Chief Probation Officers to make every
possible effort to meet these basic requirements. We welcome the
introduction of two Key Performance Indicators which will be used
to assess the performance of the probation service in relation
to National Standards concerning first contact with offenders,
and breach action. We recommend that the National Standards are
reviewed on a regular basis and that independent figures from
outside the probation service and the Home Office help conduct
these reviews (paragraph 79).
Enforcement of community sentences
14. The available statistics relating to the
number of offenders who fail to complete community sentences do
not make it clear exactly what proportion of offenders successfully
complete the orders; what proportion are breached; what proportion
are discharged early for good progress; and what proportion fail
to complete but are not brought before the courts to be breached.
The Home Office should ensure that such information is collected
and published (paragraph 83).
15. Strict enforcement of community sentences
is vital if they are to represent a credible alternative to prison
and retain the confidence of sentencers and the public. If community
sentences are to credible they must be enforced stringently. It
is therefore entirely unacceptable that local probation services
are, on average, taking breach action in accordance with the National
Standards relating to probation orders in barely a quarter of
cases. The Home Office should set a minimum target for all local
probation services to comply with these standards, ensure that
the Inspectorate assesses each local service on this every year
and that it requires publication of the results, and take action
against those which fail to meet the target. Consideration should
be given to reworking the funding formula for local probation
services to provide an incentive for services to meet this target
(paragraph 87).
Returning offenders to court
16. It is essential that offenders who breach
community sentences are returned to court quickly. It is not satisfactory
that warrants take so long to enforce, and command so little confidence
amongst sentencers and probation officers. We recommend that the
Home Office institutes a new target and Key Performance Indicator
for police services for the time taken to execute warrants, and
that it monitors the amount of time taken to do so on a force
by force basis. We also recommend that civil enforcement agencies
be used to execute warrants on a trial basis and that their performance
be assessed against that of the police in terms of speed and cost-effectiveness
(paragraph 91).
The courts' powers to deal with offenders who
breach
17. We recommend that the Home Office introduce
an increased range of options for sentencers to use where offenders
breach community sentences and which, once imposed, would allow
the resumption of the community sentence (paragraph 97).
18. We accept that there will be times when
the breach is of sufficient seriousness to merit a revocation
of the original community sentence, and that in these circumstances
the courts can impose any punishment which might have been made
at the original time of sentencing. However, we note that where
the original court cannot impose imprisonment, and where the offender
has blatantly flouted the terms of their community sentence, few
effective sanctions are available. We therefore recommend that
the Home Office rectify this situation and ensure that offenders
who flagrantly breach the terms of community sentences may be
sent to prison, either by increasing the powers of courts on revocation,
or by introducing a new offence of breaching a community sentence
which would attract a prison sentence (paragraph 98).
"What Works?"
19. Such evidence as there is suggests that
when certain factors are present in the content and implementation
of probation programmes, they can help to reduce reoffending.
Community sentences, therefore, have the potential to be more
effective than prisons. We congratulate HMIP in its continuing
efforts to ensure that all probation services follow "What
Works?" principles and urge the Home Office to join with
the Inspectorate in putting pressure on all services to incorporate
these principles into their work; adherence to "What Works?"
principles should be a National Standard (paragraph 103).
Pre-sentence reports
20. Although it may not be the case that pre-sentence
reports never propose custodial sentences, it remains the case
that they rarely do so explicitly. We recommend that National
Standards be amended so that pre-sentence reports not only have
to make it clear where non-custodial sentences have been considered
to be inappropriate, but that they state explicitly that "a
custodial option appears to be the only option available to the
court", or words to that effect (paragraph 108).
The professionalism of the probation service
21. We are pleased to note that the vast majority
of sentencers are satisfied with the work of the probation service
and that there is widespread recognition that the performance
of the probation service has improved since the 1970s, when it
appeared to have lost sight of its primary duty to protect society.
During our visits to probation services we were consistently impressed
by the dedication demonstrated by probation officers, and by their
realisation that protecting the public must be their priority
(paragraph 109).
Resources and caseloads
22. In so far as cuts in resources for the
probation service have led to genuine efficiency savings, then
they need not be a cause of concern, but we note the view from
some quarters of the service that the cuts have gone significantly
beyond this (paragraph 118).
23. It must also be a cause of concern that
.... the current funding situation means that probation services
cannot meet National Standards—the "basic minimum set
of requirements", as ACOP called them. If, despite increasing
their efficiency, the probation service is consistently failing
to meet these standards, the Government should ensure it has the
resources to do so (paragraph 119).
24. We welcome the financial provision made
for the probation service in the Home Secretary's announcement
of 21 July 1998, following the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending
Review, which should make possible some real expansion in the
work of the service. However, we note continuing concern from
within the service as to the extent to which it will be able to
realise the programme of reforms under the Crime and Disorder
Bill. As the various reforms are brought in the Government must
ensure that probation services are properly funded to enable them
to achieve their full intended effect (paragraph 122).
25. We recommend that the funding formula
for individual probation services be re-examined so that probation
services are not discouraged from developing imaginative new approaches
to reducing offending (paragraph 124).
The organisation of the probation service
26. We look forward to the outcome of the
prison-probation review. We note with interest the requests put
to us by the Chief Inspector of Prisons and by NAPO for the creation
of a single probation service. We appreciate the caution expressed
by the Chief Inspector of Probation concerning the local nature
of crime, but we also note that he perceived advantages in the
creation of a single service (paragraph 129).
Sentencer confidence
27. We recommend that all sentencers make
regular visits to probation centres and community service placements
and that the frequency of visits is monitored by the Lord Chancellor's
Department. We welcome the fact that the Lord Chief Justice has
already taken action in this regard (paragraph 138).
28. We welcome the Community Sentence Demonstration
Project, which has led to more information being communicated
to sentencers regarding the community sentence options available
to them and the outcome of cases, and look forward to seeing the
Home Office evaluation of the project; we trust it will act on
the conclusions of the findings and do all it can to improve communication
between sentencers and the probation service nationally. We believe
it is essential for sentencers to be aware of the results of the
sentences they make in terms of their success, or otherwise, in
preventing offenders from reoffending. Without such knowledge
they remain ignorant of the effectiveness of the various sentencing
options available to them (paragraph 139).
Public confidence
29. We welcome the assurance by the Prisons
and Probation Minister that she and her colleagues will help to
publicise the good work undertaken by the probation service and
we look forward to them doing so. Other politicians should also
play their part in informing the public about the work being carried
out with offenders in the community. We commend the work of those
magistrates' benches who are trying better to inform the public
about sentencing decisions, and we urge the Lord Chancellor's
Department to disseminate good practice in this respect and urge
other benches to follow it .... We think the next challenge for
the probation service is to focus its attention on the wider public
and we would urge them to take the kind of action recommended
by the Prisons and Probation Minister in publicising new and rigorous
initiatives taken to deal with offenders (paragraph 148).
30. The media should act responsibly in their
depiction of community sentences, and not give the misleading
impression that those sentenced to community penalties have "got
off" or "walked free". We have learned a great
deal about the work of the probation service by visiting programmes
on the ground. The media, too, could benefit from such visits
and we urge them to do so (paragraph 149).
31. We agree wholeheartedly with the Home
Secretary's comments regarding the language used in relation to
community sentences; in particular we deplore the use of the term
'client' to describe criminals who are serving sentences. We also
agree that the term 'community service' carries with it inappropriate
connotations of voluntary activity. We recommend adoption of the
suggestion made by the Lord Chief Justice that it should be retitled
'criminal work order' (paragraph 152).
32. What the public really want to hear is
that community sentences are effective in reducing crime. The
most compelling argument that could possibly be put forward for
community sentences is that they are consistently more effective
than prison in reducing reoffending. Evidence exists that some
community sentences are more effective, but we note again the
findings of the Inspectorate that these programmes are, overwhelmingly,
not adequately evaluated in order to be able to put forward this
argument with conviction. We stress again the vital need for the
probation service to make sure their community sentence programmes
are evaluated properly and that the lessons regarding which types
of programmes are most effective are learned and disseminated
as widely as possible (paragraph 154).
Curfew orders with electronic monitoring
33. We welcome the introduction of curfew
orders with electronic monitoring .... We note that the police
in Manchester were impressed with the professional manner in which
curfew orders had been implemented there; so were we. The speedy
way in which offenders are chased up if they are not within their
curfew area, and the tactful but firm manner of the operators
we saw in action, give the right impression to offenders: that
this is a punishment they must take seriously (paragraph 162).
34. The curfew order trials appear to have
been successful and we therefore urge the Government to make them
available to courts nationally as soon as possible (paragraph
162).
Home detention curfew
35. We welcome the Home Detention Curfew initiative
which, it is estimated, will-free up 3,000 prison places annually
in the context of an otherwise rapidly increasing prison population.
It will provide adequate protection to the public because of the
tagging element, and will give prisoners an opportunity to readjust
to life outside prison (paragraph 164).
Suspended sentences
36. The restriction of the use of suspended
sentences only to those cases where there are exceptional circumstances
has removed a useful sentencing option from the courts. We accept
that there are potential difficulties in the use of suspended
sentences, notably that offenders could be perceived to have gone
unpunished. Also, if offenders remain undeterred by the prospect
of prison and continue to offend, then there could be an eventual
increase in the prison population, making the suspended sentence
inappropriate for persistent petty offenders. However, there remain
circumstances, particularly where the crime might ordinarily justify
a custodial sentence but was a "one-off" and unlikely
to be repeated, in which a suspended sentence could be appropriate.
We recommend that the Government make provision for sentencers
to use suspended sentences more frequently, in appropriate circumstances,
as an alternative to custody (paragraph 169).
Weekend prison
37. Weekend prison offers the possibility
of a prison sentence whilst at the same time allowing offenders
to keep or seek employment. However, we recognise that there are
a number of difficult practical issues to be resolved concerning
its implementation. We therefore recommend that the Home Office
instigate a feasibility study to see if weekend prison, as suggested
by Sir David Ramsbotham, could be made possible without significant
extra costs being incurred (paragraph 174).
Fines
38. We welcome the reduction in the numbers
of fine defaulters sent to prison, and the provisions in the Crime
(Sentences) Act 1997 which should allow for more fine defaulters
to be dealt with in the community. We find it unacceptable that
large numbers of fines go unpaid and urge the Government to monitor
the collection and enforcement of fines by magistrates' courts
and ensure that good practice is disseminated. Consideration should
be given to increasing incentives for courts to collect fines
by allowing them to retain a proportion of the money collected
(paragraph 179).
Cautioning with restorative justice
39. We welcome the use of cautioning with
restorative justice conferences which we saw at Thames Valley
Police. Clearly, this approach, which involves bringing offender
and victim together, will not be suitable for everyone. However,
where offender and victim are willing to talk, restorative justice
provides an opportunity for the victim to feel some degree of
recompense, and for the offender to appreciate the harm he or
she has caused by their actions. We particularly commend Thames
Valley Police for having this project independently evaluated.
Although this approach is more time-consuming than traditional
cautioning, if it successfully reduces reoffending rates it will
prove worthwhile. We urge the Home Office to examine the evaluation
study when it is available and, if it demonstrates success, to
encourage other police forces to follow this innovative approach
(paragraph 183).
Young offenders
40. It is essential that courts have the requisite
powers to deal with young offenders and the appropriate range
of sentences, and this undoubtedly includes a need for custodial
sentences and secure accommodation for those young people who
present the most serious threat to society .... We note that the
responsibilities of the Youth Justice Board are to be extended
to include the commissioning of secure accommodation for juveniles
and that it will work to improve this accommodation. We welcome
this, but note the concerns expressed to us that there is insufficient
secure accommodation for young people and urge the Government
to rectify this (paragraph 193).
41. Once again, we note that it is vital that
all projects such as these are rigorously assessed in order to
determine which elements of their work are most successful, with
a view to replicating them elsewhere. We note that intensive work
such as this is more expensive than conventional probation, but
the possible savings, in terms of reduced offending in the future
and less crime, and when compared to prison, make such schemes
worthwhile, if their effectiveness can be proven (paragraph
197).
42. We support the way in which the proposals
in the Crime and Disorder Bill seek to address the problems of
youth crime by enhancing the range of non-custodial options open
to the courts .... We are concerned that adequate resources be
available for any extra burdens imposed by the new orders ....
The Government has made fighting youth crime a priority and we
applaud it for doing so. It would be unfortunate if the agencies
charged with this fight—amongst which the probation service
is in the vanguard—were unable to do so because of insufficient
resources. We do not yet know whether this will be the case, but
we will be expecting Ministers to monitor the situation closely
(paragraphs 203 and 204).
Drug misusing offenders
43. While we accept that drug traffickers
and dealers will often have to be imprisoned we note the argument
of the Lord Chief Justice that prison is not, generally, effective
in reducing inmates' drug habits and that long term protection
of the public could be more effectively achieved by giving some
offenders community sentences in which they will get help in breaking
their habits. Encouraging evidence exists to suggest that some
probation programmes can achieve a stabilisation or reduction
in drug use in 80 per cent of cases. We commend the work of those
like the Bolton Drug Misusing Offenders Project which does so
by engaging in extensive inter-agency work (paragraph 213).
44. We welcome the introduction of drug treatment
and testing orders, and particularly the fact that the courts
will be able to monitor the progress which offenders make in breaking
their habits. Given the encouraging research that suggests that
treatment can stabilise or reduce addiction in the majority of
cases we think it is a priority that such treatment be available.
We note that the drug treatment and testing orders are to be piloted
and we urge the Government, pending the results of those pilot
schemes, to ensure that adequate resources are available to extend
the orders nationally. Given the alarming extent of crime related
to drug misuse we believe that public spending in this area would
be cost-effective in the longer term. We therefore recommend that
the Government make it an objective that all drug misusing offenders
given community sentences have access to appropriate treatment
(paragraph 217).
Women offenders
45. We recognise the importance of providing
alternatives to prison, and probation programmes in particular,
which tackle the problems presented by women offenders specifically.
We note with concern, again, that limited resources have meant
that these programmes have not been as widespread as they should
have been. We welcome the fact that this situation appears to
be improving and urge the Home Office to monitor and encourage
the provision of these services, in order to ensure that a credible
alternative to prison is available nationally for women offenders
(paragraph 225).
Diversion from crime
46. As well as looking at what criminal justice
agencies should do with offenders once they have committed crimes,
we feel that much greater attention should be concentrated on
what can be done to divert young people who are at risk of offending
away from a life of crime (paragraph 238).
47. We are pleased to note the support of
the Home Secretary and the Prisons and Probation Minister for
work aimed at diverting young people from crime, and welcome the
fact that the new Youth Offending Teams should make it easier
for this work to be done on an inter-agency basis. However, unlike
the Prisons and Probation Minister, we are not convinced that
even working together these agencies will have adequate resources
for this work to the extent where it could really be effective.
If ever there were a case for Government taking a long-term perspective—and
indeed, being tough on the causes of crime—this is it. Relatively
modest expenditure now could bring extensive savings in the future,
but this requires political will and farsightedness .... We welcome
the prospect of extra funding for this kind of diversion work
announced by the Home Secretary following the Comprehensive Spending
Review and we look forward to such work being accorded a much
higher priority than ever before (paragraphs 240 and 241).
| 
