NEW DISPOSALS FOR ADULTS
Improving the effectiveness of community punishments
Community Service Demonstration Project
160. The community sentence demonstation
project centred on Teesside and Shrewsbury Crown court centres
and associated magistrates' courts, aims to show how far changes
in approach, within the present legislative framework and within
existing resources, can increase sentencer and public confidence
in community sentences and the effectiveness of those sentences.
This will build on the framework established by the 1995 National
Standards for the Supervision of Offenders in the Community.
161. The project was established as a joint
initiative involving the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department,
the Magistrates' Association, the Justices Clerks' Society, the
Law Society, the Central Probation Council, and the Association
of Chief Officers of Probation. This followed discussions with
interested parties, which included sentencing exercises, about
the 1995 Green Paper "Strengthening Punishment in the Community"
and the response to it. It was clear that while some sentencers
welcomed wider choice in combining elements of community penalities
and/or other disposals, other sentencers did not fully use existing
options, particularly the attachment of additional requirements
to probation orders. There was also considerable support for more
and better liaison between sentencers and the probation service.
162. New local arrangements in Teesside
and Shrewsbury were implemented on 1 April 1997. Sentencers and
probation services are working closely together to ensure that
the three purposes of a community sentence identified in the Green
Paper—the restriction of liberty, reparation and the prevention
of re-offending—are used in the right proportion for each
community sentence so that it closely matches the offender and
the offence.
163. The Home Office Research and Statistics
Directorate are monitoring and evaluating the project for a 12
month period. The Government will carefully consider the evaluation:
the findings should provide important information about the need
for legislative change.
Passports
164. As part of the Home Office strategy
for strengthening the enforcement of community penalties, the
Home Secretary has considered the possibility of restricting the
ability of offenders to travel abroad. He has decided that the
best way of proceeding would be to issue guidance to the courts
(and to probation services in relation to the preparation of pre-sentence
reports) reminding them of their current powers to add requirements
to probation orders in cases where travel abroad could interfere
with rehabilitation or facilitate further crime.
Research initiatives
The content of supervision
165. While much research effort has been
devoted to examining which forms of treatment are effective in
changing attiudes and behaviour, this has been balanced by other
studies which have examined what sorts of practical help offenders
need to help them avoid reoffending and what form this should
take—bearing in mind that offenders on probation are more
likely than the general population to be poorly educated, to be
unemployed, to have been in care as a child, to use drugs, and
to be in poor health. This has resulted in information on good
practice in identifying and addressing literacy needs. The research
programme is examining:
— whether physically
demanding activities have beneficial effects and, if they do,
whether it is the physical activity of the extra supervisory input
which yields improvement. (Initial results are due in October
1998, with reconviction results two years later.); and
— the effect of
innovative forms of employment work with young offenders in two
probation areas. (A descriptive account of TEC employment training
schemes for offenders, with ideas about best practice was distributed
to all probation services in 1996, and reconviction information
will be available in Spring 2000.)
Enforcement
166. If sentencers and the public are to
have confidence in community penalties it is clearly important
that such orders are appropriately supervised to ensure compliance
and that non-compliance is dealt with effectively. Breach rates
would seem to be an obvious way of measuring this, yet in practice
they require very careful interpretation. For example, low breach
rates may be a sign of lax supervision or effective working. (The
same may be said of reconviction rates.)
167. A recent RSD study[26]
examined the methods used by probation and community service (CS)
staff to ensure compliance, the circumstances in which they decided
to breach an offender and how the breach process functions. One
of the main problems this highlighted was that poor practice could
often be hidden by main grade officers. It was left to them to
bring problems to the attention of their managers. However, the
research also identified examples of good practice which might
be built upon, such as allocating breach hearings to a particular
day each week so that they were dealt with expeditiously. Since
this research was published the Home Office has hosted a management
seminar for the probation service on enforcement and encouraged
them to review their procedures in the light of its findings.
Women offenders
168. Although the proportion of women receiving
probation orders is roughly twice that of men (20 per cent vs
11 per cent), the number of men on probation is four times as
great: unsurprisingly therefore most programmes are geared to
their needs. In the RSD research[27]
on programmes employing cognitive techniques, for example, only
7 of the 123 programmes which collected data on the sex of participants
were run specifically for women and a further 25 accepted women
(where the average male to female ratio was 10:1).
169. Recent small-scale research[28],
which involved interviewing women and their supervisors, suggest
that women offenders' needs differ from men's on a number of dimensions
including finding suitable employment, and coping with past and
current experiences as victims of domestic violence and sexual
abuse.
170. 1995 National Standards require probation
services to ensure that supervision is delivered without any improper
discrimination. When preparing pre-sentence reports, services
must take account of the relevant social circumstances of any
offender. So for example, where an offender is pregnant or a single
parent, those facts may be brought to the attention of the court;
however, it is for the court to decide whether a particular offender
is suitable for a community penalty. National Standards also require
probation services to periodically review whether there is a broad
range of community service placements and sufficient community
service places suitable for women offenders and single parents.
Some larger services provide "women only" offender programmes.
It is for the chief probation officer to decide whether it is
viable to establish any particular type of supervision in their
area.
171. The 1996 HM Inspectorate of Probation
report—"A review of probation service provision for
women offenders"—reinforced the importance of local
probation services providing a full range of appropriate facilities
for women offenders.
Ethnic Minorities
172. The Home Office collect statistical
information monitoring the involvement of ethnic minorities within
prisons and under the supervision of the probation service. Since
April 1996, information has also been collected from the police
service covering PACE, arrests, cautions and homicide. This information
will be published for the first time this month. The Home Office
has also published three booklets since 1992 covering general
information on the position of ethnic minorities within the criminal
justice system to meet the requirements of section 95 of the Criminal
Justice Act 1991. The fourth is due to be published this month.
Further work on extending ethnic monitoring within the criminal
justice system is co-ordinated by the Home Office with representatives
from the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Court Service, the
Crown Prosecution Service, the Justices' Clerks' Society and the
Association of Chief Officers of Probation. This group has currently
set up and is evaluating a number of pilot trials in various parts
of the country to extend ethnic monitoring to the courts. The
group report regularly to the Trials Issues Group and the Criminal
Justice Consultative Council.
173. In 1996-97 the Probation Service dealt
with more black and less South Asian people than would be expected
from the population census. 5.1 per cent of those starting community
orders in this period were black. 13 per cent of those in prison
on 30 June 1996 were black. However, the 1991 census percentages
slightly underestimate the proportions in ethnic minority groups
because of the under-counting of young men in inner cities. When
comparing the ethnic composition of those in contact with the
probation service with the ethnic composition of those in the
general population, the current aggregated information is of limited
explanatory value; no information is collected on social class,
education, employment status, social deprivation or disadvantage.
174. The information collected for 1996-97[29]
shows:
— the South Asian
Group have less probation and more CSOs than other groups;
— 95 per cent of
the South Asian group starting criminal supervision orders with
the probation service were male, compared to 86 per cent male
in other groups;
— 21 per cent of
the South Asian group starting a probation order had no previous
criminal history, in contrast to 16 per cent for other groups;
— Inner London
had the highest percentage of ethnic minorities starting orders.
This is not surprising as Inner London had the third highest population
of ethnic minorities (23 per cent) in the 1991 population census.
— The ethnic minorities
represented 10.1 per cent of those proposed in PSRs for a community
sentence, compared to 14.2 per cent proposed for custody. However,
12.4 per cent of PSRs for the ethnic minorities made no definite
proposal, compared to 8.7 per cent for the white group.
Drug testing and treatment order
175. Existing legislation gives a court
the power to require that an offender sentenced to a probation
order will undergo treatment for drug or alcohol dependency if
it is satisfied that the dependency contributed to the offence
and that the offender requires treatment. This power is little
used although research indicates that a significant amount of
offending is drug-related.
176. The Government has proposed a new power,
known as the drug treatment and testing order, to enable courts
to deal more effectively with drug misusers who commit crimes
in order to fund their drug misuse. It would give the courts a
power to impose drug treatment with the consent of the offender,
to specify some of the terms of the treatment (though not its
content) and to review the offender's progress. Regular, but random,
mandatory drug testing would be an integral part of the treatment
programme.
177. The Government envisages that a drug
test would not be required as evidence of drug misuse for the
sentence to be imposed, though the court would have the power
to order one if it deems it necessary. The court would, of course,
still have to be satisfied that his drug misuse is susceptible
to treatment.
Home detention curfew
179. The Government will extend the use
of curfews enforced by electronic monitoring to replace the last
part of a prison sentence. It would be possible to release prisoners
up to 2 months before they were due to be released, on the condition
that they were subject to fairly restrictive curfew enforced by
electronic monitoring. The practical arrangements for the curfew
would be similar to those in place for curfews enforced by electronic
monitoring imposed by the courts as a community penalty.
180. The Government believes that there
are advantages to such a scheme. In particular, release on curfew,
with a clear prospect of return to custody in case of breach,
would provide a useful transition for offenders between custody
and freedom, enabling them to settle more easily into living in
the community. The costs of such a scheme would be met by an offsetting
saving in the cost of imprisonment for these offenders.
D RESEARCH ON ARRANGEMENTS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
181. The latest comparisons of the prison
population relate to September 1996 and show that England and
Wales had a rate of 110 prisoners per 100,000 population. This
was similar to the rate in Scotland, Spain and Canada. The only
Western European country with a higher rate than England and Wales
was Portugal with 140. The rate in most of the other Western European
countries ranged from 60 to 100. The USA had a rate of 610 and
New Zealand a rate of 140. Currently, the rate in England and
Wales stands at 120.
182. The latest information on percentage
usage of non-custodial sentences in a small number of European
countries for different offences has been collected for the Council
of Europe's draft model for the European Sourcebook of Crime and
Criminal Justice Statistics. However, the data relates to 1990.
A fuller survey covering the period 1990 to 1996 is currently
being carried out. All 40 member states of the Council are expected
to complete it. The USA and Canada have also been invited to participate.
The Council will make the results available in mid 1998.
183. The following paragraphs summarise
the available information about the position in a number of countries.
USA[30]
184. 1996 Prison population: 1,630,940
Prison population rate per 100,000 general population:
610
Percentage of offenders serving non-custodial sentences:
60 per cent
Types of non-custodial sentences available:
(a) Probation—offender
reports to probation officer either several times a month or less
frequently.
(b) Intensive supervision
probation—offender sees probation officer nearly every day
and also receives unscheduled visits to home or workplace.
(c) Restitution and fines—involves
payments to victims or state.
(d) Community service—work
in or for the state.
(e) Substance abuse treatment—referral
to private clinic.
(f) Day reporting—offender
reports to a centre every day to file a report with a supervision
officer detailing their activities for the next 24 hours.
(g) House arrest and
electronic monitoring—offender may not leave the house other
than to go to work, school or a clinic.
185. Federal sentencing guidelines were
launched in 1987 in an effort to reduce the disparity in sentencing
but judges, attorneys and many prosecutors believe that adherence
to the guidelines does not always lead to fair or effective sentencing
and have criticised them for their severity and complexity.
186. Some states have issued their own guidelines.
In Florida, for example, prison sentences for offenders are graded
according to the gravity of the sentence and their past history
on a points scale. For sentences of up to 24 months imprisonment,
the judge may, as an alternative to imprisonment, impose other
sanctions such as house arrest, probation or community control
with strict conditions attached such as attendance at a residential
drug treatment centre, participation in educational/vocational
training, restitution to the victim and community service. Some
of these sanctions may be part of an intensive supervision probation
scheme which requires the offender additionally to accept a curfew,
undergo drug and alcohol usage tests and see a probation officer
nearly every day. The Bureau of Justice has commissioned studies
into the intensive supervision probation and early reports suggest
that offenders who have followed tailor-made, carefully managed
programs are less likely to re-offend than comparable offenders
released from prison.
187. In Wisconsin, the State Governor appointed
a Task Force to "make recommendations on how correctional
resources canreduce and manage risks in the community". The
Task Force looked at a police operation which resulted in 94 arrests
for drugs offences from a street corner in a three month period.
They discovered that the simple removal (by imprisonment) of any
number of offenders from this high crime locality did not solve
the problem: it continued to be a drug trafficking centre. The
Task Force found that many other factors such as the lack of police
presence and support for non criminal local residents contributed
to the prevalence of crime in a particular location. They then
examined the question of resources being more usefully diverted
to the creation of safe environments by removing the opportunity
for offending. The Task Force suggested that various sentencing
options apart from imprisonment should be made available to judges,
for example, community control measures such as electronic monitoring,
drug screening, frequent contact with probation officers (each
officer supervising no more than 17 offenders), mandatory attendance
at school, work or community service.
188. Massachusetts began an experiment five
years ago with alternative sentencing called "Changing lives
through literature". An offender receiving such a sentence
must have the reading and comprehension abilities to participate
in the programme. It involves intensive probation, help in finding
a job and twice weekly discussion groups held at the unversity
focusing on modern literature dealing with issues the offenders
may encounter in their own lives. The preliminary evaluation based
upon a small number of offenders tends to suggest that the recidivism
rate is considerably lower amongst those who had completed the
programme.
Canada[31] 189. 1996
Prison population: 33,790
Prison population rate per 100,000 general population:
110
Types of non-custodial sentences available:
(a) Probation—court
prescribes a number of conditions in the order.
(d) Orders—prohibitions
against certain activities or contact with associates or victims;
forfeiture of property.
(e) Fine—may be
given in lieu of a sentence of less than five years imprisonment.
190. It is unusual for a first time offender
to be sent to prison and the court willl normally be prepared
to give four or five probationary terms before imposing a prison
sentence.
191. Courts may impose a Community Service
Order as an alternative to prison. The orders are varied and include
working in community facilities as well as for charitable organisations.
France[32]
192. 1996 Prison population: 54,010
Prison population rate per 100,000 general population
90
percentage of offenders serving non-custodial
sentences:
6 per cent for serious crimes; 27 per cent for
other crimes
Types of non-custodial sentences available:
(a) Restrictions—mainly
driving bans, confiscation of property and restriction of rights
eg professional activity.
(b) Fines, day-fines—involves
payments to the state.
(c) Community service—unpaid
work for the state or charitable association.
(d) Suspended prison
sentence with supervision.
(e) Intensive probation—many
restrictions of movement and behaviour and payment of damages
to victim.
(f) Educational or social
integration courses—supervised by parents or person appointed
by the court in a private or public institution.
193. Inspired by examples of Community Service
in the UK and Quebec, community sentences became available in
1984 for offenders aged 16 and over. If an offence is punishable
by a term of imprisonment of less than 6 months, the judge may
convert this to a community sentence of 40 to 240 hours to be
completed over a maximum period of 18 months. This involves unpaid
work of social and educational value supervised by the Prison
Service for the state, the local council or a charity. The offender
must agree to the terms as enforced labour is illegal but violations
of the agreement may result in a prison sentence of up to two
years and a £20,000 fine.
194. If a crime is punishable by imprisonment
the court may in addition to the prison sentence, set a number
of optional "day-fines", ie a daily payment of an amount
fixed by the court depending on the crime and the offender's resources.
According to the Penal Code, this sanction is not meant to be
an alternative to imprisonment but a method for offenders to reduce
the length of their sentence.
195. A suspended prison sentence with supervision
can be given to offenders who have committed serious crimes. The
prison sentence is suspended on condition that the offender adheres
to certain conditions for a set period of time. The conditions
may, amongst numerous restrictions, require the offender to carry
on professional activity, follow an academic or vocational course
of study, live at a particular address, submit to medical treatment,
pay compensation for the damage caused by the offence regardless
of whether or not civil action to recover costs is being pursued,
to refrain from betting especially in bars, keep away from accomplices
and victims and to surrender firearms.
196. Between 1984 and 1993, judges have
tended to impose longer prison sentences for the serious offences
and suspended sentences rather than fines for other sentences.
The only drop in the use of imprisonment has been for offences
punishable by less than one year where Community Service is available.
Republic of Ireland[33]
197. 1996 Prison population: 2,140
Prison population rate per 100,000 general population:
60
Types of non-custodial sentences available:
(a) Probation—supervised
by a probation officer and may also have to pay compensation.
(b) Community service—work
of between 40 and 240 hours.
(c) Fines, compensation,
confiscation.
(d) Drug treatment—may
also include education.
198. The intensive probation supervision
scheme (the Bridge Project in Dublin and Inpro Ltd in Cork) aims
at diverting serious offenders from prison by placing them in
a demanding community based programme. It attempts to challenge
their behaviour and to help them to develop the social skills
necessary to avoid re-offending. Attempts are made to place participants
in employment at the end of the programme and the project director
has recently launched an initiative to persuade employers to consider
taking on ex-offenders.
Finland[34]
199. 1996 Prison population: 3,250
Prison population rate per 100,000 general population:
60
Types of non-custodial sentences available:
(a) Petty fine—used
for minor offences.
(b) Day-fine—payment
of a set sum each day.
(d) Cautions, dismissal
from office—applies to civil servants only.
200. The country has just completed a 5
year experimental period of imposing community service orders
as a punishment in place of imprisonment. Evaluation results are
not yet available. These orders can replace prison sentences of
up to 8 months and normally consist of between 20 and 200 hours
of regular unpaid work supervised by the Probation Service. If
the offender does not perform the service satisfactorily, the
court may change the sentence to a term of imprisonment.
Netherlands[35]
201. 1996 Prison population: 11,930.
Prison population rate per 100,000 general population:
80.
Types of non-custodial sentences available:
(b) Community service—up
to 240 hours of work.
202. Efforts have been made to reduce the
incarceration rate by both the moderate use of the criminal law
and imprisonment as a sanction.
203. Following an experimental period of
8 years, community service was introduced in 1989 as an alternative
to prison sentences of up to 6 months.
Sweden[36]
204. 1996 Prison population: 5,760.
Prison population rate per 100,000 general population:
70.
Types of non-custodial sentences available:
(a) Probation, conditional
sentence.
(c) Petty fines, fines, day-fines.
205. The Ministry of Justice is currently
examining alternatives to prison, in particular community service,
intensive supervision and electronic monitoring.
December 1997
26 Ellis, T, Hedderman, C and Mortimer E, (1996). Enforcing
community sentences: supervisors' perspectives on ensuring compliance
and dealing with breach. HORS 158, London: Home Office. Back
27
Hedderman, C and Sugg, D (1997). Part II, The influence of cognitive
approaches: a survey of probation programmes. Changing offenders
attitudes and behaviour: What Works? HORS 171 London: Home Office. Back
28
Wilkinson, C, Buckley, K and Symes, C (1996). Dealing with women:
a needs analysis in relation to the probation service. Unpublished
report to the Home Office: London. Back
29
Probation Statistics, England and Wales 1996. London: Home Office.
Published 1997. Back
30
Source: Bureau of Justice. Florida Community Control Program,
Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. Back
31
Source: Department of Justice. Back
32
Source: Ministry of Justice. Back
33
Source: Department of Justice. Back
34
Source: Ministry of Justice. Back
35
Source: Ministry of Justice. Back
36
Source: Ministry of Justice. Back
| 
