APPENDIX 4
Memorandum by Mr Peter Coad, Dr Sybil
Eysenck, Mr David Fraser, Mr Ronald Lewis and Professor Ken Pease
FOREWORD
I was delighted to have been invited to submit
written evidence to the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee
concerning alternatives to prison. It seemed to me to be a perfect
opportunity to include others whose contributions to this debate
would be invaluable. They are:
David Fraser, Retired
Senior Probation Officer
Ronald Lewis, Retired
Senior Probation Officer
Dr Sybil Eysenck, JP, Distinguished
Psychologist and Magistrate
Professor Ken Pease, OBE, Highly
respected Criminologist and formerly Principal Research Officer
at the Home Office
We have each submitted a primary paper; mine
includes a number of appendices individually written by David
Fraser, Ronald Lewis and myself; others I have written jointly
with David Fraser. Inevitably some of the content is repetitive
but necessary when presented in such a wide variety of contexts.
There is a discrepancy in the detection rates quoted; earlier
documents indicate 7 per cent but later papers quote 4.9 per cent,
the latest figure. All submissions are rooted in evidence, knowledge
and experience and are void of ideology.
It is our hope that we will be invited as a
team to give our evidence orally; we wish to be submitted to the
most rigorous cross-examination as well as being given an opportunity
to amplify our written submissions.
Peter Coad,
Senior Probation Officer (Ret'd)
December 1997
the home affairs committee177
Memorandum by Mr Peter Coad
ALTERNATIVES TO PRISON: PAST AND PRESENT
ALTERNATIVES
1. Before considering alternatives to prison,
it is essential to review and evaluate past and current policies.
Since the establishment of the Probation Service by the 1907 Probation
of Offenders Act, the judiciary in particular and society in general
have entrusted the supervision of the majority of offenders in
the community to probation officers. In early years, probation
was mainly for drunks or minor offenders. The "rules"
were simple and understood by all concerned. The essential requirement
was remorse and an identifiable motivation to reform. The basic
conditions were to obey the instructions of the supervising probation
officer, to be gainfully employed, to be of good behaviour and
not to reoffend. Any breakdown almost inevitably meant a custodial
sentence; it worked and success rates were impressive.
2. The basic philosophy prevailed until
about the 1960's although by then it was slightly less strictly
applied. From about the 1970's the Probation Service has adopted
increasingly liberal attitudes toward crime and criminals. Supervision
in the community of increasingly serious and persistent offenders
increased. The Probation Service claimed that they could successfully
supervise such offenders; nothing could be further from the truth.
However, the Probation Service was so highly regarded by judges,
magistrates, Home Office policy makers et al, that they were believed,
with disastrous results. As increasingly more serious and persistent
offenders, particularly the latter, were kept out of prison, the
crime rate soared; in recent years as prison populations have
grown, the crime rate has begun to fall. (Annexes A, B and C.)
3. By the early 1990's Probation Service
nostrams began to be seriously challenged, although by this time
the powerful anti-prison propaganda had become a major influence
on criminal justice policies. The more vociferous organisations
representing the anti-prison lobby are the National Association
of Probation Officers (NAPO), the Association of Chief Officers
of Probation (ACOP), the Howard League for Penal Reform, the Prison
Reform Trust and the National Association for the Care and Resettlement
of Offenders (NACRO). These organisations often operate under
the guise of the Penal Affairs Consortium, chaired by Paul Cavidino
of the now much discredited NACRO. Endlessly these organisations
have misleadingly claimed that:
(a) Persistent and serious
offenders can be effectively supervised in the community, but
reconviction rates refute that claim. (Annex D).
(b) Probation is a cheaper
option than prison. This claim is based simply on the administrative
cost of a probation order and discounts the colossal cost to society
of allowing persistent criminals freedom to offend with impunity.
(c) Prison makes criminals
worse. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 5/97 concludes that there
is no significant difference in the reconviction rates of those
discharged from prison compared with those given a community penalty.
It goes on to say that "Reconviction rates were generally
lower for offenders given longer sentences, partly reflecting
differences in the characteristics of prisoners." The two-year
reconviction rate for all prisoners discharged in 1993 fell from
58 per cent for those discharged from sentences of up to 12 months,
to 26 per cent for those whose sentences were between four and
10 years.
(d) The UK is the most
punitive country in Europe. This untruthful anti-prison propaganda
has been so successful that it has achieved an "everybody
knows" status, eg "Everybody knows that we send more
people to prison than virtually any other comparable country".
Objective research suggests that the UK is about mid-scale (Annex
E). It was only a decade ago the anti-prison lobby was pointing
to the sentencing policies of liberal Holland as an example to
follow. Their return to reality has been a painful one. During
the period 1987-96, Holland has had to increase its prison population
by a staggering 143 per cent compared with an 18 per cent rise
in the UK during the same period (Annex F).
4. By the 1970's, NAPO had become dominated
by Marxist activists. Those opposing their ideology were howled
down at policy making annual conferences; traditional officers
lost heart and ceased to attend, leaving policy making to the
activists. Free speech is now a dangerous luxury; oppressive political
correctness reigns unassailable. Even in the general work situation,
views contrary to NAPO inspired ideology would seriously risk
preferment or even dismissal. (Annex G).
5. University courses for probation training
from 1974 were the overall responsibility of the Central Council
for the Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW). The original
qualification was a Certificate of Qualification in Social Work
(CQSW) but latterly a Diploma in Social Work (DipSW). The ideological
foundation for this course was based on the notoriously politically
correct CCETSW Paper 30. Thus training reinforced all the worst
aspects of NAPO ideology and trained probation officers to apply
an unhelpful social work approach in the supervision of offenders.
The requirement of a DipSW as a qualification to join the Probation
Service has now been replaced by in-service training (Annex H).
6. Service credibility is maintained by
a well orchestrated conspiracy of lies. Recently a serving Senior
Probation Officer confided that if he openly challenged the lies
told in his name, he would very likely lose his job and with it
his mortgage, a risk he is not prepared to take because of the
dire impact it would have on his family. (Annex I). The conspiracy
of lies is supported directly by NAPO and ACOP. Foremost is the
dishonest claim, made over many years, that the success rate for
probation is 80 plus per cent. (Annex J). The Concise Oxford
Dictionary defines success in terms of human behaviour as
a person who does well. In terms of supervising probationers,
nothing could be further from the truth. The majority of those
on probation are males under 30 years of age. The reconviction
rates are 77 per cent for those under 21, 66 per cent for those
aged 21-24, and 60 per cent for those aged 25-29. When these statistics
are considered against the background of a mere 4.9 per cent detection
rate, the re-offending rate will be horrific.
7. For decades Conservative and Labour Home
Secretaries have abdicated their primary responsibility to protect
the public. The appointment of Kenneth Clarke as Home Secretary
in 1992 marked the beginning of significant policy changes in
the Home Office; his review of sentencing policies (including
the repeal of the bizarre clauses in the 1991 Criminal Justice
Act) coincided with his reading of my treatise, "Crime:
Putting the Record Straight" (published 1992), which
he described as "compelling". His Cabinet colleague,
William Waldegrave, who is also a magistrate, said later that
year, "I believe that Peter Coad's ideas which, only a few
years ago represented a voice crying in the wilderness, are now
finding increasing support. Some of the previous certainties in
relation to crime and the treatment of offenders are becoming
steadily undermined by a clearer view of the facts. Peter Coad's
own role in this process of a return to realism has been an important
one." Many academics, judges (including Lord Lane), chief
constables and retired senior probation officers publicly supported
my treatise. David Marsland, Professor of Social Sciences and
Director of the Centre for Evaluation and Research, Brunel University,
said, "Peter Coad's careful analysis, based on a lifetime's
practical experience in the Probation Service before its corruption
was complete, and scholarly scrutiny of the research literature,
gives the lie to all this nonsense. "Crime: Putting the
Record Straight" deserves to be read with careful attention
by politicians, journalists and academics. It exposes the shoddy
logic of the liberal establishment's tendentious case. It demonstrates
the so-called reformists' routine misuse of statistics and evidence.
It rediscovers the long lost moral dimension of crime and penology."
The appointment of Michael Howard as Kenneth Clarke's successor
ensured continuity and development of the fundamental policy changes
that had been initiated. During Michael Howard's tenure of office,
I was appointed one of his Special Advisers. However, it is important
to stress that as far as criminal justice issues are concerned,
I am strictly apolitical. I did not agree with all Michael Howard's
policies and was not afraid of saying so. My more important contributions
to criminal justice policies during the Clarke/Howard periods
as Home Secretaries concerned the use of cautions, the reform
of the Probation Service and the exposure of anti-prison propaganda.
Paramount was the paper I wrote which formed the foundation on
which the Crime (Sentences) Bill was drafted; I was told by Michael
Howard that the credit for his decision to seek its enactment
was mine (see Annex K for a recent paper on mandatory sentences).
On leaving office last May, former Home Office Minister, David
Maclean wrote thanking me "for all your excellent briefings
over the past few years. There is no doubt that we would not have
had the ability to pursue the programmes we did unless we had
your excellent inside knowledge on how the Probation Service actually
works and what crime and punishment ought to be about. If we had
followed the official briefings, and if we had accepted the standard
wisdom in the Probation Service, then we would have failed abysmally
in the task we had set ourselves and we would also have misled
ourselves and the public by believing that probation was a more
miraculous cure than prison for dealing with offenders. You should
take the credit for single-handedly exposing that myth."
(Note: David Maclean wrote that letter for publication.) When
I met Home Secretary Jack Straw last September, he kindly encouraged
me to send briefings directly to him through his Personal Adviser.
(I ask members of the Select Committee to forgive
me for this lapse into immodesty but, without obvious significant
status and void of any organisational backing, I feel compelled
to use all legitimate means to be accorded credibility.)
8. While in opposition, the Labour Party
supported much of the Government's tougher law and order policies.
Many of the proposals in Jack Straw's "Crime and Disorder"
Bill have much to commend them. They follow logically the tough
measures introduced by his predecessor with a greater emphasis
on the causes of crime. However, more about the "Crime and
Disorder" Bill later.
9. Addressing the primary issue of alternatives
to prison, I refer to supervision in the community by the Probation
Service. It is clear from the Home Office statistics I quote in
paragraph 5 that the supervision of probationers in the community
is a disastrous failure. I refer to Home Office Statistical Bulletin,
March 1997, "Reconvictions of those commencing community
penalties in 1993, England and Wales", Tables 1 and 2 (Annex
D). It is clear from the 1993 reconviction rates that for all
types of probation the known reconviction rate for all age groups
is 60 per cent, but a closer examination of the records reveals
a very much higher reconviction rate for males in the 17-29 age
group, the majority under supervision. Community Service Order
reconviction rates are slightly better with an overall reconviction
rate of 52 per cent, but for those in the 17-29 age group it is
much higher. Again I must point out that all reconviction rates
must be considered against the background of a 4.9 per cent detection
rate, and of the few detected, only 2 per cent appear before a
court. Table 2 records the number of known reconvictions; however,
a reconviction represents merely a court appearance, not the number
of crimes each court appearance represents. Therefore "four
or more reconvictions" could mean scores or even hundreds
of crimes. (Note: the 4.9 per cent detection rate was published
1994 in Home Office Digest 3, "Information on the Criminal
Justice System in England and Wales".)
10. Probation Service reconviction rates
recorded from 1987 to 1993 (the latest) show a steady rise (Annex
D). The Service has tried a variety of forms of rehabilitation
including individual counselling, general groupwork, anger management
groups, sex offenders groups, drug addiction groups, alcohol dependency
groups, social skills groups, women offender and specialist shoplifters
groups, gambling groups, mentally sick offenders groups, encounter
groups, literacy groups, employment groups (Annex L), Heimler
counselling, motor projects, family therapy, variations of intermediate/outward
bound schemes, facing offenders with the consequences of their
crimes on themselves and their victims, and, the latest nostrum,
cognitive therapy. Cognitive therapy (thinking skills) is a behavioural
concept based on a "Reasoning and Rehabilitation" programme
developed in Canada (Ross and Fabiano 1985). In essence, the programme
focuses on the teaching of a number of key cognitive skills which
include self-control; problem solving; verbal and non-verbal communication;
creative thinking; critical reasoning and negotiation. In addition,
it aims to widen social perspectives so that they include consideration
for victims of crime. It was first introduced into this country
by the Mid-Glamorgan Probation Service who devised their own programme
which they called "STOP" (Straight Thinking on Probation).
Rumours abounded about this "miracle" cure for persistent
offenders. In March 1994 the results of the first 12 months were
published showing a staggering 44 per cent reconviction rate;
the final research on completion of the normal two-year trial
period recently published showed a 65 per cent reconviction rate,
and that represented only the ones caught. This result is roughly
the same as the disastrous results of probation centre orders.
However, the programme is the height of Probation Service fashion
and fashion seems to be more important than effectiveness. Variations
on the STOP programme are either currently practised or are being
planned in many probation areas. Many Chief Probation Officers
follow practice fashion irrespective of known disastrous results.
The current "Bible" of the Probation Service is the
highly questionable "What Works: Reducing Offending, Guidelines
from Research and Practice, John Wiley & Sons, edited
by James McGuire (1995)" (Annex M). However catastrophic
the results of community programmes, by the assassination of the
English language, they will be presented as a triumph. Overall,
supervision in the community has been a disaster for the victims
of crime and has done almost nothing to rehabilitate offenders.
It would be no exaggeration to conclude that the actual re-offending
rate for the majority of those on probation will be over 90 per
cent.
11. The other victims of current Probation
Service policies are probation officers themselves. With dedication
and hard work they strive to work effectively with offenders.
Years of failure, void of job satisfaction, has created a Probation
Service in depression. My colleague David Fraser has recently
been awarded a Masters Degree for researching the dysfunctional
implications of probation officers working with constant failure
(Annex N). Thus the continuation of current Probation Service
policies amounts to an abuse of its staff. Probation cannot be
justified as an acceptable alternative to prison based on current
policies. The Service is responsible for playing a significant
role in the victimisation of society. At any one time they supervise
200,000 criminals in the community, and the majority of them are
persistent offenders. If only half of them commit a ludicrously
low estimate of one crime a week, it would account for over five
million crimes a year.
12. During 1997, the Prision Reform Trust,
the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Penal Affairs Consortium
each produced papers describing a selection of community based
alternatives to prison. The presumption must be that they selected
the most convincing examples they could find. My colleague David
Fraser and I researched their proposals and have written a critical
analysis. We found that none of the suggestions for community
based sentences stood up to scrutiny (Annexes O, P & Q). Community
sentences that allow the majority of offenders the freedom to
continue offending cannot be justified. Experimenting with well
established and predictable persistent offenders at great public
expense is an abdication of the primary role of courts to protect
society.
THE
WAY
AHEAD
13. The evidence is overwhelming that current
Probation Service policies not only fail to reform offenders but
actually provide endless opportunities for their "clients"
to continue committing crime. Thus if the vast majority of offenders
under the supervision of the Probation Service were freed from
their orders, the negative effect on the crime rate would be insignificant.
Agreeing to community supervision is often only providing a criminal
with the opportunity to continue offending. The minimum 18 hours
supervision during a two-year Probation Order for persistent offenders
unmotivated to reform makes nonsense of the whole system; even
an optimistic assessment of a 450 hour supervision period for
a two-year Probation Order linked with an intensive 60-day Probation
Day Centre Order still provides a balance of about 17,000 hours
free to commit crime; in fact, Probation Centre Orders have very
high reconviction rates. Although all the evidence suggests that
the majority of those on supervision in the community should be
in prison, clearly there would not be enough places to accommodate
them. Nevertheless, it is a sobering thought that if the sentencing
patterns of the 1950's had been applied to offenders of the 1990's,
300,000 would be in prison.
14. My suggestion is that the majority of
persistent offenders should be given heavy suspended sentences
which would not only avoid wasting the time of probation officers,
but would probably be a more effective deterrent than a Probation
Order which, if breached, is unlikely to lead to a custodial sentence.
The Offender Index published 1994 by the Home
Office shows that:
(a) Relatively few offenders
account for a large proportion of offences.
(b) Most first convictions
occur at the age of 17.
(c) Males first convicted
in their early teens are more likely to continue offending than
those first convicted later.
Digest 3, "Information on the Criminal
Justice System in England and Wales" published 1995,
confirms that the peak age of offending for males is age 18. The
same publication reveals that after one caution, within five years
45 per cent were reconvicted, 2+ cautions 58 per cent; after one
conviction 55 per cent were reconvicted, two convictions 50 per
cent, but after three convictions 75 per cent. Thus the evidence
that the Probation Service should concentrate their efforts on
children and teenagers is compelling. This suggests a closer working
arrangement with Social Services. The plan to concentrate on the
young would not preclude the supervision of those discharged from
custodial sentences nor those with many previous convictions who
show evidence of remorse and motivation to reform.
15. This strategy fits in well with the
concept of "zero tolerance" so successfully introduced
by Superintendent Ray Mallon of Middlesbrough, Cleveland. The
idea of zero tolerance has its roots in New York and is now practised
in many other areas in America where its impact on reducing crime
and making streets safe has been dramatic. For example, between
1987 and 1994 the average annual increase in recorded crime was
0.8 per cent in America compared with 4.4 per cent in England
and Wales. Zero tolerance sends clear and unambiguous messages
to the community that no offence, minor or major, will be tolerated.
Apart from dramatically reducing crime, it has the significant
moral dimension of clarifying right from wrong, not only for the
younger generation, but for society as a whole. Such methods are
an anathema to civil libertarians whose emphasis seems to be concerned
all too often with the "rights" of offenders rather
than the right of the general public to be protected from unrepentent
persistent offenders.
16. Having based a new approach to criminal
justice on a police zero tolerance concept, the focus on children
and teenagers will be a natural one. It provides an excellent
basis for the implementation of many of the proposals in the Crime
and Disorder Bill. It will strengthen the doctrine of right and
wrong. The proposed revision of the caution system, whereby a
second caution is the final one and that further offending will
inevitably lead to a court appearance, is a message that will
be clearly understood. It is at the stage of the second caution
the proposed Parenting Order should be imposed. Parenting Orders
and Behaviour Orders should be linked and should also apply to
children under 10 and at least up to the age of 16 years. The
concept of imposing curfews by tagging is an important one. Tagging
is currently permitted for a minimum period of two hours and a
maximum of 12 hours a day. Thus using tagging in an effort to
control persistent offenders as a substitute for a custodial sentence
is unrealistic. Twelve hours a day is more than enough time for
the persistent offender to continue offending; this applies to
persistent offenders currently being considered for early release
from prison. The consequences of giving early release to up to
6,000 offenders per year could be disastrous if persistent offenders
are selected. However, tagging can be a very useful sentencing
aid, particularly for young offenders. For example, it can be
used to keep football hooligans in their homes on match days;
it can confine offenders to their homes from 6 pm to 6 am daily;
equally important, it can control truancy. It is well known that
much crime is committed by truants; a tag keeping would-be truants
on school premises would not only reduce crime but would also
offer them the possibility of a better education. At a recent
conference of Mayors in America, it was reported that teen violence,
vandalism and crime have been cut by 50 per cent since the introduction
of curfews in more than 270 cities across the United States. Keeping
tabs on pupils during school hours has been significant.
17. It is vital to support the Crime and
Disorder Bill proposals to empower judges to impose mandatory
drug testing and treatment. There has been a huge rise in drug-related
crime in recent years. Home Office research to be published in
the new year has found that 70 per cent of all those arrested
by the police tested positive and 20 per cent had been using heroin.
In America, the comparable heroin figure is 6 per cent. Drug related
crime is thought to cost the nation at least £1 billion a
year. Research shows a clear link between drug addiction and burglary.
It is proposed that drug testing and treatment orders will be
for discretionary periods of between six months and three years.
Though this important provision is an essential first step towards
reducing addiction, success will depend entirely on the motivation
of the addict. Those unmotivated to abstain will continue to commit
endless crime to feed their habit. Therefore immediate custodial
sentences for those failing to comply is essential. A similar
scheme should be devised for alcoholics.
18. Having proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that the existence of the Probation Service operating current
policies cannot be justified, the need for reform is compelling.
Not only does it fail to reform the overwhelming majority of its
"clients", its failed practices actually contribute
significantly to the crime rate. The Probation Service costs the
country about £500 million a year; judging by results, it
is almost a total waste of money. However, its structure exists
and its reform could provide an excellent opportunity to fit neatly
into the police zero tolerance concept and the provisions of the
proposed Crime and Disorder Bill. The Probation Service could
concentrate its main focus on younger offenders in their early
stages of delinquency; supervision and probation orders should
be used for those making their first court appearance. Second
court appearances should be a serious threat to liberty. Older
age groups given community supervision should be confined to those
who show remorse and motivation to reform. The Probation Service
would become a potent and effective force within the criminal
justice system. It would transform its negative impact on crime;
its potential for success would be considerable. Such reforms
need not involve any additional cost to the country. It would
be the ultimate and realistic alternative to prison because it
would reduce the need for custodial sentences.
Peter Coad
Senior Probation Officer (Retired)
December 1997
PETER COAD
Autobiographical Notes
After leaving school I worked in commerce for
four years and did my two years and three months National Service
in the Royal Air Force Police Special Investigation Branch in
Germany, 1947-49. I was later trained in Youth Leadership; from
1954-58 I worked for the Cambridgeshire Education Committee as
a Youth Leader, Area Youth Leader and Assistant Adult Tutor.
After Home Office training, I was appointed
a Probation Officer 1960 and promoted to Senior Probation Officer
1969; I took early retirement December 1988. Since then I have
kept in close touch with criminal justice issues in general and
the Probation Service in particular.
During my service I was a member of the National
Executive Committee of the National Association of Probation Officers,
served for 13 years on a Local Parole Review Committee, two years
representing the Avon Probation Service on a local Juvenile Bureau
Panel and two years as Senior Probation Officer at Leyhill Prison.
Over the past 12 years, I have had numerous
articles and letters concerning criminal justice issues published
in journals and national newspapers. I have also made contributions
to the criminal justice debate on television and radio. When Michael
Howard was Home Secretary, I was appointed as one of his private
advisers.
INDEX OF ANNEXES[68]
A "The Rape of the Probation Service"
by Ronald Lewis.
*B "The Probation Service 1997"
by Peter Coad.
*C "Licence to Offend Vindicated"
by Peter Coad and David Fraser.
*D Home Office Statistical Bulletin:
March 1997.
*E "Punitiveness and Prison Populations:
An International Comparison" by Professor Ken Pease.
*F Criminal Statistics, England and Wales
1996 (Home Office).
*G "The National Association of
Probation Officers (NAPO) and The Association of Chief Officers
of Probation (ACOP)" —a personal perspective by
Peter Coad.
*H "Probation Training"
by Peter Coad.
I "The Probation Service"—Some
observations by a serving senior probation officer.
J "Probation Orders: Bogus Success
Claims" by David Fraser.
K "Mandatory Sentences: Putting
the Record Straight" by Peter Coad.
*L "Crime and Unemployment"
by Peter Coad.
M "A Critical Analysis of Research
related to "What Works in Reducing Offending" by
David Fraser.
*N "The Declining Morale of the
Probation Service" by David Fraser.
*O "Reducing Offending"
by the Penal Affairs Consortium (Community Supervision)—A
critical analysis by David Fraser and Peter Coad.
*P "Prison Reform Trust"
by Peter Coad.
*Q "The Howard League for Penal
Reform" by Peter Coad.
*R "Attitudes to Punishment"
by Peter Coad.
68 Not printed. Available from the Record Office, House
of Lords (see p vi). Back
|
