APPENDIX 24
Memorandum of the Prison Governors Association
INTRODUCTION
The Prison Governors Association of England,
Wales and Northern Ireland is an independent trade union representing
over 90 per cent. of the senior grades working in prisons. Our
members range from Governor 5 level through to the Director General
himself. With members at every level in the Service including
a very substantial number in policy positions in Headquarters,
we believe we are uniquely placed to comment on the effectiveness
of imprisonment. We have frequently argued that prison should
be used sparingly for those who represent a serious danger to
society. We do not believe that people should be sent to prison
if an acceptable community sentence can be imposed. Indeed the
continued problems with overcrowding and lack of regime resources
mean that many of those sent to prison for short periods of time
receive no treatment or training and for them custody is an entirely
negative experience.
We are committed to the rehabilitation of offenders
and we believe we should do everything in our power to make custody
a positive experience and change the attitudes towards crime and
society of those placed in our care. It is therefore logical that
our resources should be directed to those where we can make progress
and not hindered by unnecessary pressure on the system.
Therefore in our evidence to the Committee we
wish to concentrate upon the ineffectiveness of short sentences
and how such offenders could be dealt with safely within the community.
We also wish to raise issues in relation to our current approach
to sentencing, the lack of innovation and the scope for early
intervention with young offenders.
THE
PURPOSE
OF
IMPRISONMENT
The PGA welcomes the moves by the current Government
to distance itself from the rhetoric of "Prison Works".
Imprisonment is an extremely expensive method of dealing with
offenders, costing an average £23,000 per prisoner per year.
The cost of dealing with an offender in the community is between
£2,000 and £5,000 per year dependent upon the disposal.
But cost is not the only, or indeed, the prime
determinate in deciding who goes to prison and it is this debate
upon which we need to focus. There is no dispute that those who
commit serious offences of a violent or sexual nature, drug dealers
and those who repeatedly commit property offences despite non-custodial
opportunities, should be sent to prison to protect the public.
The duty of the Prison Service is to hold these people in safe
and secure custody and to try to get them to use their time in
custody positively in an effort to reduce the risk of re-offending
on release and provide them with the coping skills necessary to
lead a law abiding life. Most of these prisoners will have received
sentences of 12 months or more which with remission means they
will serve at least six months in custody. However, when we look
at much shorter sentences the purpose of imprisonment becomes
more confused.
If somebody is sentenced to three months' imprisonment
they will serve six weeks. What does society expect that custodial
sentence to achieve? Clearly the court did not consider the offence
so serious that the public required prolonged protection. Six
weeks can at best provide a short respite. Equally, the Prison
Service is unlikely to be able to give the offender any form of
rehabilitation. The reality is that the prisoner will be received
into a local prison where he or she will stay until discharge
because the sentence is too short a period to enable a transfer
to a training prison. At best there may be some form of pre-discharge
course and some basic resettlement problems such as housing may
be addressed. He or she will then be released back into the community
without any supervision. If this was a one-off offender then the
likelihood is that he or she would not have offended again without
a custodial sentence. For a persistent offender, drifting through
six weeks in custody untouched before resuming crime will be relatively
easy.
The PGA therefore takes the view that short
term custody is inappropriate and whilst highly controversial
we believe a major step forward would be to remove the power of
magistrates to pass sentences of imprisonment. This would mean
that where they considered the offence to warrant imprisonment
the matter would be referred to Crown Court. The current figure
for magistrates imposing custody is 10 per cent. However, other
issues covered below would need to be simultaneously addressed.
THE
PROBLEMS
OF
YOUTH
CRIME
The Government has quite rightly highlighted
the need for a new strategy on tackling youth crime. After all
the vast majority of adult offenders began committing crimes at
an early age and an examination of previous convictions tends
to indicate a progression in the degree of seriousness. There
are not many armed robbers under the age of 21 but most of them
were committing offences from their early teens. Therefore, in
principle, there are huge long term pay-offs from getting youth
crime issues right.
We believe that early intervention is the key
in a manner that brings home to the offender the consequences
of their action. Small fines followed by such disposals as conditional
discharges do not impinge on the life of a young person whose
level of maturity is such that they read the wrong message into
being let off. Such disposals are more appropriate to first offending
adults who are unlikely to appear before the courts again.
We begin by looking at the issue of cautioning.
CAUTIONING
AND
CAUTION
PLUS
The Government believes, and rightly in our
opinion, that young offenders should not be repeatedly cautioned
and proposes the introduction of a final warning.
Cautioning is, in our opinion, effective as
figures show around two thirds of young people cautioned are not
seen again by the police within two years. Many areas have now
introduced Caution Plus Schemes where the offender is required
to attend some form of offending behaviour group run by Social
Services, Probation or a voluntary agency. The success of these
schemes is equally impressive with around two thirds of those
involved not being seen again by the police within two years.
We believe that Caution Plus Schemes should
be continued to be developed and we note that a scheme in Holland
gives powers to the equivalent of CPS to divert prisoners from
the courts by agreeing non-custodial penalties similar to Community
Service. Thus a young offender can avoid the court system and
a criminal record by agreeing with the CPS to do some community
work. This would be an extension of Caution Plus and give a third
and final opportunity to young people before entering the court
system. By giving such powers to CPS to consider cases referred
to them by the police we would reduce the loading on the courts
and keep the time between the offence and the disposal to a minimum.
Obviously if the person did not admit their guilt the case would
have to proceed to the courts.
TRUANCY
AND
PARENTING
ORDERS
There is no doubt that young people who do not
attend school and roam the streets in groups are at risk and we
should treat truancy as a much more serious problem than we have
in the past. Equally, the Government's commitment to Parenting
Orders is welcomed. However, we must ensure that schools and parents
have the professional help available to them from Social Services
and Education Authorities to tackle the problem. Whilst truancy
is not a criminal offence it is noticeable that it is one of the
major characteristics in the histories of those who enter our
prisons.
TREATMENT
ORDERS
One of the major problems facing society today
is drugs and we agree with most Chief Constables that a very large
proportion of crime is drug related. The going rate for stolen
goods is about 20 per cent of market value. Therefore someone
with a £50 a day heroin habit will need to steal about £2,500
worth of goods per week. Whilst we have recognised that drug possession
(for personal use) is not an offence for which we usually send
people to prison, we still send to prison those who have committed
property offences to feed their drug habit.
Clearly the public need protection from persistent
offenders. However we need to consider tackling the drugs problem
behind that offending in a more structural manner.
Those sent to prison cannot be forced to address
their drug problems, they must volunteer to do so. However, if
they are serving a short sentence they are unlikely to get the
opportunity as rehabilitation takes several months or years.
We believe that Drug Treatment Orders should
be a disposal available to the court, the period of the Order
would be determined by assessment. This approach treats the cause
of the criminality and would allow the individual to continue
a normal life in society adjusting to coping without drugs. The
prison environment is artificial and is not conducive to drug
therapy.
For offenders who have to be sent to prison
consideration should be given to formal Orders being part of the
sentence. For example, 18 months' imprisonment could be followed
by a 12 month Treatment Order on release. Taking this approach
would also make the community look closely at the provision of
drug rehabilitation services as they would have to ensure that
the correct level of services were available to deal with the
Orders. At present the provision is patchy and often provided
by charitable trusts.
TAGGING
The PGA was originally opposed to the tagging
of offenders on the basis that it was degrading and did not address
the problems of offending behaviour. However, now that the technology
has improved and realistic schemes can be run we have concluded
that tagging does provide an opportunity to keep people out of
prison and therefore reduce pressure on our system.
We believe tagging could be of particular benefit
in reducing the remand population by providing controls on individuals
who would otherwise end up in custody. If it is used as an alternative
to imprisonment we still consider that there must be some form
of intervention package to address offending behaviour attached
to the Order.
COMBINED
CUSTODY
AND
COMMUNITY
SENTENCES
In principle we already operate this type of
sentence with those prisoners released on statutory provision
or parole. However, it is not perceived that a prisoner on parole
is serving his sentence in the community. This is mainly because
the period in the community appears unstructured other than regular
visits to a probation officer.
Until 1983 we used to operate the Borstal System
in which young offenders were sentenced to between six months
and two years training and the decision about release was made
by the Prison Authorities. There were considerable advantages
in this system as it allowed prisoners to be released at the point
where it was considered that they were at their motivational peak.
It also ensured that their throughcare could be continuous by
releasing them when support systems were in place, rather than
trying to meet a particular date and then having to release someone
when, for example, accommodation arrangements were unsatisfactory.
One particular advantage of this system was
the ability to release people directly into work and educational
opportunities. If a prisoner attended job interviews whilst in
custody and obtained a job he could be released to start that
job the day after release thus reducing dramatically the prospects
of re-offending. The same applied to educational courses.
We think the time has come to look again at
this type of open ended sentence not just for young offenders
but for adults as well. We believe that the whole of the sentence
should be structured and that in doing so this would improve the
image of community sentencing and develop the concept of throughcare.
We would envisage that a prisoner sentenced
to, say, four years would spend a minimum of 12 months in custody
and a maximum of three years six months in custody. The decision
when to release would be based upon progress and opportunity.
However long the period in the community was, the sentence would
not be discharged until the end of the four year period.
During the period in the community the offender's
life would be strictly controlled. For example they would not
be able to give up their job or educational course or change them
without permission. They may have to attend drug therapy or anger
management courses. Where no work can be found for a prisoner
on release they should be required to contribute to community
projects (in some cases acting as organisers and group leaders).
We consider that this type of approach would
improve the balance of resources between custody and community
and make local agencies more accountable for the re-integration
of offenders into society.
COMMUNITY
SERVICE
ORDERS
The PGA has always believed that Community Service
Orders are right in principle and that those who offend against
a community should make reparation to that community.
In the past they have been regarded as an alternative
to imprisonment. This has often meant that minor offenders in
the early stages of a criminal career have not been given the
opportunity of such schemes.
We believe that Orders should be available to
the court for any period of a few hours up to a maximum to be
determined by further work on the subject. We say this because
the principle of using leisure time for those in employment needs
to be maintained but for those who are engaged in no daytime activity
there is no reason why they should not work 40 hours per week.
There would need to be a substantial increase in resources available
for these type of projects but much of it could come from reduced
expenditure on prisons. With the problems of our inner cities
there is certainly the scope for plenty of projects.
WEEKEND
IMPRISONMENT
There has been much talk over the years about
weekend imprisonment as an opportunity to deal with minor offenders
whilst still allowing them to continue in jobs and maintain their
families.
In Holland, which is often held up as an example,
there are in fact only 36 places available nationally for this
type of sentence. It applies to only those serving 14 days or
less and is by agreement with the individual. The take up is very
low as many simply take two weeks' leave from their job to serve
their sentence.
There are real practical problems with providing
such beds in an efficient manner and it cannot operate in an overcrowded
estate. There has to be spare capacity for such a system to function.
However, controls on leisure time are a powerful
punishment and the success of the old attendance system should
not be under-estimated. Requiring people to attend parenting courses
or anger management or cognitive skills courses at a weekend in
the community has some attractions and could be organised for
example, by using schools at a weekend. This would allow sports
programmes to be mixed in with offending behaviour programmes.
DEALING
WITH
CAR
CRIME
Car crime is almost exclusively a crime of the
young (excluding theft from vehicles). It is a scourge of our
society driving up insurance premiums and providing inconvenience
and misery to hundreds of thousands of people. It is also a peculiarly
British crime and we need to research why other European countries
do not experience this crime to anything like the same degree.
We need to be innovative in our approach. How
does an unemployed teenager whose parents do not own a car actually
learn to drive? We need to consider how to counter such a situation
by perhaps introducing driving into the school curriculum and
to provide free courses for those outside school. It is clear
that the successes of various car projects operated by (mainly)
Probation Services that something can be done and we should collate
examples of best practice and provide national schemes. For too
long we have accepted car crime as a feature of everyday life
in Britain and spent our resources on dealing with the consequences
of that crime. We must now spend more on prevention. Car crime
is for many youngsters their first introduction to the court system
and the beginning of a life of crime.
RESETTLEMENT
OF
OFFENDERS
For those people sent to prison on determinate
sentences we have to recognise that they will eventually be released
into the community. The duty of the Prison Service is to prepare
that prisoner for release and by a smooth transition from custody
to the community reduce the risk of re-offending. However, in
reality the Prison Service has become scared of failure and obsessed
with risk. It has also had severe restrictions placed upon the
way periods of temporary absence may be used.
A category "A" prisoner serving 15
years cannot be regarded as a danger to the State one day and
a free man the next. We cannot release people from the bitterness
and tension of closed prisons onto the streets and expect them
immediately to make a transition into being a model citizen. To
prepare prisoners for release we need to ensure that they are
gradually moved down the system and end their custodial period
in an open prison. This should apply to all prisoners who have
been in continuous custody for three years or more.The period
in an open prison should be between three and six months and should
specifically concentrate on re-integration with an increasing
use of temporary release to get the prisoner out into the community
and re-establishing family links. It would not be unreasonable
in the last four weeks for home leave to take place every weekend
as this would cushion the shock for somebody who has been absent
from normal family life for several years.
Of course, one of the major risks of success
is some degree of failure. The failure rate on home leave in the
Service is now extremely small but what we don't know is by how
much we have contributed to the failure rate on actual release
by denying so many prisoners the opportunity for re-integration.
SUMMARY
We consider that overcrowded prisons, full of
short-term prisoners have seriously hindered the Prison Service's
opportunity to provide positive rehabilitative regimes for medium
to long-term prisoners. The radical package we have proposed would
reduce the prison population and consequently the level of expenditure
allowing much needed resources to be diverted into the community.
It would strengthen the understanding of throughcare and improve
the image of community sentences. It would also help bring about
a more direct relationship between offending and sanctions whilst
at the same time keeping out of the court systems those who can
be diverted and deterred at an early stage in their offending.
We believe this package is innovative and responsible
and would meet with public approval if guarantees were given about
protecting society from the serious and dangerous offender. We
would welcome the opportunity to give oral evidence to the committee
in due course.
M. Newell
Vice-Chair
Prison Governors Association
November 1997
| 
