Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
TUESDAY 20 JANUARY 1998
MR JOHN
HICKS, MR
HOWARD LOCKWOOD
AND MR
GEOFF DOBSON
20. It has also been put to us (shortly) that
more people in prison equals less crime. You started off by saying
- not linking it that way—but that there were more people
in prison but less reported crime. What do you say to that kind
of evidence?
(Mr Hicks) We would say that it is only part of the
story. That however much reliance we place on custody as the means
of controlling offending behaviour, in almost all cases people
come out. Our evidence is that it is at that point the risk is
the greatest. So managing the process of transition from custody
back into the community under supervision, is very much part of
our overall agenda.
21. Thank you. There has been some Home Office
research suggesting that there is currently no significant difference
between reconviction rates for custody and/or community penalties.
Do you accept that?
(Mr Hicks) I think we do.
22. If you do, what more does that suggest to
you might be done, and differently, from the community sentence
end of it?
(Mr Hicks) There are two or three things we could
say about it. In terms of the total population dealt with by the
Prison Service and by the community based services, the broad
figures come out at about 52 or 51 per cent reconviction rates.
The worst you can say is that in terms of the total population
the figures are about equal.
Mr Hogg
23. You do accept that, do you?
(Mr Hicks) Yes, we do. There are marginal differences
which we believe are very slightly in our favour, but they are
so marginal that we would not want to make an issue about that.
In terms of the broad picture, we would say though that if you
compare like with like and take out of the equation people who
are deported after sentence; if you take out of the equation people
serving very long sentences, who would not be represented in our
populations; if you take out of the equation those people who
are in prison for very serious offences, who we would not normally
be supervising; then the figures begin to move more significantly
in favour of community penalties for those whom we deal with.
The best indicators are to break it down further and to talk,
as we do, about focusing our attention on those for whom we believe
there is good evidence—and increasing evidence—that
the Probation Service does extremely good work. I can talk about
some of those specific programmes and the targeting resources
because I think that is one of the fundamental themes behind this,
as an emerging issue, out of those comparative reconviction figures.
Mr Corbett
24. Finally, it has been put to us that critical
in all this process of community sentencing has got to be a motivation—a
willingness by the prisoner concerned—to want to make a
better fist of life, to put it crudely. Your critics will say
that if somebody says, "Would you rather go to prison for
three years or would you rather have a probation order?"
it would be a rum prisoner who would choose the custodial sentence.
What they are arguing to us is that this is a bit phoney. The
Jack-the-lads are going to volunteer because they will argue that
the probation order is the soft option.
(Mr Hicks) I thought you were going to put to me the
classic joke: How many probation officers does it take to change
a light bulb? Only one, but the light bulb has got to want to
change. There are within that question two or three questions.
We do not actually believe that probation and community services
are soft options. If you get the chance to go and look at programmes
of work that are undertaken in relation to sex offenders; working
with violent offenders; people convicted of motoring offences;
you will find that the soft option, as it appears at court and
when you walk free from court, does not tally. A lot of the people
who are supervised by my service have said to me, "I would
rather be locked up. They leave you alone. You do your time and
then you go. Whereas if you come on probation they keep asking
you questions. They ask you to come to sessions. They make you
do things. They confront you with the consequences of what you
have done. That does not happen in prison." (It does sometimes
now.) The comparison between soft option and hard option is a
fallacy in our view. The motivation point is quite important.
A court, in making a community order, will want to know there
is a reasonable chance of it working. They will want to know that
there is a reasonable level of co-operation. We would, therefore,
before getting to that point in the court, want to make some assessment
of what the level of motivation is. Probation officers are very
skilled people at digging and finding the point which can trigger
the motivation. It is a very mixed picture. The people we take
on: some of them will be pretty reluctant to co-operate with the
programmes but they will know what is required of them. They will
find out, over time, that it is in their interests. They will
work with the probation officer who will, wherever possible, find
the point where the motivation is going to be triggered. At the
crudest level we know that the motivation for many people is,
it is better to be outside than inside. That is an obvious simple
fact. We do not argue that. However, it is a much more complicated
picture than that seems to portray.
Mr Corbett: Thank you very much.
Mr Allan
25. A critical area in this report is how we
can ensure that the public do have confidence in non-custodial
sentencing. Obviously we need to look at the quality of programmes
being offered by the Probation Service as a main provider. On
page 5 of your report you list a lot of criteria which you say
would lead towards an effective programme: "Skills oriented,
employment focused", and so on. At the moment, do you think
that all Probation Services do ensure that they do respond to
these factors in designing their programmes?
(Mr Hicks) The development of that agenda of effective
programmes is a very key aspect of joint work between the Probation
Inspectorate, the Home Office, and ourselves. This is because,
over the past four years or so, the research evidence has really
been pulled together, in a coherent way, which says that we can
now be much clearer about what works. It applies in probation,
community sentences, and it applies in prison as well. That is
why it is very much a joint concern. There is a big conference
being hosted by the Inspectorate next month. There is a concerted
drive, which is part of the work of ourselves, the Home Office
and the Inspectorate, to make known the researched evidence based
practice that lies behind effective regimes, the central core
of probation work across the country. You will find in every area
you visit—and I hope you get the opportunity to talk with
probation people fairly widely—that will be echoed to you
everywhere you go.
26. Would you say, for truly effective programmes,
that they should always include the kind of criteria listed in
your report? Is this something you want to see for all programmes
given by all services?
(Mr Hicks) The What Works evidence; the effective
intervention agenda, is a common imperative, in our view, that
needs to inform all aspects of probation practice. Both group
programmes, of which there are many and I hope you will see, and
in individual one-to-one work, the same principles apply across
the board.
27. Do you think the Probation Services are
effective in disseminating good practice? We will be going out
and looking at programmes in existence at the moment. If there
are shining examples, are they currently getting out amongst the
Probation Service?
(Mr Hicks) They are being developed in Probation Services
across the country. I cannot speak for every service.
28. Are they going to have a disseminating effect?
(Mr Hicks) Yes, they are. As I say, the Inspectorate
are making it their business to do so. In fact, I believe the
Chief Inspector will be submitting—if he has not done so—a
document which underpins that very short summary—
29. The document indicated by Mr Lockwood, Strategies
for Effective Offender Supervision.
(Mr Hicks) Yes. It is just about to be sent to you.
It has just been published.
30. The Inspectorate are a key tool?
(Mr Hicks) They are quite central to this. The Home
Office Probation Units are also closely allied with it and we
are working very closely with both. I could not understate how
central a theme it is in terms of the development of practice
currently.
31. And in terms of the National Guidelines,
do you think they are currently sufficient and are there any revisions
to them that you think are required?
(Mr Hicks) Yes. National standards. Broadly we recognise
that from the start, where national standards came in, in 1992—it
is the second phase development 1995 set—that consistency
in the basic standards of work is vital across the country. So
whether you are in Devon or Dorset or in the North Country, you
get the same product if you go on a community sentence. There
is evidence in Home Office research studies, number 167, that
most areas are following the expectations of national standards.
Our view is that national standards is a basic minimum set of
requirements. Your question is specifically: do you think there
is need for changes? I think probably not. We have not a view
that there needs to be a radical change.
32. For example, the national standards quote
a frequency contact of twelve appointments within the first three
months of probation; then six appointments in the second three
months; and then one appointment thereafter. Do you think that
minimum standard is sufficient, in your professional view?
(Mr Hicks) As a minimum it is right that the community
and the courts should know that this is what is going to happen.
Behind that, Probation Service staff and probation officers will
make very careful judgments about how they handle frequency of
contact with two things in mind. One is the risk to the public.
If a greater level of contact is necessary, in order to tackle
an evident current risk, they will ensure that happens. But also,
because the evidence of the effectiveness material is that you
need to get off to a good start, there needs to be good planning;
intensive contact at the start. What happens in those first two
or three months is going to be critical to the outcome of a period
of supervision.
33. We are aware that you have said that this
is the critical time. You have also said that with rising case
loads it is not always possible to provide the intensive contact
you require at the beginning. Are more resources needed in order
for you to provide that service most effectively, in your view,
and would we see tangible improvements from putting more resources
in; for example, in drops in the reconviction rates?
(Mr Hicks) We are worried about what is happening
to the resourcing of the Probation Service. Over the five-year
period, that ends in the year 2000, the real resources available
to the Probation Service will drop by 30 per cent—nearly
a third—at a time when the workload, the number of people
we are working with, has increased by 16 per cent. Now, services
have worked very hard to find efficiency savings, because that
is the way you describe it, and to make sure there is no fat in
the services. However, our view is that we have now reached the
point, more than halfway through that five-year period, where
it is cutting to the bone; and where our capacity to deliver effective
services and the right kind of public protection, which the public
should expect of us, is going to be difficult to guarantee. So,
in our view, there is an equation between resources, effectiveness
and the public safety that we can deliver. On current movements
in resources there is a worry. Now, the Prison Probation Review
and the Comprehensive Spending Review that are currently under
way, will probably produce some kind of resolution to that. One
would not want to guess what that will be. Our view, though, is
that if the community expects more of us and the people we work
with (because it is not just probation staff, we work with a wide
range of other public and private bodies, we work widely with
the volunteer sector so that there are resources beyond those
of our own staff) number one: we want to make sure the resources
are pitched at the right level, to the level of public expectations
of us. Number two: we think it needs to be targeted. One of the
questions which is raised by the effectiveness material, is to
be quite clear in terms of what the service offers and the way
the courts use us, that the resources are targeted on the people
we can best work with. So what has happened in terms of the range
of people who are put on probation; made subject to community
service orders; put in probation hostels; needs to be focused
very sharply. It does bring into play questions of the use of
the fine. If you look at the overall picture of sentencing, the
fine has virtually collapsed as a mainstay of sentencing practice
since 1991, which is part of the reason why you have seen a growth
both in relation to community disposals and to custodial disposals.
I think questions about what has happened to the fine need to
be part of the equation if we are going to make sure that public
spending is focused on the right people.
Chairman
34. May I check. You mentioned about resources;
that there had been a 30 per cent decline in your budget. Do you
mean per head or do you mean in real terms?
(Mr Hicks) I am talking about a real terms decline
over the five-year period to the year 2000. I am working on figures
of actual budgeted and projected spending for that period. The
calculation which has been done is based on the Home Office grant
aiding allocation to probation services; so it is budget estimate
adjusted for real terms effect. That, as I say, is a 30 per cent
reduction in real terms over that five-year period, at a time
when the workload of services is projected to go up by 17 per
cent. The present position suggests that prediction may well be
an under-estimate.
Mr Howarth
35. Mr Allan referred to the programme which
you set out on page 5 of your submission to us, which you describe
as evidence of the type of effective programme which reduces reoffending.
Apart from some of the buzz words that I am not sure I understand
like: "ensuring that approaches are based on behaviourial
or cognitive behaviourial methods", which you might like
to translate into straightforward English for me, you set out
there a whole series of programmes which you suggest provide evidence
that reoffending is reduced. Yet you have acknowledged that there
is really not much difference between reoffending rates for those
who are on a probation order and for those who are in prison.
I wonder how you might respond to the suggestion that was made
in one submission we received which says: "Overall, supervision
in the community has been a disaster for the victims of crime
and has done almost nothing to rehabilitate offenders." You
make a claim that it is doing something to rehabilitate offenders
and yet we have contrary evidence there. How do you reconcile
those two?
(Mr Hicks) Let me restate that the broad comparison
says there is a very similar reconviction rate across the board—whether
people are sent to custody or on community sentences of various
kinds—is true, we do not contest that. What we do say is
that the evidence of work on the ground when you look at the detail,
when you look at effective programmes—and I will talk about
cognitive programmes, if you like—you can focus attention
on certain groups of offenders for whom there are significantly
better results. It would be our view that if you are to make best
use of custodial disposals on the one hand and community disposals
on the other, it needs to be tuned or targeted on those where
you know there is a better chance of success one way or another.
36. Would you give us an example of which groups
happen to be more successful?
(Mr Hicks) There is research material and evidence
in relation to programmes working with violent offenders. Certain
categories of sex offenders. People convicted of a range of forms
of motoring offences that are quite good examples. Let me give
you an example of violence; a programme defined to deal with certain
categories of violence. Cognitive skills, by the way, in simple
language, is understanding your own behaviour better. Being required
to think about why you behave the way you do. Being faced with
the consequences of that, sometimes with people who have suffered
as victims, some of whom are very strongly in favour of these
kinds of measures. Being required then to plan how you are going
to deal with situations in a different way in future. It is a
learning curriculum, if you translate it into educational language.
A typical eight-phase programme for working with violence, which
we would start either with an individual or a group of individuals
with a similar pattern—
Mr Corbett
37. These are men?
(Mr Hicks) In the main they are men but there is a
separate range of issues with women, who are a significant minority
in the offending population, and a more difficult minority with
violence. But there are women who are violent offenders as well.
Firstly, looking at what is the actual profile of the offending
pattern. What has happened in this offence. How it relates to
previous behaviour. A session looking to analyse what were the
trigger factors which led to the commission of this particular
offender. What were the sequence of events? What was actually
the turning point, which turned an event into something that was
within the law, into something which boiled over. What were the
things that were associated with it? In particular, alcohol and
drugs are very significant factors in many of these instances.
An exploration about patterns of communication is also important
because our experience is that a lot of people who get embroiled
in violent reactions find their way into those kind of reactions
because they have failed to communicate effectively any other
way, probably exaggerated by drink and drugs in many instances.
Learning different ways of how you can communicate and get yourself
across and make your point, or get your own way, without having
to get violent is also a factor.
38. In a sense, that goes back to education,
does it?
(Mr Hicks) It very much goes back to education. The
kind of programme I am talking about is significantly education
focused, but learning about self, learning about other ways of
doing things; finding what the difference is between being assertive
and being aggressive. There is a session in most of these cases
looking at victims. In some cases, that will be particular victims
who have suffered violence; in other cases, it will be indirect,
but it will be a confrontation of the individual with the consequences
of their action because very often the violence occurs, they are
picked up and go away, or they go away anyway. Actually to be
then confronted with the long term effects, in terms of the kind
of trauma of violence, the physical effects of violence, is something
that people would rather not face and is part of the remotivating
process. That will then move to a point, at the end of this programme,
which will not be a stand alone programme but probably something
bigger, when the individual will sit down and say, "Right,
what have I learned about myself? How am I going to manage myself
in the future in different ways? How am I going to handle trigger
situations differently? How am I going to reduce or avoid the
situations that I know are where things go badly wrong for me?
What am I going to do about my drinking and my use of drugs?",
because they are clearly factors. If it works right—the
evidence is that it can work quite well in a number of cases—the
individual by that point will have reached the point where he
wants to change his behaviour. Again, if it has worked right,
the process will have given him something to take away. The indications
are—of course not in every case—that many, if they
do not stop offending altogether, will actually handle themselves
better, that the patterns of offending in the future might be
lower level offending and of a different kind. In terms of avoiding
reoffending altogether, we recognise that is only one measure
of improvements in offending behaviour. We would also look at
reductions of frequency; we would also look at changes in patterns
of offending, because if you are sophisticated in looking at offending
behaviour you have to be realistic about what you can expect.
Mr Hogg
39. Two matters, if I may. Firstly, I would
like to take you back to what you were saying about targeting
in the context of reduced resources and also the fall-off in fine
impositions. What I understood you to be saying was that it was
increasingly part of the duty of the probation officer to positively
steer a court away from imposing a community based order where
that officer thinks, for one reason or another, the offender would
not respond. That is your view?
(Mr Hicks) Yes.
|
