Select Committee on Home Affairs Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 800 - 812)

TUESDAY 21 APRIL 1998

MR HARRY FLETCHER, MS HELEN SCHOFIELD AND MR RICHARD BARTON

Mr Corbett

  800. I hope those looking at the change of name go and use phone boxes in the West End of London because the language could be very misleading and you can get correction services there, or so I am told! I wonder, Mr Barton, whether you could help with female offenders. Do you think that there ought to be in some cases specific programmes for female offenders which are different from those in relation to males?
  (Mr Barton) Yes, I think that certain areas are certainly looking at that and a lot of areas have set up specific structured programmes for women offenders.

  801. For instance?
  (Mr Barton) I know Hereford and Worcester have got one and I know that the area I am working in is about to start one and the rationale behind that is very much research based in that there is, I think, certainly consistent evidence to show that, if you like, the nature of women's offending is significantly different from the nature of men's offending in that it is much more closely linked to financial matters, emotional needs, those kinds of areas, which indicates that the intervention with women offenders needs to be slightly different and address some of those issues more specifically. It is part of the general What Works movement, if you like, that under the risk assessment process those specific areas of need are looked at and are addressed specifically through intervention. So it is getting back to what Graham Smith referred to as responsivity. You actually match the intervention to the criminogenic needs of the offender, and you address those areas for that person or that group of people which are particularly relevant to their offending. Certainly, as I say, there is evidence to show that the nature of women's offending is different from that of men, particularly in terms of financial and emotional needs.

  802. We know from actual crime figures and sentence figures that when you have a black person and a white person, same offence, it is much more likely the black person will get a custodial sentence and the white one a community sentence. Do you get involved in conversations with the judiciary as to the sentences and about the assumptions which lie behind those decisions?
  (Mr Barton) Yes, certainly in terms of meetings with sentencers at things like Probation Liaison Committees but also in terms of training. I have been involved in some training with magistrates where those issues have been looked at and the possible rationale behind it is studied and what the implications for sentencing and probation intervention will be. So certainly there is contact with sentencers on those issues. I have to say that I would like to see more of it and I would like to see it more widespread, because sometimes you will get sentencers who attend those types of meetings, those types of training courses and events, who are aware of those issues and are interested in them, whereas some others who may not be as aware do not turn up. So it is sometimes that you are preaching to the converted and those you would really like to talk to are not there, but certainly it does happen.

  803. Perhaps, Mr Fletcher, we can get back to the wider issue, and we have been into this three or four times already, which is resources and they are important. There has been a 10 per cent fall in the number of probation officers between 1994 and 1997, a 13 per cent fall in the number of probation staff, very significant increases in the number of orders made with which the probation service has to deal, and now a whole extra menu of orders in the Crime and Disorder Bill. What would you recommend we say to the Home Secretary about resources?
  (Mr Fletcher) I would not say "throw resources at the probation service", I think it has to be properly targeted. The figures you have just read out are from Home Office circulars, so they are facts. What will happen in 1999-2000 is that the cumulative cut from 1995 through to 2000 will—and the Association of Chief Probation Officers agree, it is their figure—be about 29 per cent. The Crime and Disorder Bill will give a number of new duties and responsibilities to the probation service and we welcome the opportunity to expand and get involved in new work, but fear that if those cuts are not redressed, re-analysed, we will not be able to fulfil our duties in this key priority. We go back to the initial question, what is your job, and it is protecting the public, and our ability to do that will be undermined. The caveat is inconsistency because the way in which the Home Office funding formula is worked out, which I do not understand, varies from area to area, so in this particular financial year a handful of services have done okay, they have actually been able to take on more staff, but others like Northumbria—and I was talking to the chair of the Northumbria Probation Committee, a magistrate, in March—are anticipating that by the end of next year they will have lost 30 per cent of their budget and they do not see how they will be viable. So there is a need to look at why there is this differential across the probation service in terms of funding, make sure it is fair, and if at all possible do some kind of independent audit to match resources to actual real need.
  (Ms Schofield) We are at the moment about to implement the new qualification, the new training arrangements, for the probation service which is the Diploma in Probation Studies underpinned by a set of occupational standards developed by the employers and by the whole service effectively, and it is very exciting and it will very much bring into being a modern probation officer. We are at the stage where, if we are not careful, we will not be able to recruit the modern probation officer in which we are investing heavily. This is expensive, complex and very exciting training, and we are poised, in a sense, at having these people but not being able to recruit them. So it does require careful thought into the future.

Mr Allan

  804. I may get accused of being a dangerous Liberal again if I relate offending to unemployment, but I am interested in the implementation of the New Deal and the fact that the New Deal cohort—those under-25 who have been longer than 6 months unemployed—in many cases cross over with those with whom you have contact. How do you see the probation service role in this? I understand in some areas the probation service have the contract to do the employment advice side but in others have not. How do you see that developing?
  (Ms Schofield) I think the exact role of the probation service in terms of employment advice and the implementation of New Deal is yet to be worked out and is evolving. We regard the whole deal very positively but, you are right, probably of the 18 to 25 year-olds who are currently unemployed it has been said up to 30 per cent of them have a conviction. They are not necessarily all the people who are currently supervised by the probation service, who have just been released from prison, but 30 per cent of that group will have real difficulties being taken into employment by anybody because they have a conviction. An interesting survey recently suggested that 80 per cent of what are called the captains of industry would like to help get young offenders back to work but only 7 per cent of them were prepared to employ anybody who had a conviction. So we have a real problem. We can support, we can get people through the Gateway Scheme, we can do the employment advice, but actually when it comes to the crunch of "Will you employ this person with a conviction", there is a real block. So we have to get some hard evidence about the success of people with convictions in work and persuade employers that need to take that risk and see that it is effective.

  805. The difficulty is trying to demonstrate the difference between a community service scheme to which one has been sentenced and, say, the environmental option whereby you are being told to go out five days a week and clear rubbish bags from trees. I can see in many cases they are not going to look very different for the individual. How can you make that distinction?
  (Ms Schofield) There are some interesting developments surrounding community service at the moment, actually looking to see the relationship between community service and training and employment and whether you can give people a certificate for the fact, so you begin to get people into the frame of mind that if you get up and go to work, whether it is community service or what it is, you get recognition for that. Maybe you can get a Level 1 NVQ as a consequence of it, and then you can go on and do the next stage. So everything in a sense helps potentially to make people more employable, whether in fact it is the Environmental Task Force or community service or training, but it is that final hurdle of actually getting an employer to say, "I know this person has a conviction" or three or four convictions, "it is some time ago, I am going to take a risk."

Mr Winnick

  806. Related to this is a note on some statistics which you have given in your paper saying that the latest profile of those on community supervision et cetera is that 75 per cent were unemployed. When was that survey undertaken?
  (Mr Fletcher) That would be 1994-95.

  807. Would one be correct in coming to the conclusion that a large percentage of that 75 per cent have never really been in proper employment?
  (Mr Fletcher) I agree, I am sure it is very, very high, in terms of never being in employment since leaving school, if indeed they went to school, yes.

  808. So when you say it is difficult for employers, the difficulty arises because employers would be reluctant to take on those with convictions, this does illustrate that, does it not?
  (Mr Fletcher) Yes.

  809. I assumed there would be a large number who were unemployed, but I must say it comes as a surprise that it is as large as 75 per cent, though of course it would vary from region to region.
  (Mr Fletcher) It would vary from region to region, yes.
  (Ms Schofield) But it has been consistently assessed by other surveys as the same percentage. It is very high and it is not people who do not want to work, but it is people who cannot get work or who have never really, or the majority perhaps because I am not suggesting that there are not people among that group who do not want to work, but the majority are the people for whom from education onwards there has been a failure of becoming employable and then that is compounded by convictions.

  810. The other surprise, not so much about the 35 per cent having a drug problem, I suppose I would recognise that, but that 46 per cent had an alcohol problem. Did that come as any surprise to you at all?
  (Mr Fletcher) No, and it can, Mr Winnick, be both, both drugs and alcohol.

  Mr Allan: Alcohol is a drug.

Mr Cranston

  811. It is just gratifying to hear the ringing endorsement around the table for the New Deal. I wanted to ask you specifically about the organisation, your professional organisation. You do cite some reports here. Do you have a research capacity? Have you done studies on the most effective sorts of probation? Certainly I would be interested in Mr Barton's own report on his Mid-Glamorgan Service. Do you go in for that?
  (Mr Fletcher) We have not produced any reports on "What Works" as such and we have left that basically to others. The sort of things we have produced in the past are summarised in the evidence, looking at women in crime, looking at consistency or inconsistency in sentencing, looking at the issue of discrimination within the criminal justice system, and those papers are normally sent to both the press and to interested Members of this House.

  Mr Cranston: It was just in terms of our specific inquiry and our interest in that and "What Works".

Chairman

  812. Can I just ask the witnesses before we conclude, is there any point which has not been made today which you feel ought to be made and that you would like to make?
  (Mr Fletcher) No, I am quite pleased with the way the hour has gone. I think we have covered a tremendous amount of ground and thank you for asking us.

  Chairman: It was a pleasure to have you. Mr Fletcher, Ms Schofield and Mr Barton, thank you very much for coming.





 
previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 1998
Prepared 10 September 1998