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.
|
