36. Letter from Paul Goggins
MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office
Thank you for your letter of 14 September about
assumptions relating to projecting future trends in the prison
population. I am sorry that you feel the Home Affairs Committee
has not received a suitably detailed response to your questions
on this issue and I will try to address that now. I apologise
for the delay in providing this more detailed reply but I wanted
to ensure that you received a complete response.
As I said to the committee back in June, the analysis
within Patrick Carter's report "Managing Offenders—Reducing
Crime" suggested that, if current trends continued, by the
end of the decade there would be a prison population of some 93,000
people and 300,000 people under community supervision. In our
response to Patrick Carter's report, the Government accepted the
case that the proposed reforms would mean the prison population
could be stabilised at around 80,000 and that those under community
supervision would stand at around 240,000.
The Carter review team developed a model to facilitate
the analysis of sentencing practice and to determine the volume
and cost implications of changes to that practice. They used this
model to work through several different scenarios based on different
treatment of offenders depending on the seriousness of the offence
and the approximate risk of re-offending.
There were six features of the main Carter scenario:
1. The use of pre-court diversions for minor
offenders.
2. Fines rebuilt as a credible punishment.
3. More focused use of community sentences.
4. Reservation of custody for most serious offenders.
5. Changes in custodial sentence lengths.
6. Intensive bail packages to reduce remand.
For the main features the Carter team modelled movement
principles, actual movements and estimated volume outcomes. The
main elements can be summarised as:
THE USE
OF PRE-COURT
DIVERSIONS FOR
MINOR OFFENDERS
Movement Principles:
Move a proportion of the lowest risk offenders out
of the court process. Only focus on minor offences and offenders
with no previous convictions.
Actual Movements:
For those with no previous convictions in Other Summary,
Minor Theft, Minor Indictable and Drug Possession, 20% of each
of fines, discharges and "other" disposals are moved
to diversions.
Volume Outcomes:
Fines reduced by 18,182
Discharges reduced by 5,506
"Other" reduced by 441
Diversions increased by 24,129
FINES REBUILT
AS A
CREDIBLE PUNISHMENT.
Movement Principles:
Move a proportion of low-risk offenders, currently
receiving relatively costly community punishments, to fines. Movements
should be greater for first-time convictions and for less serious
offences.
Actual Movements
For those convicted for Summary Motoring, Other Summary,
Minor Theft, Minor Indictable and Drug Possession offences:
With no previous convictions, 100% of community punishments
moved to fines;
With 1-4 previous convictions, 50% of community penalties
moved to fines.
For those convicted for Medium offences and Fraud
and Theft:
With no previous convictions, 50% of community penalties
moved to fines.
Volume Outcomes
Community reduced by 42,185
Fines increased by 42,185
MORE FOCUSED
USE OF
COMMUNITY SENTENCES
Movement Principles:
Target some of those serving relatively short custodial
sentences with tough community punishments that focus on protecting
the public and meeting criminogenic needs. Move a greater proportion
of people from low-risk categories, to strengthen the link between
persistence and punishment severity.
Actual Movements:
Move proportions of custodial sentences to community
punishments depending on the type of offence and the number of
previous convictions.
Volume Outcomes:
Custody reduced by 26,071
Community increased by 26,071
CHANGES IN
CUSTODIAL SENTENCE
LENGTHS
Movement Principles:
Note taken of the changes to sentence lengths included
in the Criminal Justice Bill and how these can be built upon.
Recommend no change to the shortest sentences. Instead, focus
on those serving sentences of one year and above, with the exception
of the most serious offenders.
Actual Movements:
The following changes to sentence lengths are made
in addition to changes to HDC and in the Criminal Justice Bill:
Sentences up to 1 year—no change
Sentences from 1 year upwards (excluding life sentences)—reduction
in time served of 15%; there will be some differentiation
in time sentenced across different sentence lengths due
to differences in the structure of HDC
Life sentences—no change
Volume Outcomes:
Changes to sentence lengths reduce the long-run prison
population by 5,612.
In addition, the Carter team factored in a number
of other measures including:
BAIL PACKAGES
There is scope for significant prison place
savings by making use of new technology to supervise in the community.
Propose moving 20,000 people per year out of custody and our package
allows for 30,000 new bail packages.
FINE DEFAULTS
The team allocated 1,000 additional prison places
for fine defaulters, to ensure that the new system is tough and
credible.
COMMUNITY BREACHES
Although the number of community sentences will decrease,
allowance was made for an additional 200 places for defaulters,
given changes to the caseload balance.
PROGRAMMES
An increase in the use of programmes is included
in community costs.
OVERALL IMPACT
Again to summarise, the overall effect of this package
includes measures which increase the population: 1,000 places
more due to tougher fine enforcement; 200 more due to additional
community breaches and measures which decrease the prison population,
2,364 due to fewer custodial sentences; 5,612 less due to change
in sentence lengths and 1,869 less due to new remand packages.
The overall effect is therefore a reduction of 8,645 places compared
to the projected population.
Finally, the package has been developed based on
2001 sentencing data, which corresponded to a prison population
of around 64,000. Since then, the prison population has already
increased by some 10,000 people and is projected to rise further
in the future. By 2008-09, estimates, based on the last Home Office
projections, suggest that the prison population will have reached
93,000. The package therefore took account of increased flows
by 2009, the impact of changes in sentencing behaviour over the
period.
I hope this summary gives a detailed picture of how
the 80,000 and 240,000 figures were arrived at and answers the
questions about the Carter modelling you have asked. Please let
me know if you feel that any questions remain unanswered.
You have also asked about the expected impact of
measures in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and other factors which
have arisen since the Carter team conducted this analysis. [As
you will know, the prison population (over the last few months)
has not grown as the projection suggested, testament I believe
to the success of our work with sentencers to ensure that custody
is reserved for the most serious and persistent offenders.] It
is certainly true that there have been changes since last year's
analysis by Patrick Carter's team, not least because they used
sentencing data from 2001—the latest available at that time.
The last published Home Office prison population projection, produced
in July 2003, also needs to be revised to take into account various
changes in practice and to include the impact of sentencing provisions
in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. In our written answers to the
Committee's supplementary questions we suggested that a revised
projection would be published in the summer. Unfortunately, the
completion of that new projection has been delayed but we hope
that it will now be published later this year. I will of course
ensure that the committee receives that projection as soon as
it is available.
I am copying this response to Lord Carter.
13 October 2004
| 
