27. Memorandum submitted by
the New Economics Foundation (nef)
nef (the new economics foundation) welcomes
the opportunity to contribute to the Home Affairs Committee inquiry
Towards Effective Sentencing.
In our submission, we address the following
questions being considered by the Committee in the course of its
inquiry:
— What would a more effective long-term
sentencing policy look like?
— What steps should be taken to get
people from vulnerable groups (women, young people, the mentally
disordered, alcohol and drug addicts) and minor offenders out
of prison?
nef is an independent think-tank that undertakes
innovative research on economic, environmental and social issues.
This submission was co-ordinated by the Measuring What Matters
team at nef. Measuring What Matters is a research programme investigating
how government policy making could be improved by measuring and
valuing what matters most to people, communities, the environment
and local economies. One strand of the Measuring What Matters
research is examining outcomes for women offenders from different
criminal sentencing options (custodial and community sentences).
This research forms the basis for nef's submission to the Committee
on its sentencing inquiry.
RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of nef's research on measuring
what matters with regard to women offenders, we recommend that,
in its report, the Committee encourage the Government to:
— Develop and implement an effective
long-term sentencing policy that is geared to the needs of individuals;
that considers long-term outcomes for individual offenders, their
families, local communities and wider society; and that makes
appropriate use of all available sentencing options to really
address the needs of individuals being sentenced.
— Explore how to provide more relevant
information to judges and magistrates in pre-sentence reports,
to increase the likelihood of individuals receiving sentences
appropriate to their needs and circumstances.
— Make the necessary resources available
to ensure viable alternatives to prison exist in all parts of
the country.
— Raise awareness among sentencers
about alternative disposals to prison, including the circumstances
under which they might appropriately and effectively be applied
to individual cases.
— Make fuller information about the
economic and social costs and benefits of different sentencing
options available to sentencers (perhaps through sentencing guidelines);
and to the general public, in order to increase understanding
about the financial and broader implications of imposing custodial
or community sentences.
What would a more effective long-term sentencing
policy look like?
nef's response to this question comes from our
analysis of current criminal justice and sentencing policy, including
the targets and performance measures that embody government priorities.
Government measures and targets guide policy making and implementation.
This ultimately results in real impacts on people's lives—particularly
with regard to how offenders and their families are treated.
nef's central contention is that criminal justice
targets and measures are not sufficiently focused on the needs
of individuals within the system, with the result that sentencing
is less effective in the long term. This is true of criminal justice
policy in general, but has particularly severe impacts on vulnerable
groups such as women and young offenders. Our research concentrates
on non-violent women offenders, and it is clear that criminal
justice policy is not developed with their needs in mind. Instead,
it is largely concerned with male offenders, given that they form
the overwhelming majority of offenders (as recognised most recently
in the Corston report on women with particular vulnerabilities
in the criminal justice system).[87]
The specific elements of our critique of criminal
justice measures are as follows:
— Government priorities on criminal
justice largely reflect concerns about public protection and the
retributive aspects of punishment, and assign lesser importance
to the rehabilitation of offenders. Current public service agreement
(PSA) targets indicate that the Government's overall priorities
are guided by its perception of the public's concerns about crime.
Protecting and reassuring the public are clearly legitimate policy
goals, but equally the system should seek to achieve other aims—not
least the effective rehabilitation of offenders. In fact, in the
long-term, investing in and prioritising rehabilitation initiatives
would positively enhance other key policy goals such as public
protection and reassurance (as offenders would be given the ability
to build fulfilling and worthwhile lives away from crime).
— Government policies and measures
do not adequately value important outcomes for individual offenders,
apart from whether individuals reoffend. Criminal justice measures
indicate the Government's over-emphasis on the incidence of reoffending,
especially reconviction rates for offenders. Other important outcomes
for offenders, however, include the effects of being imprisoned
or on a community sentence on family relationships, mental and
physical health, housing status, and educational and employment
opportunities. At present, criminal justice agencies consider
these outcomes only in relation to how they affect individuals'
reoffending behaviour. These outcomes are, however, intrinsically
important in themselves and in their effect on the overall well-being
of individuals. That these outcomes as seen as a means to an end
-preventing reoffending—demonstrates how inadequately the
current system understands and responds to individuals' needs.
— Sentencers and government bodies
currently focus on failure rather than success when looking at
criminal justice interventions and outcomes. The Government's
predominant concern with reoffending means that measures reflect
where policy has failed, rather than where it has succeeded in
enabling individuals to build and lead fulfilling, law-abiding
lives.[88]
A shift in emphasis to focus on success may help identify the
interventions that are likely to be the most effective at enabling
individuals to go and stay "straight".
TOWARDS AN
EFFECTIVE LONG-TERM
SENTENCING POLICY
nef believes that a more effective, long-term
sentencing policy would therefore be:
— One that is geared towards assessing
the needs and circumstances of individual offenders. Determining
the needs and circumstances of individuals, rather than simply
the risk they are deemed to pose to the public, is crucial to
identifying appropriate sentences and interventions—which
in turn increases the chances of offenders successfully getting
their lives back on track and reduces public risk in the long-term.
— One that considers wider, long-term
outcomes for individual offenders, their families, local communities
and society. As explained previously, sentencing policy must embody
a concern about outcomes for individuals, such as effects on family
relationships, confidence and self-esteem, and access to housing
or employment—particularly those that affect people's well-being
in the long run. Equally, sentencing policy must consider the
wider economic and social costs, and benefits, of different sentencing
approaches; as well as the issue of who bears those costs or benefits
(for instance, economic and social costs borne by family members
of female prisoners who are separated from their children).
— One that makes appropriate use of
all sentencing options available, in order to really address the
needs of the individuals being sentenced. nef believes that prison
should be used only for the most serious or violent of offenders,
given the abundance of evidence on the detrimental effects of
custody on offenders' rehabilitation. This has implications for
both policy makers and sentencers. Policy makers must ensure that
adequate facilities are available for sentencers to use alternative
disposals to prison where this is appropriate (which in turn requires
a commitment to resource, for example, community-based facilities).
For their part, sentencers must make better use of the range of
sentencing options open to them, and ensure that they have the
necessary information on which to base their crucial decisions
about individuals' lives (this point is addressed in greater detail
below).
What steps should be taken to get people from
vulnerable groups (women, young people, the mentally disordered,
alcohol and drug addicts) and minor offenders out of prison?
nef's research indicates that the Government
must ensure sentencing options are available to prevent people
from vulnerable groups, such as many women offenders, being sent
to prison. This means providing the resources to make sure viable
alternatives to prison exist in all areas. Community-based centres
are all too rare, as the Corston report observed.[89]
Those that do exist demonstrate how it is possible to work with
individual offenders in order to create positive outcomes for
them and promote their long-term interests.
One such example is the 218 women's centre in
Glasgow. 218 opened in 2004 to provide an effective, community-based
alternative to sending women to prison for short periods. The
centre is funded by the Scottish Executive and offers a range
of services including a detox facility, residential and day programmes,
and access to health, social work and housing services. It works
with women to identify the root causes of their offending, and
provides the necessary support to help them address their offending
behaviour.
Sentencers must also be willing to use these
options where they exist. The question on the sentencing side
therefore becomes: how can sentencers be encouraged to use alternative
disposals to prison? In particular, what information and evidence
might they need to make best use of the full range of sentencing
options open to them?
MORE EFFECTIVE
PRE-SENTENCE
REPORTS TO
INFORM INDIVIDUAL
SENTENCING DECISIONS
At the level of individual cases, we believe
that sentencers should be provided with information and reports
that enable them to make more effective decisions about the sentencing
of individuals coming before them. To that end, we welcomed the
Home Office's commitment in its recent Making Sentencing Clearer
consultation[90]
to improving the quality and variety of information made available
to the courts during the sentencing process. At the same time,
we were concerned this consultation proposed that less information
should be provided to sentencers through pre-sentence reports
(PSRs) written by probation officers. Further, we consider that
reports need to combine risk assessments of offenders (as in existing
PSRs) with equivalent assessments of offenders' needs and circumstances.
As they stand, the pre-sentence reports provided
to the courts are primarily concerned with evaluating the risk
that individual offenders pose. Our analysis is that this is an
inadequate basis on which to make sentencing decisions that fundamentally
affect people's lives. Nor does it necessarily address the underlying
causes that determine why individuals offend. As a result, sentencing
decisions based on limited risk assessment information are unlikely
to enable individuals to address their offending behaviour in
the long term.
We understand the desire to reduce the workload
of stretched probation staff, particularly for work that is not
deemed necessary. Nevertheless, we consider that sentencing decisions
should be informed by a full understanding of the circumstances
and needs of the individuals being sentenced. The benefits of
this are likely to be two-fold:
— In individual cases, offenders would
benefit from the increased likelihood of receiving sentences attuned
to their needs that help them to address their offending behaviour.
— In aggregate, long-term costs would
decrease as the criminal justice system dealt more effectively
with offenders, thereby reducing the probability of reoffending.
The cost implications would include financial cost savings to
the public purse from not having to deal with repeat offenders,
and avoidance of some of the human costs of the effects of crime
on people's lives.
One possible solution that would provide such
information without adding to the probation workload would be
to fund or otherwise encourage other parties to provide relevant
information on offenders' circumstances and needs for sentencing
purposes.
For example, the women's centre 218 in Glasgow
(mentioned earlier) provides sheriff and district courts with
reports on women coming before the courts. Some of these reports
provide information prior to an initial court appearance, based
on 218's assessment of the woman concerned, to give sheriffs the
option of 218 as an alternative disposal to prison. Other reports
are updates on the progress of women that 218 works with, where
those women were previously referred to 218 by the courts and
are appearing again on outstanding cases. The reports look at
the most significant factors in the case of each individual that
affect how they deal with their offending in order to build meaningful,
law-abiding lives; for example, their drug use, physical and mental
health, and social functioning. This enables sheriffs to more
fully understand the circumstances of the individuals coming before
them, and to incorporate this wider understanding into their sentencing
decisions. Ideally, this increases the likelihood that offenders
will be given sentences that actually address their offending
behaviour and their needs.
RAISING AWARENESS
ABOUT ALTERNATIVES
TO PRISON
nef also believes that it is desirable for sentencers
to increase their awareness of how alternatives to prison actually
operate. One recent high-profile instance of this saw the Lord
Chief Justice, Justice Phillips, undertaking a day of "community
payback" work to clean and paint an underpass. The rationale
for this is that magistrates and judges will not direct offenders
toward alternative interventions to custody if they are unaware
of those alternatives or are uncertain about their effectiveness.
For instance, both 218 and another innovative
women's centre, the Asha Centre in Worcester,[91]
work with women offenders to help them understand the causes of
their criminality and provide support to address their offending
and get their lives back on track. For many women offenders, an
effective sentencing option would be to require them to attend
a centre like Asha or 218 as part of a community or drug treatment
and testing order. Both centres, however, report that getting
sentencers to recognise the work they do with offenders—and
what they could do—is a real issue. Asha and 218 have both
made efforts to make sentencers aware of the work they do and
the difference it has made to women's lives. An equal effort is
required on the part of sentencers themselves to keep informed
about the existence and effectiveness of alternative disposals.
This would increase the likelihood that magistrates and judges
make the most appropriate sentencing decisions in individual cases,
bearing in mind the overall needs and circumstances of individual
offenders.
BETTER INFORMATION
ABOUT THE
ECONOMIC AND
SOCIAL COSTS
AND BENEFITS
OF SENTENCING
OPTIONS
At a more general level, sentencers and policy
makers need access to evidence that alternatives to prison are
more effective at helping offenders to deal with their offending
behaviour and rebuild their lives positively—which, in aggregate,
is also likely to result in reduced reoffending rates. Part of
the necessary evidence base concerns the costs (and benefits)
of different sentencing options.
nef believes that making robust full-cost information
on sentencing options available to policy makers, sentencers and
the public in general would be highly beneficial. Doing so is
likely to improve understanding about the financial and broader
implications of imposing custodial or community sentences. We
strongly recommend, however, that any cost information provided
to sentencers and others should not be limited to the public expenditure
costs of prison and community penalties. It should also include
an indication of what costs and benefits individuals (and their
families and communities) are likely to bear as a result of sentencing
decisions. It would be both feasible and desirable to provide
sentencers with generic cost information on factors such as the
cost to family members or local authorities of caring for a female
offender's children if she is imprisoned. Clearly, it would not
be possible to calculate a detailed, individual analysis for each
offender, but the type of cost information we propose could be
generated and distributed as sentencing guidelines.
19 April 2007
87 Baroness Jean Corston, The Corston report: a review
of women with particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice
system, Home Office. Back
88
Here we are drawing on academic work that refers to desistance
from crime, ie a focus on the factors explaining why individuals
desist from criminal activity rather than why they reoffence;
see, for example, Shadd Maruna, Making good:how ex-convicts
reform and rebuild their lives, American Psychological Association
Books, Washington, DC, 2001. Back
89
Corston, op cit, chapter 6. Back
90
Home Office, Making sentencing clearer, November 2006. Back
91
The Asha Centre in Worcester provides support and programmes
to disadvantaged women, including women offenders. It is a safe,
women-only environment that enables women to work on their personal
development. It offers a range of courses and activities to build
confidence, improve skills and facilitate access to other services
and organisations. Asha is funded by a variety of public, private
and third sector bodies, and has operated in its present form
since 2002. Back
|
