26. First supplementary memorandum
submitted by the Home Office
1. Where are the major gaps in information
currently collected about ethnicity in the criminal justice system
There are gaps in the data but we should acknowledge
the areas where there are robust statistics, particularly at the
beginning and end of the criminal justice process. We have detailed
statistics about Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) people's interaction
with the police, for example stop and search and arrest. Similarly
the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) collects and uses
detailed ethnicity data. The major gaps relate to the comprehensiveness
of the data supplied eg court data on remand and sentencing decisions
by ethnicity. Similar gaps in ethnicity data exist in relation
to victims, bail status, type of sanction (charge, caution, no
further action), and overall the opportunity to track offenders
by ethnicity through the CJS.
2. What are the main findings of the Root
and Branch Review of race data in CJS conducted by the Office
for Criminal Justice Reform (OCJR), and what action is being taken
as a result of this review?
The main findings of the Root and Branch Review
are due to be published shortly. It will contain an action plan
to improve race data collected across the CJS. OCJR is committed
to ensuring that data is of a quality that makes it a tool to
understand BME peoples' experience of the CJS, underpin service
delivery and to drive performance both locally and nationally.
3. To what extent does the Home Office aspire
to systematically collect data for different ethnic groups at
each stage of the criminal justice process, and by offence? How
much progress has been made towards this goal?
A key aspiration is to collect data that demonstrates
that the CJS treats people from all backgrounds fairly. This work
supports all CJS departments and agencies. The aim of our programme
is to improve the race and criminal justice statistics and to
ensure data on different ethnic groups' experiences is systematically
collected at each stage of the criminal justice process and that
this information is used to manage performance. This will feature
as part of the implementation of the Root and Branch Review.
4. What changes to the policy and practice
of data collection and monitoring are likely to result from OCJR's
work on improving data collection over the next two to three years?
We are aiming to clarify data collection requirements
and quality standards. This will be an important first step in
improving the comprehensiveness, consistency and robustness of
the information collected on race and criminal justice. We anticipate
that these improvements will foster better ownership and use of
the data by Local Criminal Justice Boards (LCJBs) and that criminal
justice agencies will be better able to monitor and drive performance
locally and nationally in relation to race issues.
5. Why was monitoring of ethnic appearance
of those appearing in courts during 2003-04 only possible in one
fifth of cases? What action is being taken to address this information
The gap in the data is due to problems in the
flow of information between CJS agencies. Her Majesty's Court
Service (HMCS) is investigating the cause of these problems and
possible solutions. This is also an issue for the implementation
of the Root and Branch Review.
6. Why is there no detailed ethnicity data
on remand decisions for people over 18, and what plans are in
place to collect statistics in this area?
As explained above (Q5) there are problems in
the flow of data between CJS agencies. Where the information is
available it is processed. However, this data is statistically
incomplete and could lead to inaccurate conclusions if used. The
work HMCS are undertaking will help with this, as will the work
of the Bail and Remand Policy Group and the implementation of
the Root and Branch Review.
7. How confident is the Home Office in the
accuracy of rates "per thousand population" as a measure
Subject to the availability and/or comprehensiveness
of data for the topic under investigation, the use of the census
per thousand population is an accepted basis of comparison ie
the standard adopted by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
It reflects the actual experiences of different ethnic groups,
and the effect of police practices on them. What this means, for
example, is that Black people have a higher relative risk of being
searched compared to White people in England and Wales irrespective
of the reasons for the disparity.
However, it is recognised that views vary about
the adequacy of residential population information compared to
available population information. Taking stop and search as an
example, studies have shown that not all searches are recorded
by the police, and have questioned the extent to which the resident
population accurately reflects the profile of people "available"
on the street. Studies that have looked at the influence of the
public's use of space on disproportionality have suggested that
the ethnic profile of those people in the public spaces where
searches are used, is different to the ethnic profile of the resident
There are some considerations that need to be
taken into account when assessing the validity of measures based
on "available" populations:
They tend to be based on small, local
areas due to cost and methodological reasons.
The "available" population
cannot be a single, fixed measure because, by definition, the
demographic make-up of the available population is likely varied
in different areas and over time.
While it may be possible to use a
measure of the available population to assess whether officer
decision-making on the street is ethnically biased, they do not
help answer questions about why some geographic areas are targeted
by the police. This is the focus of ongoing Home Office research.
Home Office research concluded that measures
based on the residential population (ie rates per thousand population)
remain important. As previously mentioned, they reflect the actual
experiences of different ethnic groups, and the effect of police
practices on them.
8. To what extent is the HO considering methods
of identifying possible discrimination other than comparisons
per thousand populationfor example by analysing the reasons
for any ethnic differences in rates of attrition following entry
into the criminal justice system?
There is a difference between measuring how
much discrimination may exist and understanding the reasons for
it. Comparisons per thousand help us to identify difference, but
do not enable us to understand the reasons for it. However, the
British Crime Survey (BCS) can be used to assess prevalence rather
than incidence of stop and search. Current policing research examines
the effectiveness of stops and searches by assessing the extent
to which they are targeted against crime and incident hotspots.
The demographic profile of the resident population in targeted
areas will also be measured.
9. What is the Home Office's view as to why
levels of disproportionate representation of Black young people
in the CJS have changed little over time?
The factors contributing towards Black young
people's disproportionate representation in the CJS are complex;
experiences of crime and criminal behaviour are inextricably linked
with inequality and disadvantage and Black young people face socio-economic
disadvantage in comparison with their White counterparts. This
was recognised in the framework provided by the Improving Opportunity,
Strengthening Society Strategy (IOSS) within which the CJS works.
Therefore, addressing the root causes of disproportionality in
the CJS is a long term process and goes beyond simply improving
practice within the systemalthough that is important.
10. To what extent has the BME prison population
grown at a faster rate than the prison population as a whole?
What reasons are there for any differential growth?
Between June 1994 and February 2003, the British
national Minority Ethnic population in prison establishments increased
from 5,510 to 10,645up 93%; in comparison White British
nationals increased from 39,241 to 51,697up 32%. The comparable
figures for the foreign national population are increases of 166%
and 63% respectively.
The increase in the population mainly reflects
an increase in the numbers received into prison under an immediate
custodial sentenceimmediate custodial sentenced receptions
of Minority Ethnic British nationals increased by 98% between
1994 and 2002 compared to 42% for White British nationals.
Increases may also reflect differences in sentence length given,
and release and recall rates.***
These figures are based on the 1991 Census ethnicity
categories. Figures for 2005 are available but not on a comparable
basisthe 2001 ethnicity categories were introduced in 2003.
Because of the introduction of the Mixed category particularly,
comparisons should not be made with the 1991 ethnicity categories.
However, there has been no detailed research
which looks specifically at the causes behind the growth in the
Minority Ethnic prison population.
11. Has the Home Office produced any projections
of the growth in the BME prison population? If so, what are the
findings of these projections?
We do not calculate or publish projections of
the BME prison population. The main use for the prison population
projections is to plan the future high-level requirements for
prison places. The Estate Planning and Development Unit (EPDU)
of NOMS use the projections to develop detailed plans for the
prison estate. BME prisoners are treated as part of the total
prison population. There are no plans to calculate such a projection.
Our published projections split the total prison
population into seven categories: male remand, female remand,
male sentenced, female sentenced, non-criminal, total male and
The latest total prison population projections
were published in July 2005.
The next projections will be published in July
2006 and will cover the years 2006-13.
12. What work has been done, and is being
done, to unravel the causes of disproportionate representation
of BME groups in the CJS?
Untangling the effects of demography, life experience
and social exclusion on BME people's experience of the CJS is
complicated. RDS NOMS are currently conducting work which will
help identify the prevalence of risk factors and needs amongst
offenders. We are undertaking four cohort studies, each examining
different groups of offenders or different stages of the Criminal
Justice System, which will cover custody and alternatives to custody
(community sentences). The prison, community sentence and juvenile
offender cohort studies will provide information on the characteristics
of offenders who typically receive interventions, what combinations
of interventions they receive, and which types of offenders might
benefit most from particular types of intervention. The studies
will include booster samples of offenders from BME groups where
this is necessary to achieve appropriate sample sizes to provide
data on BME offenders on an aggregate basis.
The first part of the fourth cohort study, the
court survey, aims to understand how the courts reach sentencing
decisions through examining a range of offences from a nationally
representative sample of courts. Subject to the quantity and quality
of ethnicity data held in court files, (see answer to Q5), the
survey will provide data for BME offenders on an aggregate basis
to compare how courts deal with BME offenders.
13. How does the Practice Oriented Package
work? What indications are available of its success to date in
determining the causes of disproportionality in Stop and Search?
The "Practice Oriented Package" (POP)
is a method for analysing the components of stop and search in
order to understand the drivers for disproportionality in individual
forces. The package recognises that there may be justified, as
well as unjustified reasons for the disproportionate use of stop
The work has been completed in six forces by
a central team who have also trained staff in four further forces
to complete the work themselves.
The work follows a six-stage process that culminates
in the production of a template that outlines the causes of disproportionality
and, where appropriate, the remedial action required. The six-stage
process is as follows:
1. Collation and detailed analyses of Stop
and Search data broken down into various fields. For example time,
day, location, reason for stop, powers used, age, gender, ethnicity,
driver or pedestrian and outcome.
2. Community seminars which focus on assessing
the impact of the use of the power
3. Meeting with the chief officer(s) of each
force to discuss the proposed seminars and subsequent work "on
the ground" to secure his/her permission to do the work in
4. Policy seminars held with chief officers
and senior staff in force to find out whether there is a policy
drive for the use of the tactic within that force.
5. Practitioner seminars with constables,
sergeants and inspectors. The aim with these seminars was to discuss
with operational officers the factors that informed their decision
to use the powers. In addition, to discover the link, if any,
between espoused policy governing the use of stop and search and
the decision-making process by operational officers.
6. Over a one month period work on a Basic
Command Unit looking closely at factors that could affect the
effectiveness of stop and search, such as the analyses and use
of intelligence and quality of briefing given to officers.
Each of the templates devised were part of a
confidential report to the relevant Chief Constable and used to
populate a generic template which appeared in the Home Office
Stop and Search Manual.
Disproportionality was seen to fall in two of
the forces who subsequently used the template. Other forces used
the findings to assist them in informing local residents as to
the causes of disproportionality.
14. To what extent has the Stop and Search
Action Team (SSAT) achieved its objectives?
The outcomes for success identified were:
Increased BME confidence in the use
of stop and search.
A reduction in the headline disproportionality
figures of 6:1 Black and 3:1 Asian stop and searches compared
with white (2002-03).
Increased officer confidence in the
use of stop and search.
Improved understanding of the concept
of disproportionality in the use of stop and search.
Improved understanding of effectiveness
in the use of stop and search.
The success measures that will be used are:
BCS for BME community confidence.
From 2005-06 wider confidence measures in how fairly stop and
search is used has been added. The results will not be available
until late 2006.
Section 95 statistics are used to
measure disproportionality. This year's figures are not currently
available however, last year's figures showed no rise in disproportionality
against the Black population and a modest decrease in the rate
of disproportionality against the Asian population.
Police Performance Assessment Framework
is being used to assess the percentage of Stops and Searches which
lead to an arrest broken down by ethnicity. The first tranche
of reports have been produced.
It has always been recognised that significant
progress in these areas will take a long period however there
have been significant short term progress on the following areas:
Assisting forces with implementation
of Recommendation 61 by feeding back issues from forces to SSAT.
Input to Police Performance Assessment
Framework (PPAF) measures on stop and search. The data from this
was published on 27 October 2005.
Development of the Stop and Search
manualthis was published on 31 March 2005 and disseminated
to forces thereafter. The manual included a "stops"
definitions table detailing typical stop or stop and search circumstances.
NCPE Practice advice on stop and
search defining standards for the use of the power.
Work with Her Majesty's Inspectorate
of Constabulary (HMIC) to inform their recent race thematic inspections
A series of well-attended stop and
search regional seminars in Spring and Autumn 2005.
15. What were the results of SSAT liaison
with young people to assess the impact of stop and search? What,
if any, action was taken as a result?
Community consultation events fed directly into
the POP process (see above). Findings varied dramatically around
the country and there was no generic response. The findings from
these sessions informed the individual force templates and fed
directly into the Stop and Search manual.
During the course of work on Stop and Search,
approximately 1,500 young people were engaged with during the
course of four consultation exercises:
To determine the impact of Stop and
Search on their lives.
To determine the impact of Recommendation
To determine the effectiveness of
the Stop and Search Manual.
To determine their reaction to the
proposal to record faith on Stop and Search forms.
The consultation targeted pre-existing groups
(youth clubs, faith groups etc) of young people aged 16 to 25.
For the first two pieces of consultation we
used young people involved in the "Team" programme run
by the Prince's Trust. This gave us groups of unemployed young
people with a racial mix that reflected the local community with
24% within 12 months of a custodial sentence, 14% care leavers
and 40% educational underachievers.
For the final two pieces of consultation we
used young people predominantly from BME communities. We targeted
organisations such as the Somali Centre in Toxteth and Ek Awaaj
youth group in Leicester.
Key findings from the work included:
All Black male participants had experienced
a Stop and Search compared to 30% of White male participants and
80% of Black female participants.
Experience of Stop and Search varied
widely between areas.
Young people did not know their rights
with regard to Stop and Search.
Some forces failed to provide a written
The greatest cause for concern for
young people was when they did not know why they had been stopped
There was widespread support for
the need for the tactic but strong criticism in some areas as
to how it was deployed.
Young and inexperienced officers
were often blamed for creating tensions during the encounter.
Recommendation 61 (the recording
of stops) during initial trials was not popular with young people.
The Home Office Stop and Search Manual
was neither accessible nor of value to young people.
Young people were resistant to the
concept of recording an individual's faith during a Stop and Search
Key actions arising either directly or in part
from these findings included:
An emphasis on the manner in which
Stop and Search encounters should be conducted in all subsequent
The development of the Practice Orientated
Package to try to understand regional variances and how they impact
on community confidence.
Notes of guidance from ACPO reminding
forces of the need to inform suspects the powers being used to
affect the Stop and Search and the specific reasons for the stop.
The development of a publicity campaign
to inform young people of their rights.
The development of a training programme
and guidance notes on Recommendation 61 to ensure that front line
staff understood the reason why stops were being monitored.
Trialing the use of Palm Pilots to
electronically record Stops and Searches which automatically generate
Stop and Search forms during specific encounters such as PNC checks.
The development of a Stop and Search
Community Manual and a Stop and Search web site with advice on
how to make complaints.
The piloting of alternative methods
of monitoring the impact of Stop and Search on faith communities
that do not involve requesting individuals to disclose their faith
during the encounter.
16. What, if any, assessment has been made
of the effectiveness of the IPCC in increasing Black young people's
confidence and trust in the police service? What did this show?
The IPCC has a statutory duty under the Police
Reform Act 2002 to increase public confidence in the police complaints
system, and, in doing so, to contribute to increasing confidence
in policing as a whole. This is a key part of the IPCC's Guardianship
In order to establish an early benchmark in
relation to confidence, the IPCC conducted a large-scale survey
of public confidence in the police complaints system during its
first year of operation, in 2004;
this survey will be re-run over time so that changes can be monitored
against this baseline.
The survey found that general willingness to
make a complaint was high (77% of people definitely or probably
would complain) and did not differ greatly by ethnicity, but young
people were less willing to complain (73% of 15 to 34 year olds
definitely or probably would complain).
When asked about their views on making a complaint,
Black people were more likely than White people to state that:
they did not think they would be
taken seriously (Black 38%; White 30%);
complaining would take up too much
of their time (Black 33%; White 21%);
they were concerned about subsequent
police harassment or other consequences (Black 28%; White 18%).
Young people were more likely to think that
they would not be taken seriously (15 to 34: 39%; overall 31%)
and that complaining would not make a difference (15 to 34: 39%;
Black people and young people were significantly
less likely to have heard of the IPCC (Black: 38%; 15 to 34: 39%;
overall 62%) and less likely to be confident that the IPCC would
deal with complaints impartially (Black: 54%; 15 to 34: 61%; overall
The full report is available on the IPCC's website
The IPCC has commissioned MORI to undertake
qualitative work with those groups that were either less willing
to complain or more sceptical of the complaints system, including
young Black people. This work has been completed and will be published
later this year.
The research found that perceptions of, and
attitudes towards, the police heavily influenced participants'
perceptions of the complaints procedures in general and the likelihood
of making a complaint. The MORI research considered shared characteristics
of the participants and identified broad groupings in terms of
their attitudes towards the police. A group identified as "highly
disengaged", consisting primarily of Black and Asian young
people, predominantly young men, and Gypsies and Travellers, tended
to have the lowest expectations of police behaviour and were the
least willing to complain as they had regular negative police
contact, either themselves or through family and friends, and
accepted such as a regular part of their lives.
In addition, the IPCC consults the British Crime
Survey statistics breaking down confidence in the police service
by ethnicity to assess changes, although it is not possible to
draw specific causal links between statistical changes and the
The research made several recommendations for
the IPCC which the organisation is currently considering; other
work in relation to increasing confidence in the complaints system
Working with the Children's Legal
Centre on their Nuffield Foundation funded research project in
relation to children and young people aged 16 years and under
and their access to the police complaints system.
A local pilot project on raising
awareness of the police complaints system with young Asian men
in Dewsbury. From this project the IPCC will draw out lessons
around effective means of increasing awareness of the police complaints
A lead commissioner for policy issues
in relation to the impact and use of police stop and search powers,
who is leading a group of IPCC practitioners in examining issues
from stop and search complaints.
The IPCC views its responsibility to ensure
that police complaints system arrangements are efficient and effective
and demonstrate independence, as well as its powers to "call
in" for consideration complaints or allegations of misconduct
as important contributory factors to increasing public confidence.
All the IPCC's activities including referrals, involvement in
investigations, appeals and casework generally contribute to its
The IPCC's Statutory Guidance for the police
service in England and Wales which took effect from December 2005,
encourages the police service to build particular communities
confidence in the complaints system. The Guidance advises that
where people have experienced or have a shared perceptionwhether
well-founded or notthat the police are unfair, such as
BME communities, gay and lesbian communities and people with disabilities,
greater effort maybe required.
17. To what extent does social exclusion have
a disproportionate impact on bail/remand decisions for Black young
people? What, if any, measures are being taken to combat this?
A number of research studies have suggested
that BME defendants, in particular Black defendants, are more
likely to be remanded in custody by the police and the courts
(eg John, 2003; Feilzer and Hood, 2004). A recent National Audit
Office (NAO) report
also found that African-Caribbean men are more likely to be remanded
in custody. It appears that this discrepancy cannot, or cannot
entirely, be explained by characteristics of the offender or offence.
The research projects did not identify the specific
causes of disproportionality. However, issues such as having stable
accommodation are pertinent to a decision on bail. In partnership
with Nacro, SOVA and Foundation Housing (voluntary sector agencies),
NOMS has secured Invest To Save Budget funding to deliver an effective
bail support and accommodation service to defendants in key courts
in Yorkshire and Humberside. BME defendants will be prioritised
within this scheme and the intention is to engage mentors with
particular competence to work effectively with BME defendants
to help them comply with bail conditions, thus giving courts confidence
in the bail arrangements.
NOMS is attempting to address disproportionate
use of remand for BME defendants. It is established policy that
BME defendants are given priority for bail information where bail
information schemes are operated in prisons, or by probation services
in courts. This was most recently re-iterated in guidance issued
to probation in March 2005 and to prisons in October 2005. Bail
information schemes provide factual and verified data to the courts
on the defendant's circumstances that is relevant to the bail
v remand decision, including accommodation and community ties.
18. What is the remit of the OCJR's Bail and
Remand Policy Group? What has it achieved to date?
The Bail and Remand Policy Group (BRPG) has
been established to oversee bail and remand policy aims (other
than failure to attend which is dealt with elsewhere) and will
seek to develop and implement solutions in consultation and conjunction
with CJS agencies. One of the aims of the group is to address
equality and welfare issues in bail/remand decision-making, including
issues of disproportionate race impact.
The group has met twice and considered a range
of issues including tagging as a condition of bail, bail information
schemes, mental health issues and race disproportionality issues.
19. What measures have been taken to ensure
that pre-sentence reports are even-handed in relation to offenders
from different ethnic groups?
The National Probation Service have taken steps
to ensure that pre-sentence reports (PSRs) are monitored by ethnicity,
and that the quality of PSRs for BME offenders are high. In 2003,
the NPS was set a target of ensuring that 95% of PSRs written
on BME offenders had clear recommendations. The NPS achieved 94%
towards the target in 2003-04, narrowly missing the target, although
35 out of the 42 probation areas met or exceeded it. In 2004-05
this rose to 97%.
20. Does NOMS have a strategy for counteracting
perceptions among Black prisoners of a lack of respect from prison
staff as highlighted in HM Inspectorate of Prisons thematic report
on prisons, "Parallel Worlds"? If so, what are the key
elements of this strategy?
The Prison Service is committed to addressing
the negative perceptions of BME prisoners, and particularly any
perception that there is a lack of respect for black prisoners
from prison staff. The most significant single measure to address
negative perceptions is the completion of Race Equality Impact
The Prison Service is meeting the requirements
of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 (RR(A)A) by assessing
and consulting on the impact of all of its policies, processes
and functions through the completion of REIAs. Each establishment
undertakes its own REIAs and they focus on a number of priority
areas identified as having the most significant impact on prisoners'
day-to-day lives. These are being tackled in two tranches:
(i) Canteen, catering, good order and discipline,
use of force, adjudications, complaints, and incentives and earned
privileges (completed by 31 March 2006).
(ii) Racist incident reporting, allocation
to work, and access to religion. (scheduled for completion by
25 September 2006).
All establishments completed the first tranche
of REIAs by 31 March 2006. The results of these REIAa will be
published in the annual review of the Prison Service Race Equality
Scheme. The REIAs are also being made available to prisoners,
for example in prison libraries.
The impact assessment process involves consultation
with prisoners, and particularly BME prisoners, and, where available,
suitable representatives from the voluntary and community sector.
As well as identifying adverse impact on BME prisoners and developing
plans to address it, this consultation assists in establishments
in raising levels of confidence and improving the perceptions
of BME prisoners.
The revised Prison Service Order 2800 on Race
Equality for Prisoners will be issued in July 2006 for implementation
on 25 September 2006 and will set out future plans for the development
of the impact assessment process.
Coupled with this work is the development of
new Race Equality Key Performance Targets (KPTs), which aim to
help the Prison Service to measure and better manage race equality
for prisoners, staff and visitors. The KPTs were implemented in
April 2006 to provide a number of measures that strike a balance
between processes (eg audit measures) and outcomes (eg ethnic
monitoring data). Importantly, qualitative measures are also included
and will gauge prisoner and visitors perceptions through the use
of prisoner and visitor surveys. Prisoners' perceptions are part
of the measuring quality of prison life (MQPL) which takes place
every two years.
The KPTs consist of an overall assessment made
up of several measures that are combined, with relative weightings,
to provide an overall score or assessment. There is strength in
combining different measures in this way. Individually, they all
have limitations and weaknesses in measuring, but collectively,
they provide breadth, checks and balances.
The Operational KPT measure has been designed
to report on the way in which race equality is managed between
staff, prisoners and visitors. It contains the following elements,
which have an associated weighting reflecting their contribution
to an overall score.
Race Relations Audit20%.
Racist Incident Report Management25%.
Ethnic Monitoring Data 20%.
Together these measures will provide greater
opportunities to monitor prisoners' access to facilities and services
and to gauge adverse impact. In the longer term work is ongoing,
through the National Offender Management Information Service (NOMIS)
user group, to ensure ethnic monitoring requirements are fully
incorporated within the NOMIS IT user specification. This will
provide the Service with an opportunity to comprehensively extend
its monitoring of the provision of services and facilities to
Another way of tackling the negative perceptions
of BME prisoners is through prisoner representation on the Race
Relations Management Team (RRMT) in each establishment. The RRMT
must ensure that it has an appropriate level of representation
of diverse prisoner and external groups. Sufficient time must
be allocated to those prisoners who act as prisoners' representatives
to consult other prisoner groups in the establishment, so that
important issues are not missed. This not only helps RRMTs to
take account of the needs, circumstances and experiences of those
affected by the establishment's functions, policies and practices
from a user perspective, it also provides them with an additional
measuring tool to help identify actual or potential inequalities.
Prisoner RRMT representative training forms
part of the overall review of training. A new training strategy
has been developed and has been piloted in a number of establishments.
In others prisoner RRMT representatives have been trained alongside
staff members of the RRMT.
21. How effective are "offender behaviour
programmes" delivered (a) in prisons and (b) on probation
in reducing re-offending among Black young people?
There is considerable evidence, originating
mainly from North America, to support the effectiveness of offending
behaviour programmes in reducing re-offending. However, UK research
into the effectiveness of programmes in prisons and probation
has produced mixed results.
There is a paucity of research into the effectiveness of prison
and probation programmes in reducing re-offending among young
black people specifically. However, several pieces of research
have explored issues around BME offenders and programmes in the
past few years (these are summarised below). Current research
will expand our knowledge in this area (please see response to
Q12 in this document).
One small-scale study suggested positive findings
for the effectiveness of the prison service sex offender treatment
programme for BME offenders. However, these results are limited.
A small scale evaluation of the impact
of the Prison Service Sex Offender Treatment Programme on minority
ethnic offenders was conducted.
The researchers concluded that on the majority of psychometric
measures treatment was equally effective across both groups of
participants. However, in this sample, Black offenders had higher
initial levels of denial of offence premeditation and offence
repetition; and whilst there was no premeditation difference post-treatment,
the denial of repetition remained statistically significantly
higher than White offenders. The results should be considered
in the context of the fairly limited sample size and methodological
limitations used of the study.
Three studies have explored issues around probation
programmes and BME offenders. There are some positive findings
but no clear evidence of effectiveness.
A qualitative study
looked at evaluations of a small number of locally developed probation
programmes for Black and Asian offenders. The results of these
were encouraging but could not be seen as conclusive due to methodological
difficulties, small sample sizes and limited long-term reconviction
In 2001 the National Probation Directorate
commissioned research into the criminogenic needs of BME offenders.
This involved interviews with a representative sample of 483 offenders
under probation supervision, of which 49% were or had been on
an order which included a requirement to attend a probation-led
On the whole, the accounts given of supervision and programmes
were mostly positive, in line with findings of other studies of
white or mainly white groups of probationers. Those who had completed
a programme were statistically significantly more likely to give
a positive response on their experience of probation than those
who had yet to start. Of those who responded (98%), the majority
(67%) agreed that probation had changed the way that they thought
about or approached problems. 22% said they were less impulsive
or more likely to consider the consequence of their actions. 16%
said they were trying to refrain from anti-social or criminal
behaviour and 7% said they were trying to address their substance
The National Probation Service developed
programmes in 2003 specifically for minority ethnic offenders
in the form of additional modules for general offending behaviour
programmes, adapted Drink Impaired drivers programme and groups
run with exclusively minority ethnic membership. Research
on these programmes found that they were not sufficiently implemented
to be ready for outcome studies.
22. What mechanisms are in place to ensure
that offender behaviour programmes are accessible and appropriate
to the specific needs of Black offenders?
Between 2002 and 2005 the National Probation
Directorate (NPD) undertook jointly with the Prison Service a
diversity review of accredited general offending behaviour programmes
to ensure that all materials for these programmes were accessible
to all groups of offenders including those from BME groups. The
programme materials and exercises were examined by a working group
which included staff from minority ethnic groups who were experienced
programme facilitators and specialist diversity advisors. The
objective was to ensure that no elements of programmes inadvertently
disadvantaged or excluded BME offenders.
A number of programme manuals have been reviewed
by external consultants (eg the Sex Offender Treatment Programme
manuals have been reviewed by an independent Muslim consultant)
to ensure suitability for men from particular ethnic groups.
More recently developed programmes have been
able to incorporate the growing learning about diversity and responsivity
into the development of the programme content, training and implementation
The Correctional Services Accreditation Panel,
who independently scrutinise all offending behaviour programmes
for accreditation specifically consider each programme in terms
of its relevance and accessibility to BME groups.
The reports from the diversity review suggested
that a key issue was facilitators' confidence in their abilities
to deliver programmes in a responsive manner to BME offenders.
This has led to changes being made to the training for general
offending behaviour programmes with more emphasis being placed
on diversity in treatment management and in the assessment of
competence required before facilitators become fully accredited.
A multi-programme, multi-disciplinary, multi-ethnic
steering group is currently overseeing the development of a training
package in cross cultural communication skills within offending
behaviour programmes, which is being developed for offending behaviour
programme facilitators. This training package will be piloted
later in 2006.
A Diversity Impact Assessment strategy is underway,
with DIAs to be completed on all HMPS offending behaviour programmes
over the next two years.
NPD policy outlines in the Accredited programmes
National Management Manual that offenders from BME groups should
where possible not be placed in groups where all the other members
are white. In some cases this proves difficult where probation
areas have a low density of BME probationers and delaying starting
a programme would mean that the offender would not be able to
complete treatment within their period of supervision. In these
cases the offender may be offered two options:
1. Taking part in a programme as a singleton
BME offender, with additional support form his/her case manager;
this would only happen if the offender is willing to do this.
2. Undertaking the 1-2-1 programme, which
provides the same quality of input as a general offender programme
but on an individual basis. The 1-2-1 programme can also be used
where an offender has insufficient spoken English to take part
in a group programme, either by using a facilitator who speaks
the same language or working through an interpreter.
HMPS similarly provide guidance on issues relating
to participation of offenders from BME groups where all other
group members would be White.
Participation in offending behaviour programmes
is monitored and reviewed. In NPS, rates of referral, attendance
and completion of offender behaviour programmes are monitored
by using the Intermediate Accredited Programmes software (IAPs),
which provides management information to National Probation Service
(NPS) areas and performance data to NPD. This data can be broken
down to the local level and by ethnicity. Probation areas can
analyse the data to check for disparities in programme attrition
rates of offenders from different ethnic backgrounds and age groups.
Current data indicates in general that young offenders are more
likely not to complete programmes, but that there is no difference
in completion rates of White offenders and those from BME backgrounds.
Similarly HMPS monitors rates of attendance and completion via
the offending behaviour programmes core database. Quarterly summaries
of this information are then reviewed by the OBPU Section heads
and programme leads.
NPD Interventions Unit have commissioned a number
of special projects (pathfinders) in relation to BME offenders
and offending behaviour programmes. These include:
Running programmes for BME groups
exclusively, led by BME facilitators.
Combining Offending behaviour programmes
with self-development sessions for BME offenders.
Providing mentors for BME offenders
A process evaluation of the pathfinder programmes
has been undertaken and the results will be published shortly.
Recommendations and good practice guidance arising from the pathfinders
will be issued to probation areas.
NPD have also commissioned a research project
through RDS into the views of Black and Asian male offenders on
One aspect of this study was to examine the perceptions of Black
and Asian offenders who attended programmes. General findings
indicated that offenders were positive about their probation experience
and have a similar range of needs as white offenders (although
their needs were on average less). A key finding from this study,
the largest ever undertaken in the UK, contradicted the assumption
that Black and Asian probationers would generally prefer to undertake
programmes in groups of offenders from the same ethnic background
was not shared by the offenders themselves. They generally preferred
mixed and multiracial service models. The largest group of offenders
identified were of mixed heritage and many of this group did not
identify themselves as black or white.
A recent study into meeting the drug treatment
needs of BME prisoners, conducted by the University of Central
Lancashire (UCLAN), will help inform the overall approach in addressing
23. What does the Home Office perceive to
be the biggest obstacles towards achievement of PSA2(e) target
to reduce the percentage of people from BME communities who believe
they will be treated worse by one or more CJS agency compared
to the baseline year of 2001?
PSA2e is essentially a perception based target,
therefore a major obstacle to achieving it, is understanding what
drives people's perception of how they will be treated by CJS
organisations. The evidence we do have shows that to change perceptions
people's actual and vicarious experience of the system has to
improve. However, there will always be a time lag between improvements
in services and people's perception. Allied to this obstacle is
the challenging nature of the target, which discounts any person
who believes they will be treated worse by any one of the five
Although four of the five agencies have achieved
statistically significant decreases in the number of people who
feel they will they will be treated worse, this has not been reflected
in achieving a significant decrease in the aggregate target. The
reason for this is that there is not necessarily a clear direct
relationship between the individual organisations and the composite
aggregate measure. It is not safe to assume that if the individual
organisations decrease that the composite measure will decrease
by the same amount. If BME people feel they would be discriminated
against by more than one organisation, an individual organisation's
rate may improve. However, if this improvement simply meant BME
people tended to feel they would be discriminated against by fewer
organisations, but continued to feel discriminated against by
one or more, then the overall measure would not improve.
A further obstacle is that HOCS data is currently
only collected very two years and nor can it be broken down to
Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) level. This means that it
is not possible to set local targets and LCJBs do not have robust
data to measure how the changes they make to ensure services are
delivered fairly are impacting on the target.
24. How successful have the "Fairness
and Equality in the CJS" toolkit for Local Criminal Justice
Boards (LCJBs) and the CPS "No Witness, No Justice"
(a) The Fairness and Equality in the CJS toolkit
for LCJBs, supports the key criteria that LCJBs need to concentrate
on to enable them to deliver the PSA2(e) target. Recent CJS Race
Unit seminars have used the Toolkit to stimulate debate and local
action for LCJBs.
The initial feedback from LCJBs on the Toolkit
has been favourable. The Toolkit has provided LCJB's with the
necessary framework within which to enable them to have a measured
and focused approach regarding race issues. Critically, it has
enabled them to see that race issues are not just about Community
Engagement and that a variety of methods are necessary for LCJBs
to undertake in order to address issues of fairness and disproportionality.
For Boards such as West Yorkshire, it has been the vehicle within
which to underpin their business planning process thereby informing
their delivery plan, for others it has enabled them to have the
first real understanding of the key issues which need to be addressed
at the local level. For the CJS Race Unit, the Toolkit has also
been an effective method for engaging with LCJB's and has resulted
in an increase of requests for support at the local level.
(b) The "No Witness, No Justice" (NWNJ)
victim and witness care programme is a joint CPS and Police initiative.
Following a successful pilot study, and an award of Government
funding to support national implementation, 165 Witness Care Units
have been established across England and Wales.
The Units, staffed by trained specialists from
the police and the CPS, provide a single point of contact for
victims and witnesses from point of charge until the conclusion
of the case. Dedicated Witness Care Officers ensure that the individual
needs of victims and witnesses are identified and met so that
they have all the support and information they need to enable
them to attend court and to give evidence.
In preparing to establish local Witness Care
Units, community consultation exercises have taken place so that
the area understands the needs of the communities that they serve,
and the range of local support services which may be available
to support victims and witnesses through the criminal justice
process. This has enabled Local Contact Directories to be developed
so that Witness Care Officers can easily identify appropriate
support and they can tailor their response to provide a service
which meets the individual needs of victims and witnesses.
Witness Care Units have been provided with specific
guidance on consulting with BME communities and in an attempt
to improve community engagement approaches and to offer better
support to victims and witnesses the CPS has also funded three
pilots which will inform best practice advice to local areas for
future consultation exercises.
It is this tailored approach to the delivery
of services to victims and witnesses that provides a more effective
response to ensure fairness and equality of treatment. Examples
of the tailor made service may include making practical arrangements
such as a pre-trial familiarisation visit to the court, childcare,
transport, special measures to ensure that the witness can give
their best evidence (eg a video link or screen to ensure that
the witness is not intimidated by the defendant at court) ensuring
that religious faith requirements are catered for, eg availability
of appropriate religious books for oath taking and availability
of appropriate prayer facilities, providing immediate interpreter
support for verbal communications leading to the court hearing,
and an interpreter at court, or ensuring accessibility of court
accommodation if the witness is disabled.
In addition the victim or witness may require
support from a specialist agency, and Witness Care Officers can
put them in touch with an appropriate organisation eg Victim Support,
Voice UK (learning disabled), Help the Aged (support for the elderly)
Black Londoners forum, Black Racial Attacks Independent Network
The NWNJ Project Team is currently conducting
a programme of post implementation visits to each area to assess
performance of Witness Care Units against the Minimum Requirements
of NWNJ. Early results are encouraging showing that areas have
made significant improvements in the delivery of local services
to victims and witnesses, resulting in an increase in witness
attendance at court. However, it is early days in the development
of Witness Care Units and the NWNJ Project Team still consider
that there is a lot of work to be done to achieve optimum standards
We believe that the introduction of the NWNJ
initiative is just the start of a journey which will see a transformation
in the quality of service provided to victims and witnesses. We
are confident that the tailor-made approach has already resulted
in substantial improvements to victim and witness care. However,
we recognise that the challenge is to raise awareness of the change
and build confidence in all sections of society to ensure equal
and fair access to the CJS.
25. Are there any figures available to indicate
the degree of ethnic variation in ratios of drug treatment places
to drug mis-users? If so, what do these figures show?
Data collected by the National Treatment Agency
(NTA) shows that young drug mis-users entering treatment in the
community are predominantly White (89%), compared to 11% from
BME groups. These percentages do roughly correspond to what we
would expect to see in the drug treatment population, nationally
and in each region ie either a similar ratio of BME to White mis-users,
or, a slight overrepresentation of BME drug users in drug treatment
compared to local population demographics.
In terms of offender drug treatment, the CARAT
service (Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare)
was established in 1999 as a gateway and lower level drug treatment
service in every prison establishment across England and Wales.
CARAT services are a major element of the Prison Service Drug
Treatment Strategy. Prisoners can be assessed by a CARAT team,
given advice about drug misuse and referred to appropriate drug
services. Ethnicity data relating to custodial drug treatment
currently derives from an evaluation of CARATs records and has
been collected since April 2002.
The CARAT service is intentionally flexible
to help ensure delivery to drug-misusing offenders irrespective
of minority ethnic background, age or gender.
In 2004-05 where ethnicity was known, 86% of
prisoners assessed by CARATs were white. This compares with 82%
of all sentenced receptions into prison in 2002 (the most recent
comparable data). The research report concluded these findings
may suggest that non-white prisoners could be less likely to access
CARAT services; however, given the closeness of the percentages,
some bias may be introduced by missing databut the findings
suggest that non-white prisoners may be less likely to access
CARAT services. This would be consistent with differential needs,
as levels of drug-misuse are significantly lower for non-white
prisoners, for example, a survey
showed that 74% of white prisoners used drugs in the year before
custody, compared to 67% black and 50% South Asian prisoners.
PERCENTAGE OF CARAT CLIENTS IN DIFFERENT
|Number of cases||34,075
Note: Excludes 3,139 cases (4%) where ethnicity was
26. To what extent do drug treatment measures vary in their
effectiveness depending on the ethnicity of the user?
The NTA uses three main indicators of drug treatment effectiveness.
Waiting times to enter treatment;
Retention in treatment for three months (evidence
indicates that those with serious heroin and cocaine/crack problems
require a minimum three months structured drug treatment); and
initial treatment completion ie whether a client
completes their drug treatment.
In 2005-06 the mean waiting time for drug treatment for clients
under 25 was 2.8 weeks for white clients and 2.6 weeks for BME
clients. This slight difference is not significant. When the data
is analysed to look at BME clients referred from criminal justice
routes (proxy for young offenders) the average wait was 2.45 weeks,
compared to 2.4 for white young offenders (this difference is
not significant). It is important to note that young BME offenders
access drug treatment faster than non offenders of any ethnicity.
Evidence indicates that a minimum retention in treatment
for those with serious heroin and/or crack cocaine problems should
be 3 months, as major health benefits accrue after this point.
For other types of drug misuse such as dependent cannabis use
and less severe cocaine and crack use evidence suggests that shorter
drug treatment programmes are effective.
Data on retention rates for 2005-06 for those under 25 who
are young offenders shows that young offenders have slightly less
retention when compared to non offenders of the same age. Differences
are retention at Triage (assessment) 1 to 2% less for offenders
and retention for three months or more, 2 to 4% less for non offenders.
Treatment completion data for 2005-06 shows that BME young
offender clients are slightly less likely to complete a treatment
episode that white young offender clients, with 39% of white clients
compared to 34% of BME clients.
Although custodial drug treatment is flexible, to enable
all drug-users to engage, a study
into the substance-misuse treatment needs of ethnic minority prisoners
indicated that drug treatment services were not attracting BME
men and that that was, at least in part, due to a lack of BME
practitioners and a perceived lack of cultural understanding from
To help identify minority ethnic prisoners' access toand
barriers todrug treatment services in custody, the specialist
Centre for Ethnicity and Health at the University of Central Lancashire
(UCLAN) was commissioned to conduct an assessment (its final report
is expected to be delivered in late June 2006). The main barriers
identified include issues surrounding:
dual role of prison officer drug workers;
privacy and poor practice; and
accessing after-care support.
Building on this study, NOMS is now developing a diversity
toolkit to help improve minority ethnic drug-users' access to
drug treatment services. Work is also already underway to broaden
the range of drug treatment workers available to engage with offendersfor
example, the Modern Apprenticeship Scheme running in London prisons
has seen seven minority ethnic apprentices taken on in recognition
that minority ethnic drug-users are less likely than white counterparts
to misuse opiates, more is being done to address crack-misusewith
a crack-specific. Some CARAT staff have already been trained to
deal with crack-specific problems, as well as wider stimulants.
The NTA Effectiveness Strategy underlines as a critical success
factor the need to create a positive relationship between drug
worker and client. The UCLAN researchers concluded that key to
improving effectiveness of drug treatment for the BME population
was to address issues of access, staffing mix and a perceived
lack of cultural understanding of White staff. There was some
evidence to suggest that for reasons of stigma and to an extent
empathy with other drug mis-users that certain elements of the
BME population were much less attracted to group work. This presents
a considerable dilemma since drug treatment to a large extent
in prisons is built on the principle of group work rather than
one-to-one counselling. Considerable emphasis is placed on developing
peer support within drug treatment groups. And group work is more
efficient in deploying finite treatment resources.
NB: These are provisional figures derived from monthly
reporting of data to the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System.
The Official Statistics relating to these issues will not be available
until September 2006.
27. To what extent does the Home Office believe
experiences of young Black people as victims, witnesses and perpetrators
in the criminal justice system are unique? How far do young Black
peoples' experiences mirror those of other ethnic groups?
There is evidence to suggest Black young people may have
different experiences of the Criminal Justice System compared
to other ethnic groups. In terms of suspects and defendants, the
most recent statistics we have on race and criminal justice (2003-04)
indicates there is disproportionality in Black people's experiences
of each stage of the criminal justice process. Whilst these data
indicate there may be differences in Black young people's experience
of the CJS as victims, suspects and defendants we need more comprehensive
information on BME groups' experiences across the CJS before we
can make any definitive assessments regarding the extent to which
their experience is unique and predicated on their ethnicity rather
than other factors such as age or gender.
28. Is there any research underway or in planning to assess
the impact of neighbourhood policing teams and of the Race and
Diversity Learning and Development Programme in improving interaction
between the police, the wider CJS and young people? If so, what
are the key findings of this research?
An evaluation of the implementation and impact of neighbourhood
policing (NP) is being undertaken by RDS. Part of this will include
public outcome surveys in five Basic Command Units (BCUs) and
five matched control areas. These surveys will measure, among
other things, community engagement activity. More specifically,
it is planned that in-depth case-study work will be carried out
in two of the BCUs with a percentage of residents from BME communities
substantially higher than the national average. This will explore
whether the programme has similar effects for BME and White communities
and how the forces involved have attempted to engage with all
sections of BME communities. Findings from this work should be
available in Autumn 2007.
RDS has also recently evaluated three community engagement
demonstration projects in three police authority areas. In a project
in Cheshire, youth engagement was a priority. An outreach approach,
using methods that were relevant to young people, and that they
were able to understand, was successful. The final report from
this project will be available at www.communityengagement.police.uk
by the end of July.
One of the functions of the Trust and Confidence Project
Group which is chaired by an independent community member (Doreen
Lawrence) is to scrutinise the impact of policing policy on the
community satisfaction in the Police Service and advise the Home
Secretary on how to achieve improvements in trust and confidence
between BME communities and the police.
The Police Race and Diversity Learning and Development Programme
is an ambitious programme designed to reach every member of the
extended police family. Its aim is to improve the overall understanding
and appreciation of diversity issues as a whole, which in turn
should improve relationships between the police service and young
black people. It has been given an appropriate timescale for implementation
(2004-09). All police forces have recently been required to provide
an update to the Home Office on their implementation of the programme
to date. These returns are due by 30 June 2006. The information
collated from these returns, combined with the HMIC's assessment
of force performance in race and diversity issues will be used
to form the first annual report on the PRDLDP (expected to be
published in November 2006).
29. What research has been undertaken to explain crime
and victimisation within BME communitiesespecially in relation
to gun and knife crime? What measures have been developed in response
The Communities that Care "Safer London Youth Survey"
which was published in 2005, provided information on young people's
attitudes and behaviours in relation to crime and weapons use,
based on information provided by 11,400 young people (aged 11
to 15) in six London Boroughs. Although encompassing the diversity
of young people in those Boroughs, some of the data is broken
down by ethnicity, as follows:
8% of White British, 6% of Black Caribbean, 4%
Black African and 4% South Asian young people said they had carried
a gun in the previous 12 months.
12% of White British, 12% Black Caribbean, 6%
Black African and 6% South Asian young people said that they had
carried a knife in the previous 12 months.
The Survey also reported that White British and Black Caribbean
respondents were "significantly more likely" to call
their group of friends a "gang". White British and Black
Caribbean respondents were also more likely to be in a "gang"
which had a turf or territory of its own and to be in a gang with
10 or more members. Black Caribbean respondents were significantly
more likely than other groups to say they were in a gang that
had a name.
The findings demonstrate that weapons and gangs issues affect
a range of ethnic groups and our programme of work does not, therefore,
focus on any one community. The full report can be read at: http://www.communitiesthatcare.org.uk/news.html201
The programme of work being taken forward by the Home Office
aims to tackle gun and knife crime across all communities, and
Legislationthrough the Violent Crime Reduction
Bill, new measures have been introduced to tighten legislation
by creating a new offence of using someone to mind a weapon; raising
the age at which someone can be sold a knife from 16 to 18; and
providing new powers for head teachers to search pupils for knives;
banning the sale, manufacture and importation of realistic imitation
A nationwide knife amnesty was launched on 24
May and runs until 30 June, highlighting to all young people the
risks of carrying a knife and giving people an opportunity to
surrender unwanted knives.
Following the knife amnesty, the Home Office is
supporting forces in a programme of tough enforcement, together
with educational projects to highlight to young people the risks
of carrying knives.
Provision of financial support for local projects
through the Connected Fund.
Liaison with other Government departments, voluntary
and statutory agencies to look at the wider issues, such as social
deprivation, neighbourhood renewal, educational underachievement,
and health issues which may impact upon young people's involvement
in gun and knife crime.
A programme of community engagement includes events
such as the Connected conference (the first of which was held
in January 2004 and the second on 24 May 2006), and the high-level
round-table meetings on guns, knives and gangs, which involve
representatives of community organisations, senior police officers,
statutory and voluntary organisations and policy officials. The
most recent of these meetings was held on 7 March 2006.
30. What research has been undertaken to explain the comparatively
high rate of homicide within the black population? What policy
measures have been developed to reduce this?
We consider all homicides to be extremely serious, regardless
of the ethnicity of the victim. Our approach is that many homicide
offences are the result of an escalation of less serious forms
of violent crime, for example domestic violence or street violence,
and we therefore have a wide range of policies in place to tackle
these types of violent crime. For example the Violent Crime Reduction
Bill, which is currently before Parliament, contains measures
to tackle guns, knives and alcohol-related violence. The Tackling
Violent Crime Programme (TVCP) is focused on a small number of
local areas with high levels of more serious violence. The early
indications we have are that the first two tranches of the TVCP
have made a difference in reducing the most serious categories
of violent crime more rapidly than across the country as a whole,
even though these are the areas with the greatest problems. A
review of domestic violence homicide was published on 14 June.
31. To what extent have ethnic minority communities been
involved in developing and shaping research on patterns of crime
and crime prevention initiatives?
BME groups are not usually involved in the design of crime
and crime prevention research, however a number of pieces of Home
Office research have been specifically focused on understanding
the views and perspectives of people from BME groups and using
this information to inform policy development and service delivery.
For example, OCJR's research into Black young men as victims of
crime, the Home Office Citizenship Survey, British Crime Survey
and Neighbourhood Policing evaluation all aim to examine the perspectives
and experiences of BME groups in relation to crime and CJS-related
issues to provide information for policymakers and practitioners.
32. What types of projects have been funded by the Home
Office's Connected fund to support voluntary groups working on
gun crime, knife and gangs issue?
The Home Office's Connected Fund has supported over 200 projects
to date in England and Wales. Types of projects include: mentoring
schemes, after-school diversionary activities such as sport and
music, educational and training packages, anti-gun crime and anti-knife
crime events and support for victims and witnesses.
33. What is the size of the Home Office's Connected fund
in total and what scale of support has been offered to individual
There have been four successful rounds of the Connected fund,
each with a total fund size of £250,000. £1 million
has been allocated to groups and organisations to date and a fifth
round will be launched in the next few weeks. For the first round,
the maximum grant was £10,000; for subsequent rounds, this
was reduced to £5,000.
34. What criteria does the Home Office use when allocating
funding from the Connected fund?
There are strict criteria upon application to the Connected
Fund. Large or statutory organisations such as the police or schools
are not funded. A grant of £5,000 is the maximum bid per
project. The criteria are as follows:
Project must meet at least one of the following criteria:
Work with young people in, or at risk of becoming
involved in gun and knife crime or gangs.
Support victims of gun and knife crime and their
families, for example providing advice and support services, or
supporting witnesses during trials.
Invest in and support the involvement of local
people in decision-making processes that impact on law enforcement
agencies in tackling gun and knife crime and gangs, and improving
trust in the community.
Particularly prioritising young people (16-25)
and underrepresented groups.
The following criteria must also be met (You are eligible
The group is a small, locally managed voluntary
The project will cost less than £10,000 in
total to carry out.
Applicants will be able to spend the grant by
the end of the next financial year.
35. How is the impact of projects funded by the Home Office's
Connected fund being evaluated?
Evaluation and monitoring forms are sent out to all individual
projects six months after the grants are awarded. The information
is being collated and analysed as part of the Connected funding
process. This is a non-bureaucratic process that looks at what
the projects initially set out to achieve, whether those aims
have been achieved and the numbers of people involved who have
been supported by the project. A number of projects have also
been visited by the team, some of which are featured on our website
as case studies.
36. What indications are there on the success of groups
funded by the Connected fund?
Feedback from previous grantees of the fund, has been positive,
with a particular positive impact on work with young people. In
certain areas, there are now more established support networks
available to victims of gun and knife violence, or to young people
on the fringes of gang activity as result of the Fund.
37. What measures are in place to assess the impact of
legislation and policy on Black young people in comparison with
other ethnic groups?
The Race Relations (Amendment) Act requires all public authorities
to set out in their race equality scheme their arrangements for
monitoring any adverse impact their policies have on promoting
race equality. Adverse impact is defined as a significant difference
in patterns of representation or outcomes between racial groups,
with the difference amounting to a detriment for one or more racial
groups. Monitoring makes it possible to check whether policies,
operations and organisational culture are discriminating against
any racial group. Without ethnic monitoring data, there is no
way of knowing whether discrimination might be taking place or
whether policies to prevent or tackle it are working. Monitoring
can also make it possible to find out why and how discrimination
CJS agencies have race equality schemes in place and there
is commitment to ensuring that Race Equality Impact Assessments
are taking place and these are being done.
38. How far does the Home Office believe the BCS provides
reliable evidence of the extent of victimisation of Black young
people, given the apparent contradiction between its finding that
"White and Black people face similar levels of risk"
and fact that Black people are five times more likely to be victims
Homicides are amongst the less frequent crimes in England
and Wales, and are not covered by the BCS, which cover volume
crime and people's experience of such crime. There is therefore
no contradiction. The BCS is regarded internationally as the model
for victim surveys.
39. Does the Home Office have any plans for extending ethnic
monitoring to victims of crime in order better to contextualise
figures for minorities as suspects and offenders?
We will consider this as part of the implementation of the
Root and Branch Review how this may be expanded. However, the
CPS currently produces performance data annually on domestic violence,
homophobic crime and racist and religious crime prosecutions (collectively
known as "Hate Crime"). Each data set has a different
source and different reporting timescales and they also vary in
terms of detail and quality of underpinning data. The CPS Hate
Crimes Monitoring Project, was established to improve the electronic
recording of hate crimes, including victim and defendant details
to enable all data to be recorded electronically and to enable
the CPS to report publicly on hate crimes data annually within
one standardised report.
The CPS has undertaken a holistic consultation process, both
internally within the CPS and externally with Other Government
Departments (OGDs) and community and interest groups to ensure
that a comprehensive list of data priorities can be considered
to inform the project.
40. To what extent does the higher acquittal rate for BME
defendants of all ages suggest that the CPS are not consistently
filtering out weaker cases presented by the police? What steps
are being taken to remedy this?
The CPS Inspectorate (HMCPSI) looked at the issue of "overcharging"
of ethnic minority defendants in two thematic reviews of cases
with a minority ethnic dimension in 2002 and 2004. Both reviews
were conducted before the full implementation of Statutory Charging.
In 2004, HMCPSI noted that the CPS significantly corrected for
any overcharging by the police in cases involving ethnic BME defendants
(61.8% with respect to a sample of 123 cases).
Both thematic reviews can be found on the HMCPSI website:
The CPS undertook an equality and diversity impact assessment
to examine the impact of statutory charging and discover if charging
decisions vary with the gender and the ethnicity of the suspect.
The impact assessment was based on data for the six months
from September 2004 for 42 CPS areas and was drawn from COMPASS,
the CPS computerised case management system and included area,
gender, ethnicity, month and result of the charging process. This
amounted to 225,000 cases finalised nationally in the six months
from September 2004.
The main results on ethnicity indicated:
There were no significant differences across different
ethnic groups in the proportion of cases finalised by a charge.
Cases with Black suspects were finalised by charge in slightly
more cases (48.9%), as were cases with Mixed suspects (47.8%).
Cases with White, Asian or Other suspects were similar.
There were some differences by ethnicity in cases
finalised by No Further Action (NFA) on evidential grounds. 25.4%
of cases nationally with White suspects were so finalised: cases
with Black, Mixed or Other suspects were less likely to have their
cases finalised NFA on evidential grounds (all significantly lower
than White at around 19% to 20%.) There were some other differences
within the 16+1 categories: eg cases with Other White, Mixed White/Black
African or Mixed Other suspects were much less likely to have
their cases finalised NFA evidential (all below 18%).
The data set drawn from the COMPASS system did not include
other variables, such as type of offence, age of suspect, any
disability of the suspect, or sentence given. The CPS will build
on this with a further impact assessment of the ethnic and gender
distribution of charging decisions and will expand this to include
analysis of offence category in 2006-07.
Statutory Charging which has been in operation across the
whole of England and Wales since 3 April 2006, applies a consistent
approach of case assessment, which prevents weak cases entering
the system and reduces the risk of possible overcharging by the
police by way of a pre-charge consultation with CPS. In addition
the introduction of the Proactive Prosecutor Training Programme
which is being disseminated to all duty prosecutors is designed
to further improve standards by the application of a thorough,
accurate and consistent case assessment in all cases.
41. Why does the DCA believe guilty pleas are more commonly
entered by white than BME defendants? What impact does this have
on criminal justice outcomes for equitable administration of justice?
It is unclear why BME defendants enter fewer guilty pleas,
however the DCA does not believe this will impact on criminal
justice outcomes for the equitable administration of justice.
A report carried
out by the University of Oxford Centre for Criminological Research
in association with the University of Birmingham School of Law
published in 2003, investigated the extent to which ethnic minority
defendants in Crown and magistrates' courts perceived their treatment
to have been unfair. It also investigated if any unfairness was
attributed to racial bias, and how this affected their confidence
in the criminal courts.
The study revealed that about one third of defendants in
the Crown Court and about a quarter in the magistrates' courts
believed that they had been unfairly treated when in court: but
no major differences were found between the proportions of white,
black African/Caribbean, or South Asian defendants in this respect.
There was a finding among black defendants that the authority
and legitimacy of the courts, and confidence in them, would be
strengthened if more personnel from the ethnic minority population
were seen to be playing a more significant role in the administration
of criminal justice. In this respect DCA has introduced programmes
to increase the diversity of both the judiciary and magistracy.
42. What impact will the removal of the right of defendants
to elect for jury trial have on defendants from different ethnic
groups? What, if any, measures are in place to mitigate any negative
There is no proposal to remove the right to elect jury trial.
The CJA 2003 contains provision for non-jury trial in cases of
jury tampering (which is shortly to be implemented), and in some
serious and complex fraud cases (on which the Government proposes
further primary legislation). There is no evidence that these
provisionswhich are expected to apply in very few caseswould
impact differently on different ethnic groups.
Bonniface (2000) Stop and Search (unpublished).
Calverley, A, Cole, B, Kaur, G, Lewis, S, Raynor, P, Sadeghi,
S, Smith, D, Vanstone, M and Wardak, A (2004) Black and Asian
offenders on probation, Research Study 277. London: Home Office.
Communities That Care (2005) Findings from the Safer London
Youth Survey 2004. London: Communities That Care.
Dockling, M and Burke, T (2006) Confidence in the Police
Complaints System: A Survey of the General Population. IPCC
Research and Statistics series: Part 2. IPCC: London.
Feilzer, M & Hood, R (2004) Differences or DiscriminationMinority
Ethnic Young People in the Youth Justice System. London: Youth
Hallsworth & Mcguire (2004) Examining Stop and Search
Patterns in the City of London (unpublished).
Harper, G and Chitty, C (2004) The Impact of Corrections
on Re-Offending: a Review of "What Works". Home
Office Research Study 291. London: Home Office Research, Development
and Statistics Directorate.
Heardon, I and Hough, M (2004) Race and the Criminal Justice
System: An Overview to the complete statistics 2002-03. London:
HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (2002) Thematic
Review of Casework Having a Minority Ethnic Dimension. London:
HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (2004) A Follow-Up
of CPS Casework With a Minority Ethnic Dimension. London:
Home Office (2003) The Substance Misuse Treatment of Minority
Prisoner Groups: Women, Young Offenders and Ethnic Minorities.
London: Home Office Research. Home Office Development & Practice
Home Office (2005) Statistical Bulletin 10/05: Updated
and Revised Prison Population Projections 2005-2011. London:
Hood, R, Shute S, Seemungal F (March 2003)Ethnic
Minorities in the Criminal Courts Perceptions of Fairness and
Equality of Treatment. UK.
John, G (2003) Race for Justice. A Review of CPS Decision
Making for Possible Racial Bias at Each Stage of the Prosecution
Process. London: CPS.
Lewis S, Raynor P, Smith D, and Wardak A (2006) Race and
Probation. UK: Wilan Publishing.
MVA and Miller, J (2000) Profiling Populations Available
for Stops and Searches. Police Research Series, Paper 131.
London: Home Office.
National Audit Office, (2004) Facing Justice: Tackling
Defendants' Non-Attendance at Courts. London: The Stationary
Police and Performance Assessment Framework, 27 October 2006:
Powis, B and Walmsley, R K (2002) Programmes for Black
and Asian offenders on probation: Lessons for developing practice.
London: Home Office. Home Office Research Study 250.
Ramsey, M (eds) (2003) Prisoner's Drug Use and Treatment:
Seven Studies. London: Home Office Findings No 186.
RDS NOMS (2005) Offender Management Caseload Statistics
2004. London: Research, Development and Statistics Directorate
Stephens, K, Coombs, J and Debidin, M (2004) Black and
Asian offenders pathfinder: implementation report. London:
Home Office Development and Practice Report 24.
Waddington, P A J et al (2004) In Proportion: Race,
and Police Stop and Search; British Journal of Criminology,
vol 44, no 6, pp 889-914.
Webster, S D, Akhtar, S, Bowers, L E, Mann, R E, Rallings,
M and Marshall, W L (2004) "The Impact of the Prison Service
Sex Offender Treatment Programme on Minority Ethnic Offenders:
A Preliminary Study" Psychology, Crime and Law, 10 (2),
Waddington et al 2004; Hallsworth and Mcguire 2004; MVA
and Miller 2000; and Bonniface 2000. Back
Table 8.4, Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2004, RDS
Table 7.5, Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2004, RDS
HO Statistical Bulletin 10/05: Updated and revised prison population
projections 2005-11. Back
Heardon and Hough, 2004. Back
Dockling and Burke, 2006. Back
National Audit Office, 2004. Back
Harper & Chitty, 2005. Back
Webster et al (2004). Back
Powis and Walmsley, 2002. Back
Calverley et al 2004. Back
Stephens et al, 2004; Harper & Chitty, 2005. Back
Lewis S, Raynor P, Smith D, and Wardak A (2006) Race and
Probation. Pub Wiley. Back
Criminality Survey; 2000; Liriano and Ramsay. Back
Home Office Development & Practice Report 8, June 2003. Back
Hood, R, Shute S, Seemungal F (March 2003)-Ethnic Minorities
in the Criminal Courts Perceptions of Fairness and Equality of
Treatment. UK. Back