3. Memorandum submitted by
Clinks
INFORMATION ABOUT
CLINKS
1. Clinks is an infrastructure body which
supports voluntary and community sector organisations that work
with offenders and their families. We are a membership organisation
with over 200 members and a further 250 "friends" that
support our aims. We provide advice, consultation, training, and
information to voluntary sector organisations that are currently
working with offenders or who may wish to do so. Examples of our
work include guides to working with offenders in prison, training
packs for volunteers working with offenders, and responses to
government policy and strategy. We provide the National Offender
Management Service, HM Prison Service, and the National Probation
Service with representative views about the offender related sector
and promote a closer working relationship between the corrections
agencies and the voluntary sector.
2. Clinks has a number of regional and national
projects which endeavour to bring together the public and voluntary
sector strategically and operationally to create effective arrangements
to reduce offending. Our work is informed by a commitment to diversity
and inclusivity, and wherever possible we look for opportunities
to promote collaboration within the voluntary sector. Clinks welcomes
the opportunity to contribute to the Home Affairs Committee investigation
into the effectiveness of sentencing and in particular to explore
how the Criminal Justice Act can support community sentences.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
— The intention to use custodial sentencing
for serious and violent offenders and to promote the use of community
sentences for non-violent offenders is welcome.
— There is very little merit in short
prison sentences for non-violent offenders.
— There is considerable potential for
shifting resources away from unnecessary use of custody by identifying
and publishing the unit costs of sentencing decisions.
— There needs to be significant investment
in services, particularly those provided by the Voluntary and
Community Sector (VCS), to address problems relating to homelessness,
substance misuse, unemployment, debt, and family relationships.
These need to be readily accessible at all points of the criminal
justice system from arrest to sentence and post-release.
— The VCS should be commissioned to
provide a range of welfare services to meet the needs of low level
offenders in order to divert them community orders.
— The specific needs of women offenders
and Black and Ethnic Minority offenders should be met through
increased investment in voluntary sector organisations specialising
in delivering services to these groups.
— Locally based initiatives similar
to the Liverpool Community Justice Centre should be replicated
across the country. The strategic approach promoted by the Coalition
for Social and Community Justice in "Neighbourhood by Neighbourhood"
(http://www.tiscali.co.uk/search/results.php?section=&from=&query=Neighbourhood+by+Neighbourhood)
should be adopted in developing services for offenders.
CUSTODIAL SENTENCING
3. Clinks began as an organisation that
mainly supported voluntary sector organisations working in prisons.
We found that given the right support, financial and strategic,
the voluntary sector could provide innovative services to prisoners
and their families which helped to both mitigate the unhelpful
effects of imprisonment but also contribute to the worthwhile
work undertaken in progressive prison regimes. One of the benefits
which voluntary sector organisations bring to work with prisoners
is their independence from the statutory sector and their focus
on the needs of the service user. Additionally, and importantly,
the vast majority also have a strong base in the local community
and can help to facilitate the reintegration of the offender in
to the community. Finally, they deliver specialist services in
crucial areas such as housing, employment, debt reduction, children
and families, and a range of arts based initiatives which have
a strong record in motivating offenders to change their perspectives
on offending.
4. We welcome the broad thrust of the Criminal
Justice Act 2003 in its focus on reserving prison for serious
and violent offenders who present a risk to the public, and its
promotion of robust community sentences for the majority of non-violent
offenders. We are concerned that the rapid rise in the prison
population and the present overcrowded conditions make effective
rehabilitative work within establishments extremely problematic.
There is increasing evidence that resources that might have been
devoted to supporting voluntary sector organisations working in
prisons have been diverted to simply managing the secure containment
of offenders.
5. There is clearly a strategic difficulty
in the government's commitment to increasing prison places when
it is acknowledged that the majority of those in prison could
be managed more effectively in the community. Although it is hoped
to use the extra capacity for serious and violent offenders, the
cost of increasing custodial provision will impact on the resources
available for developing community based services.
6. We would question the value of short
prison sentences which allow very little opportunity for effective
work with offenders before they are released again into the community.
In some ways these short sentences achieve a disruption in housing,
employment, and family ties, exposing offenders to the damaging
impact of prison life, without any benefit in terms of addressing
the issues that led to the offending. Given that the average prison
sentence imposed in magistrates courts is only three months, of
which the prisoner will serve only 6 weeks, it would seem that
the risk to the public posed by these offenders is minimal and
that they could be subject to community sentences. This is partially
reinforced by the fact that magistrates have increased the proportion
of convicted defendants sent to prison in the past 10 years from
7% to 15% during a period when the overall crime rate has fallen.
7. It is undeniable that achieving rehabilitative
objectives is much more difficult from within prison than in the
community. Much of the good work undertaken in prisons is focused
on mitigating the impact of custodial sentences. This is especially
the case when prison overcrowding often means that prisoners are
held in prisons large distances from their home area and the daily
regime is restricted as a result of the pressure of numbers.
COMMUNITY SENTENCING
8. The current evidence suggests that community
sentences are more effective at reducing reconvictions than prison
sentences, given the respective rates of reconvictions over two
years are 54% and 67%. These figures will undoubtedly mask a number
of issues but the difference is significant. Given the observations
above about the large number of short prison sentences, it is
difficult to argue that the difference in the reconviction rates
might be explained by more serious offenders being sent to prison
rather than being given community sentences.
9. The government consultation document,
Making Sentences Clearer identifies a number of groups of offenders
for whom community sentencing is more appropriate than custody:
— Vulnerable women offenders
— Non-violent offenders with low level
disorders
— Remand prisoners who could be placed
on electronic surveillance
10. With the exception of foreign national
prisoners who in most cases could be deported, the rest could
be better able dealt with by way of community sentences which
could provide more effective interventions to address their offending
or to ensure their compliance with court sanctions. However, to
effectively achieve the removal of these offenders from custodial
sentencing requires a strategic approach combining informed decision
making at each stage of the criminal justice process with swift
and efficient access to community based services.
DIVERSION
11. Strategically, the most effective way
to reduce the level of custodial sentencing is to shrink the pool
of possible candidates for imprisonment. This is achieved in a
number of ways:
(a) increase rate of adult cautioning. This
can be supported by police having access to a range of services
to meet the needs of low level offenders. This begins to stem
the flow of low level offenders into magistrates courts. This
would require the implementation of routine screening of arrested
individuals to assess suitability for cautioning and effective
referral arrangements for those that required assistance with
substance misuse, mental health needs, housing, etc.
(b) Increase provision of court based bail
information schemes. These had proved effective at reducing the
rate of custodial remands. This achieves both a reduction in remand
prison population and means that a larger proportion of offenders
appear for sentencing having been able to begin to address some
of the factors that have contributed to their offending—a
much easier thing to achieve when in the community than from a
prison cell. These could be supported by prison based bail information
schemes which could work to put in place arrangements that made
it possible for remand courts to bail defendants at their next
appearance.
(c) The success of bail information schemes
depends, as with adult cautioning provision, on the availability
of drug, mental health and related services at the court/police
station. Rapid access into services can provide a base for making
the case that offenders remaining in the community will be more
effective in effecting rehabilitation.
(d) We would support the suggestion in Making
Sentences Clearer (paragraph 6.9) that the welfare needs of low
level offenders could be met without resort to placing them on
community orders. It has historically been the case that magistrates
have imposed probation/community orders in order for the offender
to get help for their problems. These welfare concerns can be
addressed by properly funded and organised schemes delivered by
the VCS. (eg H&W Probation ran a Minor Offenders Support Scheme
which provided professionally managed and trained volunteers who
were able to address the welfare needs of offenders without recourse
to community sentences). This approach helps to ensure that the
problems that have contributed to repeat low level offending are
addressed and thus prevent further offending which can often lead
eventually to imprisonment as a response not to seriousness but
to persistence of offending.
(e) This approach could be linked to arrangements
identified in 6.7 for the provision of an initial screening of
convicted offenders to assess the level of risk and their potential
for a financial penalty.
(f) Finally, the proposal at 6.12 to limit
community orders to those offences that are imprisonable should
be adopted. This would further restrict the pool of offenders
who could be sentenced to community orders or indeed short custodial
sentences.
IDENTIFYING THE
COSTS OF
SENTENCING
12. There is considerable merit in the proposal,
at paragraph 7.2, to publish the unit costs of sentencing decisions.
This could be done by local court, by magistrate court area, and
by region. If this was linked to the proposal at 1.20 to include
in the role of the Sentencing Guidelines Council to control correctional
resources, there would be a major strategic lever to reduce the
use of custody. Additionally, it might also create the opportunity
to redirect resources away from prisons and into communities,
particularly those that have been identified as having disproportionately
large numbers of residents sentenced to custody.
ROLE OF
OFFENDER MANAGERS
13. We would not support the idea of offender
managers being given a quasi judicial role in managing community
orders. This would unnecessarily complicate the relationship between
the Offender Manager (formerly probation officer) and offender,
as well as others who would be involved in delivering interventions.
14. It is still not entirely clear why,
in the past 10 years or so magistrates have increased custodial
sentencing from 7% to 15% of cases appearing before them. It might
be worth examining the correspondence between Offender Managers'
recommendations in reports and magistrate sentencing. Have probation
reports been instrumental in increasing the prison population?
Or is it the case that magistrates have been sentencing against
recommendations for community sentences in court reports?
15. A report by the Prison Reform Trust
on the numbers in prison as a result of technical breaches of
post-release licenses estimated that approx. 8,000 offenders were
in prison having been recalled as a result of enforcement procedures.
This has been the entirely predictable consequence of the ever
more inflexible standards of supervision in the interests of protecting
the public and, ironically, increasing the confidence of the courts
in the suitability of community sentences. However, there may
be scope here for allowing greater discretion for probation staff
in responding to failures to comply with requirements in licences.
There is considerable research that demonstrates the uneven and
fluctuating nature of the rehabilitative process. Given the chaotic
and difficult circumstances of many offenders it is not surprising
that so many find it impossible to maintain a consistent pattern
of attendance for interviews, maintain a drug free life style,
resist the pressure of criminal peer groups, etc. There is an
acceptance within the drug treatment field that lapse and relapse
are factors in rehabilitation that need to be anticipated and
used constructively as learning experiences to build upon. This
requires flexibility, challenge, and tolerance. In the case of
dangerous and highly prolific offenders, a return to prison will
often be the most appropriate response to failure to comply with
supervisory requirements as these may be precursors to further
significant offending. And, given the high profile cases of offenders
committing serious further offences while under supervision, it
is understandable that the probation service will adopt a policy
which reduces the risk of these events occurring. Nevertheless,
it is important to achieve a balance in this area.
LOCALISM
16. If community based responses to offending
are to be successful however, there needs to be significant investment
in offender services and the structures created to ensure that
the delivery of interventions is efficient and effective. The
Liverpool Community Justice Centre is an excellent model that
needs to be replicated across the country (and properly resourced).
One of the features of the Liverpool model is its very local focus
with residents, including victims of crime, and agencies specialising
in housing, debt relief, and related services located in and around
the court.
17. Clinks is one of a number of organisations
that form the Coalition for Social and Community Justice which
published "Neighbourhood by Neighbourhood", which argued
that local authorities, the voluntary sector and the criminal
justice agencies working at a local level could most effectively
deliver services to offenders and reduce re-offending. Community
sentences provide much greater opportunities for this to be delivered
than is the case when offenders are removed from their communities
as a result of custodial sentences.
18. We also support the development of restorative
justice initiatives wherever possible. The opportunity for offenders
to repay the damage caused by their crimes, and for victims and
the local community to be involved, is currently a feature of
many Unpaid Work schemes and could be developed much further.
WOMEN IN
THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM
19. Baroness Corston will shortly be publishing
the report on her investigation into the conditions of vulnerable
women in the criminal justice system. There is already overwhelming
evidence of the unnecessary and inappropriate use of custody for
vulnerable women whose offences do not represent a risk to the
public. The Together Women programme is welcomed and the lessons
learned about effective community provision for women should be
disseminated as soon as possible. It is crucial that women offenders
are provided with "women centred" services to meet their
needs, especially in relation to mental health and substance misuse,
often arising from their experiences of abuse and exploitation.
BLACK AND
MINORITY ETHNIC
OFFENDERS
20. It remains the case that Black and Minority
Ethnic offenders are disproportionately represented in the prison
population. The BME voluntary sector generally, and especially
those organisations that work with offenders, is fragile and underfunded.
Investment in front line and second tier organisations that work
in this area would enhance the opportunities for effective diversion
away from custodial sentences. Criminal justice agencies, and
commissioners of services, need to work closely with local BME
organisations working with communities to reduce re-offending.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The government should revisit its commitment
to increase custodial provision and assess whether the resources
could be better and more effectively used for increasing community
based services.
2. There should be a co-ordinated communication
strategy identifying the proper use of custody for serious and
violent offenders and how that is achieved in sentencing policy.
3. The Liverpool Community Justice Centre
model should be rolled out across the country and resourced appropriately.
4. The proposal to identify and publish
the unit costs of sentencing could be further developed and a
strategic view taken of the potential for reinvesting any saving
from reducing custodial provision in those communities that have
disproportionately "consumed" custodial resources.
5. NOMS and other commissioners of offender
services should invest in local voluntary and community sector
organisations that can deliver key interventions in relation to
housing, debt relief, mental health services, and substance misuse.
6. There needs to be a concerted strategic
approach to diverting non-violent offenders away from both custodial
sentences and involvement of the probation service in low level
offenders. This will require investment in services available
at all stages of the criminal justice process from arrest to sentence.
7. The government should legislate to restrict
the imposition of community orders to imprisonable offences.
8. Agreements should be negotiated between
probation services and courts to implement screening processes
which would identify convicted offenders suitable for financial
penalties.
9. The recommendation at eight should be
supported by funded provision of welfare services available at
court.
6 March 2007
| 
