3 Tighter offender compliance with
community orders
15. The Ministry collected data nationally for some
of the twelve community order requirements—on the total
number of requirements that were completed—but not on the
rates of completion for the individual requirements or community
orders as a whole. Most breaches of community orders occurred
in the first six months and compliance data showed that 71% of
offenders did not breach in that time. Where an offender failed
to comply with a requirement, local Probation Areas used court
enforcement to encourage compliance. While national standards
made it clear that offender managers should follow up with the
offender after two failures to comply, practice varied between
the 42 local Probation Areas. These differences may account, in
part, for the wide variations in outputs between Areas (Figure
5). Acknowledging the need for greater consistency between
Areas, the Ministry confirmed that there was scope to identify
lessons centrally and share them more widely, balancing local
Area autonomy with the need to share good practice.[15]
Figure 5: There were variations in Area performance against selected
2006-07 compliance and enforcement targets
MEASURE
| RANGE OF AREA PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES ACHIEVED AGAINST THE TARGET (%)
|
| Number of programme completions compared to target
| 83* to 214
|
| Number of drugs completions compared to target
| 63 to 158
|
| Number of unpaid work completions compared to target
| 101 to 151
|
| 90% of instances of breach action instigated within 10 days
| 85 to 99
|
* Note: Apparent
low completion due to fault in initial target setting acknowledged
by the Ministry centrally, but not corrected.
Source: Performance against selected Probation
Service Targets from Performance Report 2006-07, June 2007
16. Variations were also noted in the extent to which
local Areas accepted offenders' explanations for absences. HM
Inspectorate of Probation had found that the National Probation
Service's national standards relating to absences were applied
rigorously. Where an individual did not keep a scheduled appointment,
the absence would be classified as unacceptable if the Probation
Officer did not obtain a reasonable explanation within a specified
time period. It was for the Probation Officer to decide whether
the reason given, for example sickness (self-certified or supported
by a sick note), was acceptable in the particular circumstances.[16]
17. When a breach occurred, Offender Managers continued,
where possible, to work with the offender to improve compliance
with the terms of the order. Maintaining compliance to the end
of the order was sometimes difficult. Technically, an offender
who failed to attend in the final week of the order was in breach,
but the order would be time expired if the Probation Officer decided
to take the offender back to court. Engaging with the offender
throughout the order to increase compliance was a more practical
solution. Measures used to increase compliance included issuing
offenders with diaries and text messaging appointment reminders.[17]
18. The availability of unpaid work projects outstripped
the supply of offenders to complete them, and the type of work
undertaken varied between areas. Most ideas for unpaid work came
from the local community through local Crime and Disorder Reduction
Partnerships and police Community Safety Officers. Litter picking
and chewing gum removal improved the ambience of local areas,
and had proved unpopular with offenders. Some 6.6 million hours
of unpaid work were performed each year, equivalent to some £37
million in saved labour costs. Around 40% of this work was visible
to the local community, and there was scope to increase visibility
still further, therefore raising public awareness of the positive
contribution being made to the local community by offenders on
community orders. Some Areas used sign posts on unpaid work projects
which stated that the offender or the National Probation Service
was working with the community, and erected plaques on completed
projects. Offenders and probation staff wore high visibility jackets
on some outdoor projects.[18]
19. Research by King's College, London showed that
the use of alcohol, mental health and drug misuse requirements
did not correspond with the incidence of offenders exhibiting
these needs (Figure 6). The National Probation Service
considered an alcohol requirement to be appropriate only for offenders
with chronic alcohol addiction. In less severe cases, probation
staff had the option of addressing problematic drinking through
offending behaviour programmes, supervision or referral to other
agencies, such as Alcoholics Anonymous. Core training for probation
staff included training on dealing with alcohol issues and the
National Probation Service was piloting a low intensity alcohol
programme.[19]
Figure 6: The use of community order requirements relating to alcohol,
drug misuse and mental health issues did not correspond to the profile of drivers of offending behaviour
| FACTOR UNDERLYING OFFENDING
| INCIDENCE AMONGST OFFENDERS ACCORDING TO KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON REPORT (%)
| RELEVANT REQUIREMENT
| NATIONAL USE OF REQUIREMENT DURING 2006 (%)
|
| Alcohol misuse | 45
| Alcohol treatment |
1 |
| Mental health problems
| 43 |
Mental health treatment |
Less than 1
|
| Drug misuse | 23
| Drug rehabilitation |
6 |
Notes: Offenders
classed as having mental health issues are those assessed as having
an 'emotional wellbeing' issue that may impact their offending
behaviour during 2005-06.
Source: C&AG's Report, Figure 17
20. For those with a chronic alcohol problem, an
alcohol treatment requirement may be their best hope of obtaining
help to beat their addiction and reduce the likelihood of reoffending.
In 2006, however, not all twelve community order requirements
were in use in all Probation Areas (Figure 7). Whilst sentencers
determine which requirements to impose, they could not sentence
an offender to a requirement that was not available locally. Responsibility
for the provision of alcohol and mental health treatment mainly
rests with Primary Care Trusts. The National Probation Service
and the Ministry have a part to play in facilitating access to
the facilities needed to fulfil requirements imposed by the courts,
through local area initiatives and the strength of their local
links with the Primary Care Trusts. In one local initiative, the
local Probation Area (Wiltshire) funded its local Primary Care
Trust to provide 176 alcohol-related offender assessments and
1,232 alcohol treatment sessions at a cost of £79,000.[20]
Figure 7: Use of community order requirements in 2006 in the 42 local Probation Areas
REQUIREMENT
| NUMBER OF AREAS WHERE THIS REQUIREMENT WAS:
|
NATIONAL USE OF THIS REQUIREMENT IN 2006 (%)
|
| NOT USED IN 2006
| LESS THAN 0.5% OF THE TOTAL REQUIREMENTS USED IN 2006
| MORE THAN 0.5% BUT LESS THAN 10% OF THE TOTAL REQUIREMENTS USED IN 2006
| MORE THAN 10% BUT LESS THAN 50% OF THE TOTAL REQUIREMENTS USED IN 2006
| |
| RESIDENTIAL
| 2 |
34 | 6
| 0 |
Less than 0.5%
|
| ACCREDITED PROGRAMME
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
41
|
17
|
| DRUG REHABILITATION
|
0
|
0
|
42
|
0
|
6
|
| ALCOHOL TREATMENT
|
4
|
19
|
19
|
0
|
1
|
| CURFEW
| 0 |
1 | 39
| 2 |
4 |
| ATTENDANCE CENTRE
|
21
|
19
|
2
|
0
| Less than 0.5%
|
MENTAL HEALTH
|
0
|
38
|
4
|
0
| Less than 0.5%
|
| SPECIFIED ACTIVITY
|
2
|
6
|
32
|
2
|
3
|
| PROHIBITED ACTIVITY
|
1
|
36
|
5
|
0
| Less than 0.5%
|
| UNPAID WORK
| 0 |
0 | 0
| 42 |
31 |
EXCLUSION
|
1
|
37
|
4
|
0
| Less than 0.5%
|
| SUPERVISION
| 0 |
0 | 0
| 42 |
37 |
Source: Research Development Statistics NOMS,
Criminal Justice Act Statistics, 2006
15 Qq 15, 80-85 Back
16
Qq 47, 55-56 Back
17
Qq 58-59, 79 Back
18
Qq 41, 43-44, 100 Back
19
Qq 25, 110 Back
20
Qq 89-93 Back
| 
