Conclusions and recommendations
Context
1. The
Government appeared to make good progress on some aspects of its
crime prevention agenda in its first ten years in office. In particular,
British Crime Survey and police data showed significant reductions
in vehicle crime and burglary, continuing the downward trend begun
in 1995. Additional funding and incentives were provided to focus
local efforts on crime reduction in a much more co-ordinated manner.
However, despite a reformed youth justice system whose overarching
function was defined in statute as the prevention of crime, the
numbers of young people entering the criminal justice system had
actually increased by 2007. Furthermore, progress to reduce re-offending
was unsatisfactory: offenders with previous convictions continued
to be responsible for around half of all crime. Perceptions of
anti-social behaviour did not improve dramatically, and public
confidence in the criminal justice system was shockingly low.
In our inquiry, we sought to judge the success of the Government's
approach to crime prevention by assessing how well its current
strategy, introduced in 2007, addresses these outstanding shortcomings.
(Paragraph 10)
2. The overarching
themes of the Government's current crime prevention strategy,
Cutting Crime, reflect what the evidence suggests are the
outstanding gaps in performance on crime reduction over the previous
decade. However, we have a general concern about the evidence
base used to support the implementation of measures to achieve
these aims, some of which we explore in more detail later in our
Report. Witnesses found it difficult to assess the extent to which
individual measures have contributed to crime reduction. We understand
that the Government often faces pressure to respond to crime concerns
immediately, but Ministers should still ensure that interventions
are properly scoped, piloted and evaluated. In doing this they
should take account of the experiences of victims and offenders,
such as the organisation User Voice set up by former offenders
for this precise purpose. (Paragraph 15)
Preventing youth criminality
3. The
prevailing understanding of the root causes of criminal behaviour
is informed by many years of international research. We were struck
by a far greater cross-party consensus about the causes of criminality
than in the past, which bodes well for consistent policy-making.
Most witnesses outlined a set of risk factors for offending which
centred on family dysfunction, school and community under-achievement
and poverty. The evidence suggests that these factors cluster
in the lives of the most deprived children, and that these children
are significantly more likely to offend than their counterparts
who are not at-risk. The impact of family relationships is crucial:
good parental care is a strong protective factor and should therefore
constitute a key policy objective. However, it is important that
governments do not use measures to promote parenting or support
"problem" families to mask the need to do more to reduce
poverty in communities. (Paragraph 24)
4. The ability to
identify those most at-risk of offending is an important tool
in planning and implementing preventative interventions. However,
it is important not to place too much emphasis on this: predicting
offending is by no means an exact science. Many individuals from
deprived backgrounds choose not to commit crime; conversely, many
individuals who enjoyed a privileged upbringing do. As many as
33% of males born in 1953 had a criminal conviction by the age
of 46. Our discussions with former offenders warned us against
making assumptions about the causes of offending behaviour: they
did not all come from broken homes or do poorly in school. Tackling
these risk factors, whilst a laudable aim in itself, should not
form the entire basis of crime prevention strategies. (Paragraph
25)
5. The Government's
approach in relation to supporting young children and their parents,
principally through Sure Start, drew the most praise during our
inquiry. Witnesses agreed that improving outcomes for young children
and bolstering parenting support was extremely likely to be effective
in long-term prevention. Evidence suggests that health visiting
is a particularly key component. In order to reap the maximum
benefits, schemes must ensure that support is reaching the most
deprived families, and that parenting support is available throughout
a child's life, not just in the early years. The Government should
pay close attention to the package of early intervention measures
being put into practice by One Nottingham, with a view to encouraging
their implementation elsewhere, if demonstrated to be successful.
(Paragraph 31)
6. Given that a quarter
of young people who commit anti-social behaviour progress to more
serious offending, tough enforcement of anti-social behaviour
should have a positive impact on reducing crime. However, an Anti-Social
Behaviour Order (ASBO) will not achieve this end unless it is
both coupled with effective support interventions and is properly
supervised. There should be greater efforts to encourage the attachment
of Individual Support Orders to ASBOs and to follow-up the high
level of breaches. (Paragraph 38)
7. Despite the introduction
of ASBOs and other forms of intervention with young people at
risk of offending, in many cases problem behaviour still goes
unchallenged for too long. It is important to find a mechanism
for dealing with this while avoiding criminalising young people.
Challenging bullying is one important component of this; we were
encouraged that in Sutton, for example, anti-bullying sessions
will form part of the provision in their new Life Centre, and
recommend that the results of this experience are shared with
other areas once evaluated. (Paragraph 39)
8. Given the importance
of family relationships as a factor influencing future offending,
interventions that focus on the behaviour of family units as a
whole would appear to be a useful crime prevention tool. An initial
evaluation of Family Intervention Programmes demonstrated their
potential to reduce anti-social behaviour and other forms of problem
behaviour, although we would advocate a further study that tracks
the long-term results of intervention over the coming years. This
level of family support does seem to be very expensive. However,
there are indications it can be cost-effective in the long run
given the extent of unco-ordinated contact that typically takes
place between problem families and the myriad statutory agencies
dealing with the implications of their behaviour. We consider
that it would be useful for the National Audit Office to undertake
further research in this area. (Paragraph 43)
9. The Prime Minister
recently announced an extension of Family Intervention Programmes
from 10,000 to 56,000 in 2015. The Home Office Minister admitted
this figure was calculated on the basis of available resources
rather than an assessment of the number of families who would
benefit from intervention. The Centre for Social Justice has estimated
that 10% of the population are growing up in "dysfunctional"
families, a figure likely to rise to 25% within 20 years on current
trends. Intervening to reduce these numbers would require a huge
level of resources. This gives greater weight to the argument
to intervene early with young children and their parents to prevent
the escalation of problem behaviour. (Paragraph 44)
10. Anecdotal evidence
suggests that Parenting Orders are an effective means of improving
parent-child interactions, a crucial protective factor against
future offending. Levels of use are disappointing, however. The
Crime and Security Bill currently going through Parliament would
require the courts to give consideration to attaching a Parenting
Order when handing down an ASBO, with attachment compulsory upon
breach. There will be good reasons why in some cases the award
of a Parenting Order is not appropriate but we hope that the legislation,
if passed, will be a useful tool in increasing parenting support.
Youth offending teams must ensure there is adequate provision
to allow this to take place. Ideally, those parents in need of
support should be able to access it before matters progress to
this stage. (Paragraph 48)
11. Despite the fact
that the principal aim of the youth justice system is to prevent
offending, only 7% of the Youth Justice Board's £511m budget
is ring-fenced specifically for prevention. We are disappointed
that initial increases in recent years were diminished by a decrease
of £2m between 2008 and 2009. The large sums spent on incarcerating
young people means there is less money available for preventative
activities. There are currently no financial incentives for local
authorities to work towards reducing the use of custody, as the
custody budget is held centrally. We urge the Government to give
consideration to the introduction of such incentives. (Paragraph
52)
12. The expansion
of the Positive Activities for Young People (PAYP) initiative
to provide diversionary activities on Friday and Saturday nights
is to be welcomed, considering the historical deficiencies in
youth service provision. The police have witnessed a reduction
in problem behaviour on the part of young people following this
expansion, although their representative acknowledged the difficulty
in linking the two directly, as it was accompanied by additional
preventative measures. (Paragraph 63)
13. Properly planned
diversionary activities are valued by young people but will not
reduce crime on their own. After they have taken part in such
activities, young people return to find the challenges they face
in their home and their community unchanged. The real benefit
of such activities from a crime-prevention perspective is the
exposure to positive role models and a glimpse of the attractions
of a crime-free lifestyle, through interaction with a "trusted
adult" who helps the young person to develop their self-esteem
and to take responsibility for their own actions. (Paragraph 64)
14. In order to have
a preventative effect, successful schemes must therefore receive
long-term financial support to ensure such interactions can be
sustained. We were inspired by the work of organisations working
with at-risk young people, such as Cricket for Change, but depressed
by tales of hard work falling by the wayside because of a lack
of money. The Government and local authorities should make it
easier for such voluntary organisations to thrive by providing
funding on a longer-term basis and decreasing the bureaucratic
burden; and prioritise organisations that include design input
from potential users. (Paragraph 65)
15. Young children
from deprived backgrounds are less likely to develop emotional
intelligence, self-esteem and basic conflict-resolution skills
in the home. We consider that the early years of schooling should
therefore place more focus on these areas, and advocate further
expansion of the conflict resolution activity undertaken by Safer
Schools Partnerships. The transition from primary school to secondary
school has been highlighted as particularly important in affecting
a child's life chances, including their risk of offending. Former
offenders told us that they would have benefited from a mentor
to help them through this process. The Department for Children,
Schools and Families should give consideration to expanding the
peer mentoring scheme that currently operates in some schools,
with a particular focus on making provision available for pupils
about to start secondary school and encouraging the use of mentors
who have undergone similar experiences to children judged to be
at-risk of offending. (Paragraph 69)
Reducing re-offending
16. The
overall re-offending rate for the cohort of offenders released
from custody or beginning a community sentence over the following
year has continued to fall over the last few years in terms of
actual re-offending and frequency of re-offending. The biggest
falls relate to the frequency of re-offending; those for actual
re-offending are less substantial. However, those with prior convictions
still account for around half of all crime committed and this
has remained unchanged since 2000. For young males the likelihood
of re-offending may be as high as 80%. (Paragraph 74)
17. The risk factors
for re-offending are well understood across the relevant agencies
having been clearly articulated by the Government's Social Exclusion
Unit in 2002. The need for increased practical support to help
offenders find employment and accommodation having served their
sentence, as well as for mentoring to assist re-integration came
across particularly strongly in our evidence. Measures to mitigate
these risk factors form the basis of the Government's strategy
to reduce re-offending, which is helpful. (Paragraph 78)
18. Increased levels
of investment in prisoner education and training, offending behaviour
and resettlement care have contributed to reductions in reported
crime levels; however, there is still a high level of unmet need.
The Government wants to "focus resources in prison and probation
where they will make the most difference": this is a worthy
aim; however, as we noted earlier, the lack of an effective evidence
base may make this difficult to determine. (Paragraph 85)
19. We are pleased
to note the Chief Inspector of Prisons' assessment of the improvement
in the quality of educational and vocational training in prisons.
However, we were concerned that quantity of provision is still
an issue, and that insufficient progress had been made to address
the conclusions about a lack of purposeful activity drawn by our
predecessor committee in 2005. We were struck by the assessment
of one former inmate that prisons just "storage people".
Sentence planning should be improved to ensure that prisoners
can access and complete the courses that would be most of benefit
to them. The threat of budget cuts has the potential to reverse
the advances made in quality. Considering the vast cost of crime
to society, cuts in this area appear irrational. (Paragraph
90)
20. Last year only
38% of prisoners went into training, education or employment on
release. Preparing prisoners to enter the labour market should
be a key objective for prison authorities; it is therefore disappointing
that, for example, the social enterprise at HMP Coldingley was
forced to close in 2008 apparently because of the inflexibility
of prison management. The National Offender Management Service
must ensure that schemes operating within prisons teach skills
relevant to future employment opportunities and portray working
life in a good light. The National Grid Young Offenders programme
attributes its low re-offending rates to the guarantee of employment
for participants upon release from prison and payment of a decent
wage: this would be a good model to replicate, although the numbers
of prisoners eligible for release on temporary licence and with
the requisite literacy levels for participation in such schemes
are low. (Paragraph 98)
21. The Ministry of
Justice has initiated a Corporate Alliance to champion offender
employment. This partnership should be assisting employers in
becoming more sophisticated in their risk assessments of former
offenders. We feel strongly that public sector bodies should be
setting a good example to other employers through their recruitment
practices in this area. In 2002 the Government pledged to amend
the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 to limit the damage of
excessively long disclosure periods for some offenders; we would
like to know why legislation to achieve this has not been yet
brought forward. (Paragraph 99)
22. Ex-offenders with
the right attributes are ideally qualified for youth work with
troubled young people because of their experiences. Often they
may be the only people to whom such young people will listen.
We recommend that the Ministry of Justice pilot a scheme to allow
young offenders to access youth work qualifications in custody.
(Paragraph 100)
23. Witnesses, including
Government Ministers, were unanimous in their view that short
prison sentences do not allow time for effective rehabilitative
interventions to take place. Around 60% of adults serving less
than a year are convicted of at least one offence in the year
after release. This compares with predicted re-offending rates
of 25% for prisoners serving four years and over. However, use
of these short sentences has shot up over the past decade. The
problem is particularly acute in relation to young offenders,
who spend an average of 73 days in custody. The rise in short
sentences has contributed towards prison overcrowding, which itself
compromises the rehabilitation process as increased prisoner transfer
around the secure estate restricts their ability to complete training
and treatment. (Paragraph 107)
24. We discuss alternative
options to short custodial sentences below; but where they are
handed down, improved case management between prisons and probation
officers is key to ensuring that interventions can be continued
in a community setting. Adult offenders serving less than 12 months
are not currently assigned a probation officer. In 2003 the Government
legislated for a new form of sentencing, known as custody plus,
which would allow for offenders to serve a short custodial sentence
followed by supervision in the community; we are disappointed
that there is "no prospect" of this being implemented
in the near future. (Paragraph 108)
25. Progress on delivering
resettlement support in recent years is likely to have been the
key factor in reducing re-offending. However, not enough prisoners
are receiving support in preparing for release, especially in
relation to finance, benefits and debt. Former prisoners with
whom we spoke often had the best intentions to lead crime-free
lives upon leaving prison but found it impossible to stick to
this path when confronted with unresolved problems. We support
increased mentoring after release into the community to build
their resilience. (Paragraph 113)
26. The strategy to
tackle repeat offenders through the Prolific and Priority Offender
programme is based on sound evidence and appears to be working
well, with the new Integrated Offender Management approach proving
particularly successful at reducing re-offending in the areas
in which it has been piloted. Although the number of criminals
sentenced for indictable offences in 2008 who had 15 or more previous
convictions actually rose to 28% in 2008 from 17% in 2000, prolific
offenders accounted for the largest reduction in the frequency
of re-offending that took place between 2000 and 2007. The Government
should maintain and strengthen its focus on prolific and priority
offenders as an integral part of its crime prevention approach.
(Paragraph 117)
27. One means of dealing
with the problems inherent in shorter custodial sentences is through
greater use of community orders, which allow for rehabilitation
without exacerbating some of the risk factors inherent in custodial
sentences, such as loss of accommodation. Witnesses considered
that advances had been made in their effectiveness. However, community
orders will only be a satisfactory substitute if properly supervised.
The numbers of reported breaches rose by 47% between 2006 and
2008. It is difficult to establish how much of this rise is attributable
to increased enforcement action, which would be a positive development,
but evidence suggests it is at least in part due to the overloading
of probation officers. We therefore find it difficult, regrettably,
to give our unqualified support to an increased use of community
orders at this time. (Paragraph 121)
Deterring criminals —designing-out crime
28. Most
crime is opportunistic. Designing out opportunities for crime
can bypass social problems which are unresponsive to other approaches
and often need only a short time to implement and have an effect.
The approach has been particularly successful in reducing vehicle
crime. We welcome the renewed emphasis given to designing-out
crime in the Cutting Crime strategy and the establishment of the
Home Secretary's Design and Technology Alliance. However, we note
concerns that the Government continues to place insufficient emphasis
on this area of crime prevention. (Paragraph 129)
29. In order to be
successful, initiatives to design-out crime should be accompanied
by a clear communications strategy to raise awareness amongst
potential criminals of the increased level of risks and thereby
increase the deterrent effect. Marketing strategies should also
capitalise on increased consumer demand for safe products. (Paragraph
133)
30. A Home Office
Research Study in 1998 highlighted the need for "continuous"
research and development "to keep ahead of obsolescence",
combined with a "national 'surveillance system' enabling
rapid response to the identification of emergent crime targets,
and new tools and methods of offending". (Paragraph 135)
31. It is very disappointing
that conclusions about the need for "continuous" research
and development and a "national 'surveillance system' enabling
rapid response to the identification of emergent crime targets,
and new tools and methods of offending" identified in a Home
Office Research Study in 1998 have not yet been translated into
action. The Government has acknowledged that progress in this
area is too slow. (Paragraph 140)
32. The current limitations
on the analysis of crime trends was illustrated during our inquiry
by the issue of car registration plates. The ability to confirm
expert suspicions about the extent of the involvement of forged
or stolen car registration plates in crimes would give greater
impetus to the Department for Transport to implement Electronic
Vehicle Implementation, which would in turn increase the effectiveness
of Automatic Number Plate Recognition technology which relies
on the integrity of the plate. We commend the work being undertaken
with Merseyside Police to identify emerging crime waves through
use of more sophisticated software and hope that this can be implemented
more widely, including to resolve the issue of insecure car number
plates. (Paragraph 141)
Deterring criminals—public confidence in
the criminal justice system
33. Situational
crime prevention will only be effective if potential offenders
are convinced there is a real risk they will be caught and brought
to justice. Efforts to improve public confidence is a crucial
part of this. In our view, this is the area in which the Government
has made least progress. Building on the introduction of the policing
pledge, there must be a consistent push by local agencies across
the country to increase the awareness of policing and sentencing
activity. (Paragraph 145)
Roles and responsibilities
34. The
advent of better multi-agency working through crime and disorder
reduction partnerships represents an important step forward in
crime prevention; however, not all operate to the same high standard.
The Home Office has identified the importance of strong leadership
in crime and disorder reduction partnership performance but we
remain uncertain as to how this is being enhanced in under-achieving
areas. Effective partnerships are also rigorous in their collection
and analysis of data to support their crime reduction activities,
and able to incentivise active involvement on the part of all
relevant agencies by highlighting the benefits of involvement
for their work streams. The Department for Children, Schools and
Families expects that Children's Trust Boards will drive improved
co-ordination for delivery of diversionary activities for young
people: we hope that our successor Committee in the next parliament
will revisit this issue at an appropriate juncture. (Paragraph
150)
35. We appreciate
that the Government is currently having to make tough decisions
about funding. We do, however, anticipate that the cut to the
Safer and Stronger Communities Fund will have a negative impact
on the ability of some local authorities to deliver crime reduction
initiatives. (Paragraph 153)
36. The third sector
can play a crucial role in providing preventative initiatives
and support for those at risk of offending or re-offending of
the kind we discussed earlier in our Report. They tend to be more
popular with service users, particularly those who distrust statutory
agencies. We are pleased that the Home Office and Ministry of
Justice have recognised this through the development of formal
strategies with the voluntary sector. Voluntary sector groups
are, however, frustrated by high levels of bureaucracy. In particular
those groups best able to engage the hard-to-reach may lack the
capacity to apply for funding. There is also evidence that more
members of the public would like to play a more active role in
crime prevention through activities such as Neighbourhood Watch
and volunteering with young people. We heard evidence from the
Home Office about its work to build capacity with volunteers;
this should include support for funding applications from groups
engaging hard-to-reach groups. (Paragraph 159)
37. Many businesses
will consider they have little incentive to protect their products
from theft given that they may actually benefit commercially from
a crime wave. Appeals to a sense of social responsibility may
be insufficient to encourage businesses to take a serious approach
to designing-out crime from their products. On occasions a tougher
approach to force businesses to act has been successful; further
opportunities may be generated by extending regulations to put
some kind of crime prevention duty on businesses. However, persuading
businesses of the benefits for action, particularly through emphasis
on the popularity of secure products with the public, would be
the optimum approach. It is important to have an effective evidence
base in order to be able to demonstrate clearly to manufacturers
where the problems lie. We therefore reiterate our earlier conclusion
about the need for more action to develop a system for the earlier
identification of emerging crime trends. (Paragraph 165)
| 
