Examination of Witnesses (Questions 440
- 452)
TUESDAY 18 NOVEMBER 2008
DAVID SCOTT
AND PAUL
TIDBALL
Q440 Alun Michael: What about the
impact of that type of partnership on those who have not yet been
released?
David Scott: I apologise. Perhaps
you would put the question again.
Q441 Alun Michael: What happens before
somebody is released is important and can be formative. You talked
about meeting people on release and so on. I was looking more
to Paul
Tidball on the issue of work prior to release,
the engagement of local authorities and so on.
David Scott: Perhaps I may respond.
The more that can be done pre-release the better in terms of the
pay off. One of the challenges with sentences of under 12 months
is that they are not subject to what we call a statutory supervision
period. For example, within the Diamond District initiative we
go into prisons more and more to see people before their release
and mobilise family support, mental support and so on, so there
are things that can be done before release.
Q442 Alun Michael: With respect,
I am aware that there are things that can be done before release,
but our questioning is directed at the disincentives for people
to do that. It is a question of organisations doing things which
may benefit the criminal justice system but are not necessarily
part of their mainstream work. Are there obstacles to that sort
of investment in pre-release work which may assist in the objectives
to which we are referring?
Paul Tidball: All I can add to
what you said is that a powerful disincentive is the shrinking
resources and budgets of all the agencies concerned. I suppose
they would have to see some financial benefit to engage in the
way that the criminal justice services would like.
Q443 Alun Michael: I think we would
agree with you. We are just looking for a bit of "how".
To try to put it in a different way, if you were in control of
the resources how would you refocus national investment in prisons,
probation and cross-departmental resources, for example for health
and education, in order to reduce offending?
Paul Tidball: If it helps to answer
that, I recall that shortly after the current government came
to power in 1997 it inherited and decided to live by the previous
government's spending plans, so the Prison Service and other services
were subjected to the economies already planned, but to its credit
extra money was made available. The women's prison that I ran
at the time managed to corner about 97% of the money available
in the West Midlands for new projects that could demonstrate a
value in terms of preventing re-offending. I managed to get enough
to build a new rehabilitation unit at a time when there was no
drugs rehabilitation (in the prison) whatsoever. That is still
going now and to good effect. I made myself a bit unpopular with
my chiefs at the time by saying it was a shame that this money
could not have been spent in the community. The £1 million
spent on a new drugs rehabilitation unit in the prison did not
make a lot of financial sense in terms of those women attending
it who were not serious offenders in the first place and who were
dragged 150 miles away from their homes in Haverfordwest to Staffordshire,
or whatever the example may be, at the cost not just of the rehabilitation
unit but housing them at the current cost £30,000 a year
and the disruption of their home life.
Q444 Chairman: You could make that
choice and deploy that resource only within the Prison Service?
Paul Tidball: Yes.
Q445 Alun Michael: The point is an
interesting one. In effect you suggest that if you can demonstrate
that action will prevent the need for prison places to be occupied
there ought to be a call on the prison budget at the very least
to assist with that investment in the community?
Paul Tidball: Yes.
Q446 Mr Heath: Assuming we go down
the road of a properly localised system where prisons talk to
the Probation Service and it deals effectively with local criminals
somewhere in their localities and sentencers are properly advised
about them, do we generate the right data at the moment to support
such a system, and is that made available to local practitioners
in a form that can be used effectively for planning and resourcing?
David Scott: The evidence we have
is that there is insufficient data and we need to get better at
information gathering and sharing. There is a recognition that
we need to do much more with that. We also need to do much more
with active research into what is effective and what works. We
need to do some of that in real time. We also need a much better
fit between the concerns of frontline practice and academic inquiry
and so on. I was struck by some of the evidence with which I believe
the Committee has been presented. In particular, in a recent letter
to the Times mention was made of the contrast with the
health environment where there is a much more active research
curiosity about what is effective. I believe this is incredibly
important for people who deal with the frontline work because
very often the concerns they experience in day to day practice
and the sheer complexity of the cases with which they deal are
not understood and sufficiently evidenced in research. There is
a feeling that too much of the system is driven by political fancy,
if I can put it that way, rather than grounded in the real concerns
and realities of what frontline staff, be it in a prison or probation
environment, deal with.
Q447 Mr Heath: Would you agree with
that?
Paul Tidball: Yes, I would.
Q448 Mr Heath: If we had better research
and knew what worked more effectively how could we feed that into
a system that had a feedback loop? How do we ensure that that
is reflected both in sentencing and public awareness of what is
going on and that a particular type of disposal is being used
because it is the most effective way to reduce recidivism among
that class of offence?
David Scott: Your comment about
the feedback loop is the critical one. I believe that at the moment
that is the one for which sentencers have the greatest thirst,
because we can deal with some of the evidence about what—
Q449 Mr Heath: Perhaps I may stop
you. The critical question is: do they? Sometimes one gets the
impression that once they have made their disposal sentencers
have no mechanism to know at all what happens to the person before
them that morning in the court.
David Scott: I would separate
out the individual person before them and wanting to know what
happens to that individual. There is some evidence that judges
welcome the opportunity for more review activity, for example.
What you are talking about is the research base and evidence base
that informs decision-making. I think it is that which is shallow
and that the probation and community sentence part of it would
be greatly assisted by a more rigorous, independent and trusted
research base that enabled the frontline practitioner to provide
advice and information to the court. That is part of what is missing
at the moment. We are developing it slowly but it needs to be
much more sophisticated and involve greater attention because
it is critical. Without that research base we tend to operate
too much on injunction rather than real evidence on what will
be effective.
Q450 Mr Heath: To put it crudely,
investment decisions are based on prejudice, to use a pejorative
word, rather than evidence?
David Scott: I think there is
a real risk of that, or they relate to the flavour of the moment
and the latest crisis. What is critical is a patient underlying
look at what is effective and what works. Surely, that is also
linked to public confidence because if it is transparent the public
have more understanding. The earlier questioning commented on
my being an optimist. I believe that if the public understand
sentencing decisions they are far more disposed to support the
decisions of courts than is often reported in the popular press.
Q451 Mr Heath: Is cost-effectiveness
a leading part of that? If so, what effect would it have on the
present disposals across the board?
David Scott: It is very interesting,
is it not? Once cost-effectiveness reaches the point where every
pound spent on criminal justice is a pound not spent elsewhere
it may start to inform public thinking. It seems to me that what
the public want is value; they need to know about benefits and
outcomes to make decisions about value. I cannot see how they
can do it otherwise. I believe that cost-effectiveness, value
and outcome are all crucial and often they are missing from the
discussion about what should be done. Too often the rhetoric is
just punishment. It seems to me that punishment may be part of
it but surely effective outcome, value and benefit are equally
if not more important.
Q452 Alun Michael: I want to pose
a question but, given the Chairman's grim look, there may not
be time to answer it this afternoon. You said earlier that the
answer to getting through to the media and public was to get sentencers
on your side. Sentencers do not sentence statistics; they sentence
people before them, so why do you not as a matter of course make
sure every sentencer gets a report on what happens to each person
they have sentenced? It probably needs a longer answer but I invite
you to think of that in the time before you are next before us.
David Scott: I would be very pleased
to think about that. As to getting sentencers on side it is about
making absolutely sure that we are transparent and clear with
sentencers about what we can and cannot do and deliver what we
say we will. That is why we have work to do to get our house in
order.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
| 
