2 BACKGROUND
Recent relevant reports
15. In our report, Towards effective sentencing,
we explored the Government's performance in meeting the twin aims
of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to reserve prison sentences for
serious, dangerous, and seriously persistent offenders and, for
other less serious offenders, to use tough community-based sentences,
which were seen as a much better alternative than short custodial
sentences which can be ineffective in preventing re-offending.
[12]
16. We concluded that whilst longer sentences had
been imposed for serious violent and sexual offenders, low-level
and persistent offenders were not being dealt with effectively;
in other words by robust community punishments rather than short
custodial sentences. This was partly because the former were not
available for all who need them. This has contributed, along with
other factors (including greater detection of crime and better
enforcement of sentences), to considerable expansion of the prison
system in particular, and rising caseloads for the probation service.
17. Protecting the public is of paramount importance,
but our report identified many unanswered questions about the
consequences of the Government's approach which denied resources
for some aspects of the system which could reduce the use of prison—for
example, community penalties and efforts to reduce re-offending—in
favour of investment in the expansion of prisons, and about the
basis upon which decisions are taken about the allocation of resources.
Dame Anne Owers DBE, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons summarised
the situation: "the difficulty we have at the moment is that
the rising prison population soaks up resources like a sponge
and takes away resources from the other things which are not prison
which you would need to have in place in order not to use prison
so much; so it becomes a kind of vicious cycle."[13]
18. In our report, Sentencing Guidelines and Parliament:
building a bridge, we looked at the Government's proposals
for a new body to develop and issue sentencing guidelines.[14]
We concluded that more attention needs to be paid to the effectiveness
of sentencing if the new body was to contribute to public confidence
in the criminal justice system and to an understanding of the
costs of different sentences and their relative effectiveness
in achieving the purposes of sentencing. We identified risks in
a sentencing policy based on what we regarded as "misconceptions"
about what the public 'wants' and, over the longer term, we feared
that resources will be diverted away from a sentencing framework
that is genuinely effective in contributing towards the reduction
of re-offending.
Government policies
19. The sentencing provisions of the Criminal Justice
Act 2003 were introduced as part of a wider range of measures
detailed in the Government's 2002 Justice for All white paper.
These measures, summarised in the box below, were intended to
form "a coherent strategy, from the detection of offences
to the rehabilitation of offenders, designed to focus the criminal
justice system on its purpose—fighting and reducing crime
and delivering justice on behalf of victims, defendants and the
community."[15]
20. The Government's vision was "for a criminal
justice system that puts victims at its heart and in which the
public are confident and engaged […] [and that is] effective
in deterring offenders and bringing offences to justice through
simple and efficient processes."[16]
'Rebalancing' the criminal justice system in favour of the victim
and the community as the priority aim has become a central feature
of Government rhetoric for policy on the prevention, detection
and prosecution of crime and the 'punishment and rehabilitation'
of offenders. However, success in achieving this rebalancing relies
on accomplishing other priorities; for example, the system must
be effective at reducing further crimes in order to create safer
communities.[17]
21. The Justice Secretary, in a speech in October
2008 expressed the wish to "reclaim" two words he described
as unfashionable, but straightforward and clear and the "very
basis of the criminal justice system": these were "punishment
and reform". Subsequently, the Government's most recent identifiable
over-arching criminal justice policy statement, published in December
2008, was entitled, Punishment and reform: our approach to
managing offenders: a summary. This is summarised in the box
below. As well as focusing on punishment and reform it reflected
a concern over resource constraints and refers to balancing these
objectives with the need to obtain value-for-money stated:
A fair and effective criminal justice system
must provide collective benefit: justice for victims and local
communities, punishment and reform for offenders and value for
the taxpayer […] Prison and probation have received record
investment in recent years. But we must make considerable financial
savings in the coming years, whilst ensuring that taxpayers receive
the best value-for-money from their investment.[18]
The strategy outlined in the Justice for All white
paper was clearly intended to signal a radical shift towards a
rational approach to the use of penal policy resources, especially
in its explicit aims to reserve custody for the most serious criminals,
ensure effective community sentences, establish community prisons
and require sentencers to consider crime prevention in passing
sentence. We regret
that the approach taken in the Justice for All white paper has
not been implemented as the Government initially intended.
Use of custody
22. The Ministry of Justice estimates that up to
96,000 prison places will be required by 2014. Rt Hon David Hanson
MP, then Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, described the
factors contributing to this growth: "for good or evil, more
people are being caught, sentences are longer and we have got
more serious, dangerous and violent offenders serving longer sentences.
Last year alone the number of people sentenced to life imprisonment
rose by 5%."[19]
This appears to acknowledge that the growth is a consequence of
the intention outlined in Justice for All to promote tougher
and speedier justice.
23. In 2006 the Government stated its intention that
prison capacity should be determined by the need for prison places
and, therefore, if people needed to be in prison sufficient places
would be supplied.[20]
Paul Tidball, President of the Prison Governors' Association,
characterised the Government's stance as "an out-of-control
demand met by provision of little more than penal warehousing"
resulting in "a revolving door which spins ever faster and
benefits nobody but those who see prisons as a market opportunity."[21]
David Faulkner, Senior Research Associate, Centre for Criminology,
University of Oxford, agreed that the "predict and provide"
approach is flawed as it results in system expansion rather than
control.[22] Lord Dubs,
Chairman of the Prisons Policy Group, added that it was both simplistic
and limited as a policy and asserting that: "as a country
and a society we can do better".[23]
James McGuire, Professor of Forensic Clinical Psychology, University
of Liverpool, described the approach as "atheoretical",
commenting: "we do not really understand […] what are
the mechanisms, the functions, the relationships between the different
ingredients that contribute to the dependent variable, the amount
of crime, the number of prison places that we will need."[24]
24. Concern was expressed to us that the expansion
of prison capacity could in itself contribute to the need for
further growth; in other words, the more prison places are provided,
the more the courts will fill them. For example, in the USA, Circuit
Court Judge Marcus, told us that he believed that until and unless
prison is used more wisely "adding prison beds will promote
[…] the need for more beds".[25]
In a critique of the Government's prison building programme, entitled
Building on sand, Carol Hedderman, Professor of Criminology,
University of Leicester, draws similar conclusions that expanding
the prison estate can generate, rather than satiate, demand.[26]
25. Whether or not this is true, these arguments
raise questions about the relationship between the availability,
or otherwise, of prison places and the prevailing penal policy.
The Justice Secretary denied that demand for prison places was
a function of their supply, although he acknowledged that: "it
is interesting that although the absolute pressure on the system
has varied and is measured by whether you have to use police cells,
as accommodation has been provided so the places are filled up."[27]
26. There is also a question about whether building
more prison places really is the only, or best, solution to a
mismatch between demand and supply. This has clearly taxed the
current Government. The Justice Secretary's commitment to significant
expansion appears to signal a recent shift in his personal approach
to the value of prison building. In an address to the Prison Governors'
Association AGM in 2007 he suggested that taking an approach to
build as many prison places 'as it takes' was a risky option:
Aside from the economic and practical considerations
of such a scenario; higher taxes, fewer hospitals, less money
for education, prisons in or near everyone's back yard, we have
to question whether that approach would actually provide a remedy
to the problems it seeks to solve: would crime fall even further?
Would re-offending rates come down? This must be our baseline
in considering the future of the prisons estate. The evidence
is not encouraging. [28]
In contrast, on 13 May 2008, he told us in evidence
that that having sufficient prison places was an important component
of his strategy for reducing re-offending and that the additional
places were required no matter what the arguments were about the
greater use of community sentences and other efforts to reduce
re-offending.[29] He
explained that this was true both for serious and violent offenders
who need immediate imprisonment and in cases where community punishments
and disposals have failed.
27. This statement appears to be based on two assumptions:
first, that prison is more, or equally, effective at reducing
re-offending for persistent offenders (i.e. those for whom community
punishments and other disposals have failed) and, secondly, that
community sentences fail because they are inherently flawed, rather
than because they are insufficiently resourced, inappropriately
tailored or unrealistic expectations are raised about how 'desistance'
can be achieved. Paul Cavadino, then Chief Executive of Nacro
questioned this reasoning:
I think we can sometimes have a double standard
in discussing the issue of the repeat offender, because we tend
to say, "We have tried fines and we have tried community
penalties. The offender has re-offended. They did not work. Therefore,
we must use custody". We less often say, "We have used
custody. The offender re-offended. That did not work, so we ought
to try something else". We tend to say, "We have tried
custody. The offender re-offended, so we have to use custody again."[30]
DEVELOPMENTS IN SCOTLAND
28. In contrast to the Ministry of Justice's position,
the Scottish Prisons Commission's report of July 2008 on prisons
overcrowding in Scotland, took an overwhelmingly "demand-side"
approach to the problem.[31]
The Commission identified a choice facing the criminal justice
system in Scotland over how to use imprisonment; a choice which
appears to have been settled in England and Wales without any
public debate or expert consultation. Overall, the Commission
recommended that the Government should adopt and pursue a target
for the average daily prison population focusing on those who
have committed serious crimes and constitute a danger to the public
with an aim to cut the population by approximately one-third.
29. The Scottish Prisons Commission's report called
for:
- the effective provision of
community and conditional sentences which involve "payback"
into the victim and/or the community, through financial payment,
unpaid work, engaging in rehabilitative work or some combination
of these, emphasising that one of the best ways for offenders
to pay back is by turning their lives around;
- legislation requiring sentencers to use these
options instead of short sentences wherever possible;
- a far greater emphasis in prisons on rehabilitation
and reform and the preparation of those in custody for release
and resettlement (with this reinforced as the sole purpose of
the open prison estate); and
- recognition across the public services of the
need to support the reintegration of former offenders into communities.
The Commission predicted long-term savings from targeting
the use of imprisonment but asserted the need for up-front investment
in better services in, and for, communities.
TITAN PRISONS
30. When we began our inquiry the Government was
preparing to spend £1.2 billion building three large and
controversial prison complexes, known as "Titans", to
provide sufficient capacity for the projected increase in the
use of imprisonment and to remove some older unsuitable accommodation.
This was recommended by Lord Carter of Coles in December 2007
in a report which we considered to be light on evidence and deeply
flawed.[32] It was clearly
and diametrically opposed to the policy set out in Justice
for all of moving towards community prisons. As our inquiry
was concluding, the Government announced that it was abandoning
Titans, in favour of 5 prisons each with a capacity of 1500.[33]
In our considered view, this is a marginal improvement but still
goes a long way in the wrong direction. Rt Hon Maria Eagle MP,
then newly appointed Minister for Prisons, told us—during
evidence on another inquiry—that this decision had been
made, after consultation, in order to achieve a "better balance
[…] in terms of balancing value-for-money, the economies
of scale that one can have from size but also being effective
at reducing re-offending and doing the job properly."[34]
If this decision reflects the beginning of a genuine re-thinking
of policy that will be very welcome. At the same time if other
factors—such as emerging higher than forecast costs—have
driven this change of emphasis it will help if Ministers will
make that clear. Certainly, the Government remains committed to
building large-scale custodial facilities to "get ahead of
the curve of the increase [in the] prison population"[35]
indicating its focus on a "supply-side" approach to
the problem of a prison estate bursting at the seams. The first
new prison is planned to start taking prisoners in 2013-14.[36]
31. Ministers claimed that much of the opposition
to Titans stemmed from "misunderstanding around the concept."[37]
We do not agree. It was apparent to us that objections related
not to the concept but the principle. For example, Paul Tidball
of the Prison Governors' Association described Titans as "the
grotesque rabbit which emerged from the hat";[38]
while Jonathan Aitken, Chairman of the Prison Reform Working Group
at the Centre for Social Justice and former Minister, described
them as a "very expensive way of making bad people worse".[39]
Other witnesses objected to Titans on the basis that their rationale
was solely efficiency and convenience. For instance, Lord Ramsbotham,
former HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, described Titans as answering
the question of 'how to house as many people as possible as cheaply
as possible'.[40] The
Justice Secretary conceded in evidence to us that the case for
larger prisons was largely related to costs and the relative ease
of getting planning permission;[41]
Lord Dubs dismissed the latter rationale as "absurd".[42]
32. The second main objection to Titans was that
the Government's primary rationale was too narrowly focused on
efficiency and cost-effectiveness in the short-term and ignored
the evidence about what constitutes a genuinely effective prison
over the longer term and with regard to the wider aims of the
criminal justice system. This criticism of tunnel vision remains
valid in respect of the larger prisons to which the Government
remains so far committed. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons
has found that size is the best predictor that a prison will perform
well, with smaller prisons consistently performing better than
larger ones on most measures, including re-offending.[43]
Prior to this finding, the Justice Secretary was dismissive of
these arguments against larger prisons: "[…] smaller
prisons may be rather more pleasant places but they are more expensive."[44]
He later accepted that smaller prisons facilitated better regimes
but re-affirmed that efficiency was the over-riding consideration.[45]
33. We expressed our concerns about the Government's
proposals for building huge Titan prison complexes in our report,
Towards effective sentencing. We are pleased that the
Government has abandoned its plans for Titans but we are worried
that the Government seems to accept the inevitability of a high
and rising prison population and remains committed to building
larger prisons. We are convinced that prison building on this
scale will prove a costly mistake. It will preclude movement towards
a more effective community prisons model and may limit this and
any future Government's willingness and capacity to reinvest in
creative measures to reduce the overall prison population in the
future.
Evidence base
34. In his first report in 2003, which recommended
capping the prison population at 80,000, Patrick Carter, now Lord
Carter of Coles, stated: "If there were new and convincing
evidence on interventions that reduce crime then additional resources
would need to be found (e.g. if greater use of custody was found
to significantly reduce crime, more prisons would need to be built)."[46]
Subsequent Ministry of Justice research suggests that imprisonment
can be effective in reducing re-offending for those serving sentences
of over 2 years,[47]
although the evidential test which Lord Carter set in his first
report remains unmet.
35. Concerns were raised about the evidence base
for the conclusions of Lord Carter's 2007 report on the use of
custody in evidence gathered during our Towards effective sentencing
inquiry. Although Ministry of Justice research analyst, Dr Chloë
Chitty, told us that Lord Carter had analytical support during
the conduct of his review from internal Ministry of Justice researchers,
we continue to believe that concerns about the extent to which
his recommendations were based on a substantial body of evidence
are justified.[48] In
particular, there was limited investigation into the costs and
benefits of various alternative approaches to managing the prison
population.
36. On the demand side, the independent review team
which supported Lord Carter looked at options to manage the use
of custody and the potential impact of each option in terms of
the number of prison places which could potentially be saved (see
table 1); he also considered the anticipated timelines for each
option to become effective. Options to reduce demand were graded
according to the ease of implementation, and how palatable they
would be to victims, the general public, lobby groups, the judiciary
and government ministers. If the Government implemented all the
proposed demand measures, the analysts who supported Lord Carter
estimated that some 8,935 places could be saved. In the event,
Lord Carter only recommended implementing the 'green' measures
which would reduce places by 4,480. These measures were introduced
in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.[49]
37. The evidence confirmed that all of these options
involved reducing demand by making changes to the sentencing framework,
the use of remand and the length of recall for breach. These are
proposals based on a crude arithmetical model rather than careful
analysis based on asking "what works?". There was no
mention of alternative evidence-based options which could stem
demand by reducing re-offending or devising options outside the
criminal justice system for particular types of offenders or by
targeting potential offenders. It appears that costs were not
compared at all in weighing up recommendations to manage demand.
On the supply side, by contrast, direct costs were an explicit
consideration.[50]
38. A report by the organisation Rethinking Crime
and Punishment considered alternative options to reduce the use
of custody and devised indicative costs of investing more heavily
in such initiatives.[51]
Examples of such initiatives included strengthening community
supervision for offenders receiving short-prison sentences; building
a national network of women's centres as recommended by Baroness
Corston (in the report of her review commissioned by the Home
Office into women in the criminal justice system);[52]
providing additional support to offenders with mental health problems;
and, expanding intensive fostering to reduce the use of youth
custody.
THE SENTENCING COUNCIL AND THE CORONERS
AND JUSTICE ACT
39. Lord Carter said in his December 2007 review
of prisons that the only alternative to continuous prison building,
dangerous levels of prison overcrowding or continuous early release
mechanisms was the development of a structured sentencing framework,
developed and monitored by a permanent 'sentencing commission'.[53]
Such a commission should be able to accurately predict how
many prison places and probation spaces the sentencing framework
would require, and therefore how much money the penal system would
need, and then present this breakdown to Parliament. Where new
legislation was proposed the commission would be able to work
out the resource implications, in prison and probation terms,
allowing Parliament to take an informed decision about whether
the legislative aims justified the increased criminal justice
expenditure.[54] Ultimately,
such policy aims could include looking at the total resources
spent on criminal justice and determining whether this was appropriate,
and, if not, how sentencing must change within available resources.[55]
40. The Government introduced what is now the Coroners
and Justice Act 2009 in January 2009. The Act introduces a new
Sentencing Council for England and Wales to implement the unanimous
and majority recommendations of Lord Justice Gage's working group
set up in response to Lord Carter's report. Where our witnesses
commented on the value of the provisions expected, or included,
in this legislation we have been able to consider the appropriateness
of the Act's provisions. We ourselves have made a report to the
House specifically on Parliament's scrutiny of draft sentencing
guidelines, in the light of the reforms expected at that time.
In this report we set out the priority we attach to a focus on
the cost implications and effectiveness (in terms of reducing
re-offending) of different sentences and the importance of promoting
public understanding of sentencing policy and hence confidence
in the criminal justice system. We discuss these issues further
in chapter 7 and note that the Ministry of Justice calculated
that the reforms could potentially mean reducing the additional
prison places needed, but by only 1,000.[56]
41. We conclude that Lord Carter's review of prisons
and the use of custody was focused on the supply of prison places
to meet demand and on efficiency. The only solution to changing
the balance between supply and demand was the "sentencing
commission". A strategy for controlling the growth in the
use of custody was missing. This is not a constructive direction
for policy as it ignores potential means of reducing demand.
If Lord Carter's analysis is correct in recognising that it is
primarily sentencing and enforcement which has caused the problem
(by creating a greater supply of offenders into the system and
increasing the length of time they remain within it), the solution
must include consideration of sentencing and enforcement practice.
Reform of the governance of the
criminal justice system
42. As part of its programme to tackle crime and
reduce re-offending the Government has introduced new infrastructure,
guidance and targets to strengthen the management of performance
across the criminal justice system with the intention of bringing
the individual component agencies closer together. The Government
sought to clarify accountability for delivering the overall objectives
of the criminal justice system at national level through the creation
of the Office for Criminal Justice Reform, led jointly by the
Home Secretary, the Justice Secretary and the Attorney General,
and supported by a National Criminal Justice Board (the Board).
43. The Board supports the Justice and Crime Cabinet
Committee which has responsibility for monitoring delivery of
the criminal justice system targets and, more recently, the Public
Service Agreement objectives.[57]
The Board oversees 42 local Criminal Justice Boards (LCJBs) which
co-ordinate the activity of criminal justice agencies (Police,
Crown Prosecution Service, Her Majesty's Courts Service, Probation
Service, Youth Offending Teams and Prison Service, with Victim
Support and provides a forum for them to share responsibility
for delivering national targets. Rather than having a clear focus
on reducing re-offending (in terms of numbers and also seriousness
of offences) these targets have focused on bringing more offences
to justice and on catching more offenders. Steps have certainly
been taken to improve the confidence of victims and witnesses;
speed up court processes; and improve public confidence.[58]
44. Reflecting its assertion that "reducing
re-offending should be everyone's business",[59]
the Government has put in place arrangements aimed at both cross-departmental
leadership and cross-departmental services. National cross-departmental
activity to reduce re-offending is overseen by the Inter-Ministerial
Group (IMG) on Reducing Re-offending, established in 2004, which
brings together relevant government departments. The IMG feeds
up into the National Crime Reduction Board and National Criminal
Justice Board which, together with the National Policing Board,
co-ordinates the crime, criminal justice and reducing re-offending
strategies. The Government has also made a cross-departmental
commitment to target resources more effectively to reduce re-offending
and to seek improvements in the delivery of a range of services
to offenders which are the responsibility of statutory agencies
outside the criminal justice system. The Ministry of Justice has
estimated that up to 50% of the resources necessary to manage
offenders and reduce re-offending lie outside the criminal justice
system.[60]
45. The Ministry of Justice, and formerly the Home
Office, set out a framework for cross-departmental, regional and
local partnership work to reduce re-offending in a series of strategic
plans which address the 'pathways', identified by the Social Exclusion
Unit in 2002, which are known to reduce re-offending: accommodation;
skills and employment; health inequalities; drugs and alcohol;
children and families of offenders; finance, benefit and debt;
and attitudes, thinking and behaviour.[61]
46. The creation of the Inter-Ministerial Group on
Reducing Re-offending has resulted in joint ventures between departments
aimed at addressing the education, employment and skills, benefits
and health and mental health needs of offenders. These include,
for example, Health and Offender Partnerships with Department
of Health; the Offender Learning and Skills Service with Department
for Innovation, Universities and Skills (and formerly Department
for Education and Skills) and efforts to improve access to support
to enter employment alongside the Department for Work and Pensions.
The Youth Justice Board, which was established by the 1998 Crime
and Disorder Act to oversee the youth justice system, is now jointly
sponsored by the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Children,
Schools and Families. Three broader schemes, known as alliances,
have also been founded to promote greater involvement from employers,
local authorities and voluntary and faith-based organisations
in reducing re-offending.
47. In addition to specific activity to reduce re-offending,
the Government has attempted to reduce first-time entrants into
the criminal justice system by integrating longer-term crime prevention
into the work of other departments including, for example, activity
on child poverty, employment, educational standards and neighbourhood
renewal. According to the Home Office, a significant amount of
money has been committed to the prevention of offending.[62]
A number of large-scale initiatives, including Sure Start, Healthy
Living Centres and early entry to nursery education, have been
introduced to intervene in the early years of childhood to improve
the life chances of children with a poorer background and to reduce
the likelihood of those children becoming involved in crime and
other social problems at a later stage. We consider that these
are long-term investments which will take some time to have an
effect on trends in numbers of people within the criminal justice
system.
48. The Government's progress in its cross-departmental
activity to reduce re-offending is set out in Annex 1. We were
surprised at the lack of information on how much new funding has
been brought in from other departments since the implementation
of the reducing re-offending action plan. With the notable exception
of drug treatment, which has pooled funding arrangements, the
Government has placed emphasis on encouraging mainstream providers
to fund provision to address offending-related needs in the community
through local commissioning processes and guidance. It is apparent
that this strategy has had limited success. Provision has tended
to come via the criminal justice system (for example at the point
of arrest, in court or after sentence) rather than forming a safety
net which prevents people entering or re-entering the system.
49. We welcome the financial injection given to
prisons for drug treatment, health, mental health, learning and
skills increasing available resources, albeit from a very low
baseline. The movement of resources and sharing of responsibility
with Government departments outside the criminal justice system
have undoubtedly been positive step forward in achieving more
effective rehabilitation support for prisoners. Practice on helping
prisoners to prepare for release and lead law-abiding lives in
the community is not consistently available and is vulnerable
to the effects of prisoner transfer resulting from over-crowding.
We are not convinced that aiming to spend more on rehabilitation
in custody will work while the prison estate is so overcrowded.
We believe it is better to invest resources on reducing crime
and re-offending within targeted communities.
Building mainstream provision
to reduce crime and re-offending
50. Departments outside the criminal justice system
have made progress in meeting their responsibilities to reduce
re-offending but there is much more to be done. We heard that
there remain significant difficulties in accessing the resources
required from outside the criminal justice system. Departments
have not fully faced up to their responsibilities and this has
hindered progress in curtailing the expansion of the system. Many
witnesses highlighted the lack of investment in community-based
provision which could prevent crime and re-offending e.g. alcohol
support, mental health treatment, learning disabilities, drug
treatment, family and parenting, education and employment.
[63] Some witnesses
called for a redirection of resources from criminal justice to
support greater investment in these areas. For example, the Revolving
Doors Agency advocated greater emphasis on preventing re-offending
outside the criminal justice system.[64]
Nacro, the Local Government Association and Clinks called for
better focused expenditure on tackling poor housing, education
and health as causal factors related to crime.[65]
Angela Greatley, then Chief Executive of the Sainsbury Centre
for Mental Health, supported greater primary health care involvement
with people with low level mental health and drug and alcohol
problems.[66] The Magistrates'
Association argued that there was a need to make better use of
existing social, health and education budgets for offenders, and
called for greater inter-departmental communication and more cohesive
policies.[67]
51. Our attention was drawn to variations in the
quality of interaction between mental health, drugs and alcohol
and criminal justice agencies which in turn determines the quality
and accessibility of provision to offenders.[68]
Ellie Roy, former Chief Executive of the Youth Justice Board,
firmly believed that if there were strong mainstream services
it would reduce the need to resort to the justice service but
she described existing arrangements as "very dysfunctional".[69]
Dr Miles Rinaldi of the New Directions Team, South West London
and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust, agreed that partnership
agencies all still tend to work in silos,[70]
but Alan Campbell MP, Home Office Parliamentary Under Secretary
of State, insisted that the system was broadly working despite
"an element of silo mentality", although he admitted
that the question of finance in determining cross-departmental
responsibilities can be thorny: "[Departments] can understandably
be protective of their mainstream funding, and in effect we find
sometimes within the government similar problems to the ones that
partnership working can find on the ground".[71]
52. We recommend the significant strengthening
of community provision to enable probation to focus on the management
of high risk offenders. The underlying needs of many persistent
offenders who cause the most problems to local communities would
be managed more coherently in the community. Prison resources
could then be focused on higher risk offenders and, when they
left custody, there would be better community provision for resettlement.
All of which would improve effectiveness in reducing re-offending,
improve public safety and reduce the prison population.
GOVERNANCE
53. Savas Hadjipavlou, then Head of the Health Policy
and Strategy Unit, Ministry of Justice, identified weaknesses
and variable effectiveness in the governance of partnership working
between government departments, especially in the field of health.[72]
Many of our witnesses emphasised the importance of using encounters
with the criminal justice system to facilitate access to mental
health treatment.[73]
54. The quality of governance in the youth justice
system was also questioned. For example, Ellie Roy, then Chief
Executive of the Youth Justice Board cited difficulties encountered
by youth offending teams in getting local partners outside the
criminal justice system to fulfil their obligations towards children
and young people who offend by facilitating access to mainstream
services and making available appropriate provision to meet their
needs.[74] Mike Thomas,
Chair of the National Association of Youth Offending Team Managers,
agreed that once a young person is labelled as an offender they
are seen as a problem that youth offending teams are expected
to resolve rather than being seen as a problem to be shared and
tackled jointly; so young people are batted from agency to agency.
[75] He commented
that it is increasingly difficult for youth offending teams to
tap into mainstream resources to increase expenditure on young
offenders and he called for a demonstration of the benefits of
such an approach.[76]
55. Zoë Billingham of the Audit Commission,
described how competing local priorities had worked against each
other prior to the introduction of local area agreements:
[…] we think that there has been a problem
in the past about the setting of priorities by different organisations
to drive community safety. On the one hand, police might be running
after one set of priorities and outcomes in a community, the local
government might be focused on another set of priority outcomes,
the Probation Service on another set. [77]
56. Witnesses, including the Vice-Chair of the Local
Government Association, also advocated a greater role for local
authorities in tackling the underlying problems related to offending
behaviour.[78] The Local
Government Association report, Going Straight, noted many
instances where services that are key to reducing re-offending
and building safer communities are managed at a local level, for
example: housing, benefits, education, employment and social services.[79]
Some witnesses criticised local authorities for not engaging sufficiently
with wider criminal justice issues (discussed further in chapter
6).[80] For example,
Clive Martin, Director of Clinks, suggested that a battle of hearts
and minds characterised local authority ownership of offenders.[81]
The role of the voluntary sector is also under-utilised in the
rehabilitation of prisoners.[82]
According to Napo the number of new contracts won by voluntary
sector to assist prisons and probation since 2004 has been negligible.[83]
57. Local authorities are not the only agency with
responsibilities towards offenders. Commissioning activity to
reduce re-offending is embedded in work by a range of local partnerships
(and their component agencies), including local strategic partnerships
(LSPs), crime and disorder reduction partnerships (CDRPs) in England
and community safety partnerships (CSPs) in Wales, multi-agency
public protection arrangements (MAPPA), drug action teams (DATs)
and local criminal justice boards (LCJBs). Descriptions of these
partnerships are set out in Annex 2.
12 Justice Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2007-08,
Towards effective sentencing, HC 184-I Back
13
HC (2007-08), 184-I, para 110 Back
14
Justice Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2008-09, Sentencing
Guidelines and Parliament: building a bridge,
HC 715 Back
15
Justice for All, Cm 5563, July 2002, p 13 Back
16
Office for Criminal Justice Reform, The Criminal Justice System
Business Plan 2008-09, February 2008, p 6 Back
17
The inter-relationship between these aims is explicitly recognised
in the 2006 Home Office review, Rebalancing the Criminal Justice
System in favour of the law abiding majority, which was subtitled,
Cutting crime, reducing re-offending and protecting the public. Back
18
Ministry of Justice, Punishment and reform: our approach to managing
offenders: a summary, December 2008, p 2 Back
19
Q 565 Back
20
Home Office, Rebalancing the criminal justice system in favour
of the law-abiding majority, July 2006 Back
21
Ev 257 Back
22
Q 96 Back
23
Q 513 Back
24
Q 103 Back
25
Ev 188 Back
26
See, Professor Carol Hedderman, Building on sand: why expanding
the prison estate is not the way to 'secure the future', Centre
for Crime and Justice Studies (London, 2008). For example, she
concludes that for most of the period that the use of custody
has been rising, reconviction rates post-release have also been
rising, and the higher frequency of reconvictions is partly fuelling
the higher prison population. She also cites evidence to suggest
that building more prisons as a policy response fuels the fear
of crime and public debate about punishment. Back
27
Q 59 Back
28
Justice Secretary's address to the Prison Governors' Association
AGM, 4 October 2009, http://www.justice.gov.uk Back
29
Q 35 Back
30
Oral evidence taken before the Justice Committee on 3 June 2008,
HC (2008-09) 649-i, Q 11 Back
31
Scottish Prisons Commission, Scotland's Choice: Report of the
Scottish Prisons Commission, July 2008 Back
32
HC (2007-08), 184-I; "Government still on course for 'Titanic'
prison population", Justice Committee Chairman's press release,
no. 27 of Session 2008-09, 27 April 2009 Back
33
"Jack Straw sets out prisons and probation plans",
Ministry of Justice press release, 27 April 2009. Back
34
Justice Committee, Twelfth Report of Session 2008-09, Role
of the Prison Officer, HC 361-II, Q 303 Back
35
Ibid, Q 308 Back
36
Ev 230 Back
37
Q 562 [Mr Hanson] Back
38
Ev 257 Back
39
Q 517 Back
40
Q 475 Back
41
Q 51 Back
42
Q 522 Back
43
HM Inspectorate of Prisons, Prison Performance, January
2009 Back
44
Q 52 Back
45
Q 53 Back
46
Patrick Carter, Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime: A new approach
(London, 2003), p 5 Back
47
Ev 202-203 Back
48
Q 94 Back
49
The measure on Suspended Sentence Orders was dropped during the
passage of the Bill bringing the potential reduction of places
by demand measures to 4047. Back
50
The Ministry of Justice subsequently calculated the costs of building
1500 place prisons and the projected cost savings by closing older
prisons, Ev 231. Back
51
Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, Rethinking Crime and Punishment:
The Manifesto, July 2008 Back
52 A
As this report was being prepared for publication, the Ministry
of Justice announced a new policy initiative to reduce women's
prison places by 400 (around 10%) by March 2012 to free up funding
for specialist services in the community aimed at turning vulnerable
women away from crime (MoJ press release 181-09, 14 December 2009) Back
53
Lord Carter, Securing the future: Proposals for the efficient
and sustainable use of custody in England and Wales, December
2007 Back
54
Sentencing Commission Working Group, Sentencing Commission Working
Group consultation: A structured sentencing framework and Sentencing
Commission, March 2008. In some areas, where similar structures
already exist, the sentencing commission is able to use this information
to advise on adjusting the sentencing framework to meet policy
aims, for example in Minnesota, Oregon and Washington the framework
was used to reduce imprisonment for property offenders and increase
it for violent offenders. Back
55
For example, Virginia Sentencing Commission introduced risk assessment
to divert lower risk offenders from custody. Missouri now takes
risk-based decisions in its allocation of prison beds Ev 186. Back
56
Ministry of Justice, Impact Assessment of the Sentencing Council
for England & Wales, 1 January 2008, p 4 Back
57
Ensuring effective co-ordination from government departments is
driven at the highest level by a newly established National Crime
Reduction Board (NCRB) chaired by the Home Secretary, which also
drives government activity to reduce re-offending. Back
58
These targets do not explicitly focus on crime reduction, and
may in fact contribute to the expansion of the system, but recent
reform gives local criminal justice boards a new remit to reduce
re-offending. Back
59
Home Office, Rebalancing the criminal justice system in favour
of the law-abiding majority, July 2006, p 28 Back
60
Ministry of Justice, National Offender Management Service Strategic
and Business Plans 2009-10 to 2010-11, 2009 Back
61
Social Exclusion Unit, Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners,
2002 Back
62
Q 600 Back
63
Q 539 [Commander Jarman]; Ev 167; 180 [LGA and Clinks]; 237 [Napo];
269 [Rainer]; 234-235 [Nacro] Back
64
Ev 289ff Back
65
Ev 180, 235 [LGA and Clinks, Nacro] Back
66
Q 340 Back
67
Ev 182ff Back
68
Q 340 [Ms Greatley] Back
69
Q 202 Back
70
Q 357 Back
71
Q 587 Back
72
Qq 325, 326 Back
73
Q 517 [Lord Dubs]; Q145 [Professor McDougall]; Ev 183 [Magistrates'
Association]; 295ff [Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health]; 288ff
[Revolving Doors Agency]; 291 [Prison Reform Trust] Back
74
Q 200 Back
75
Q 229 Back
76
Q 215 Back
77
Q 266 Back
78
Ev 181 [LGA/Clinks]; Q 19 [Mr Beecham]; Q 516 [Mr Aitken] Back
79
Local Government Association, Going straight: reducing re-offending
in local communities, 2005, p.11 Back
80
Q 304 [Rob James] Back
81
Q 459 Back
82
Q 516 [Mr Aitken] Back
83
Ev 239 Back
|
