Cutting crime: the case for justice reinvestment - Justice Committee Contents



226. There is a remarkable degree of consensus on what should be done to reduce crime but successive administrations have had difficulty in implementing key elements in the prevailing policy environment. As Professor David Faulker noted: "[...] there is a broad consensus, which I think ministers share, about what should be done to reduce crime, the points at which one should make an effort for prevention — use of community sentences reducing the use of custody—but it is very difficult to translate those intentions into a policy in the context of where we are now politically: the attitude of the media, the resources that are available to Government."[380]

227. Napo advocated taking a long-term view of crime reduction to tackle the range of factors which are known to contribute to crime levels—including poor housing, unemployment, drugs and alcohol dependencies, low levels of literacy and numeracy—coupled with transparency in sentencing and a sentencing framework which underpins this strategy.[381] As we have discussed above, elements of such a strategy are in place but progress has perhaps been hindered by an over-emphasis on punitiveness at the expense of rehabilitation. David Scott, former head of London Probation, proposed that the starting point for a new direction of policy should be the merits of what can be delivered effectively and safely in the community.[382]

228. If there is to be a new direction for policy, changes should, as far as possible, be made within the context of current legislation. The Commission on English Prisons today alleges years of criminal justice "hyperactivity" citing, since 1997, 23 criminal justice Acts, and 3,000 new criminal offences (nearly half of which can attract a jail sentence).[383] As David Faulkner cautioned, no-one is likely to welcome further legislative change.[384] However, much may be achieved within existing legislative provisions with a change in perspective.

229. Throughout our inquiry we have been challenging our witnesses on whether it is possible to move on from the current state of play within criminal justice, particularly in the context of the situation with the media, politics, public opinion and resource constraints. There appears to be one fundamental question which must be answered in order to do so: how do you achieve reform when you are spending most of the money on punishment and when the rhetoric of the system is geared only for shifts further and further in this direction? The simple answer seems to be that we cannot afford not to. There is an inescapable need for a longer-term rational approach to policy and the diversion of resources to prevent future expansion in the number of prison places and the size of probation caseloads. The Government must set a clear direction to reduce the use of custody which must not be diverted by media pressure, even in response to individual difficult cases.

Justice reinvestment in England and Wales

230. Our report has identified the challenges facing the criminal justice system in England and Wales and presented our conclusion that the present rate of growth within the system is unsustainable, particularly the strain on the prison system. This chapter will evaluate whether the principles of justice reinvestment could be applied in England and Wales and what benefits (and potential pitfalls) there are in developing a more rationally-determined policy for criminal justice not least to prevent further burdens on public expenditure and therefore the taxpayer. We consider below the partnership structures and funding arrangements which would be necessary to facilitate such approaches; how economic evaluation can be used to compare systematically two different courses of action; and mechanisms to build up an evidence base on what is the best way to use available resources. The final chapter then considers how account can be taken of the most effective and rational use of resources within sentencing and how the public can be engaged in debates about the most appropriate use of resources to reduce crime.

Support for a more rational use of resources


231. In principle, the Magistrates' Association was supportive of an approach that considered value-for-money and provided a broader picture of the effectiveness of sentencing than simply looking at reconviction rates.[385] It was cautious, however, about the extent to which funding should drive penal policy and suggested that there is a danger of this happening if money was simply to be re-directed.[386] The then Minister for Prisons, Rt Hon David Hanson MP, was also supportive of the approach overall: "We need to do more, we need to do it better and we need to make it more effective but I think there is an assessment that that is the way forward if we can pool our resources to tackle these issues jointly."[387] Alan Campbell MP, Home Office Minister for Crime Reduction, spoke of the value of targeting resources on the "bad guys" and where the problems are "worst".[388]

232. Our witnesses were overwhelmingly supportive of justice reinvestment in principle as an approach to reducing offending and re-offending. For instance, the Revolving Doors Agency described justice reinvestment as a "potentially powerful means of approaching the challenges faced by the criminal justice system" suggesting that it could help address prison overcrowding, high re-offending rates and the over-representation of socially excluded people in prison.[389]

233. Although evidence was strongly in favour of justice reinvestment in principle, we also heard some concerns about its application to existing strategic and operational structures in England and Wales. There was disagreement about how justice reinvestment could operate in practice, partly due to the complexity of existing arrangements to reduce re-offending at national and local level and also due to the disconnect within, and between, national and local structures in terms of the distribution of the potential financial gains from reinvestment. In the US decisions are taken to adopt such approaches on a state-by-state basis. There is, however, less scope for this in the current system in England and Wales because the dividends from reducing spending on custody would not be received automatically by those agencies responsible for the spending to reduce, or enable the reduction of, its use. This issue is discussed below.

234. Despite such concerns, a number of potential levers for justice reinvestment have been identified at national, regional and local level. Some of these would require minimal change to existing structures and processes, although others would require more radical reform. Paul Kiff of the Cracking Crime Scientific Research Group, University of East London, commented that much could be achieved at no cost by re-thinking current social policy.[390] On the other hand, Lord Dubs believed that breaking down financial barriers between departments could allow the creation of an overarching policy which would help divert people from prison and which would be almost certain to reduce the offending rate, although this "would require more sophisticated thinking on the part of the Government than has been applied to this area up to now".[391] When asked what should be done with the various budgets across departmental silos for reducing offending and re-offending, Jon Gamble, Director for Adults and Lifelong Learning, National Learning and Skills Council, told us "I would put it all in one big bag and give it to the local authority and say, 'sort it out'.[392]

235. Revolving Doors Agency expressed the need for clarity about what justice reinvestment could achieve in a UK context and which challenges it could realistically overcome.[393] The Howard League for Penal Reform drew our attention to barriers to justice reinvestment in a report by the International Centre for Prison Studies.[394] These chiefly relate to the potential pitfalls of localism; the national structure of provision of, and payment for, prison places; and the interaction between courts and local authorities.

236. We heard some concerns that further devolution of responsibility and resources might result in "postcode justice". While it is important to guard against exacerbating this problem, such issues already exist, being apparent in local disparities in sentencing which are not related to patterns of offending. Any system which allows local discretion and benefits from local innovation will involve some differences in outcome. Improvement is much more likely to occur if there is genuine local discretion and, once it has occurred, demand will grow for other areas to reap the same benefits.


237. One focal point of justice reinvestment is the local communities in which disproportionately high numbers of people in the criminal justice system live. It therefore attracts a great deal of support from those who favour a more localised system of spending to reduce crime and re-offending, including many of our witnesses.[395] For instance Mr Scott argued it is "self-evident" that solutions to unlocking and tackling crime will often be located at very local level in communities.[396] Professor Cynthia McDougall agreed that spending more money on schemes to reduce crime at this level will have most impact on local communities.[397] Localised models are more responsive to local needs.

Geographically-based investment

238. Evidence suggested that England and Wales could benefit from this kind of focus on the local community. However, the emphasis of strategic planning here has not usually addressed information about where offenders live or how best to reduce the local deprivation which may give rise to their offending. This lack of focus is surprising given the evidence about the impact of crime on local communities described in the White Paper Justice for all:

    Tackling crime is a social justice priority. Crime impacts hardest on the poorest members of our society, thousands of whom are repeatedly victimised throughout their lives. Sustained regeneration of our most disadvantaged communities is simply not possible without tackling crime. Criminal activity, drug abuse and social disorder prevent businesses investing with confidence, and deprive local people of much of the benefit of increased public expenditure.[398]

239. Where public expenditure on communities with the highest levels of deprivation has been increased, the community may not see the full benefits because it continues to be disrupted by crime. Geographically-based principles have been applied to crime reduction, for example in the Safer Communities Initiative of 2002-03, but less so to efforts to reduce re-offending by existing offenders. Strategic assessment which was undertaken on such a basis in Gateshead identified for the first time the needs of prisoners and offenders as a social justice priority.[399]

240. We have found very few examples of interventions to reduce re-offending which are specifically targeted in the most deprived neighbourhoods. This is particularly true for such projects which are funded from outside the criminal justice system, such as mental health treatment. Organisation and funding should explicitly recognise the correlation between offending and social exclusion in the places where crime most occurs.

Balancing the needs of victims, communities and offenders

241. We heard concerns that, under the current system, services are too heavily centred on responding to offenders and that offenders in effect 'benefit' disproportionately from the justice system especially when compared to victims.[400] Juliet Lyon of the Prison Reform Trust spoke of a need also to recognise the impact of crime, and responses to it, on offenders' families and the communities in which they live.[401] Justice reinvestment benefits the wider community through reducing crime, and supports both victims and offenders' families by investing in the communities where they are also more likely to live. We were struck by the observation of the review of crime and communities, led by Louise Casey, that: "it is the most deprived communities that suffer most […] we owe it to those who do not enjoy the advantages of the majority to respond forcefully to these concerns in the poorest neighbourhoods".[402] Despite this, Louise Casey noted the public appetite for rehabilitation, expressed even in "challenging and difficult" areas: "60-70% of them [residents] said, once people have done their punishment, we should accept them back into the community".[403]

242. As we noted above recent research on public attitudes to the principles of sentencing has confirmed that the public support rehabilitating offenders - even those convicted of serious crimes of violence - yet policymakers appear to be afraid of appearing "soft on crime" by supporting measures designed specifically to help offenders. However, a more integrated local approach which locates rehabilitative measures within a prospectus of services concentrated on the most deprived areas may be more politically palatable. The relevant client groups for such initiatives would be young, and young adult, offenders, women, those with mental ill-health, substance misusers and short-sentenced prisoners.[404]

243. Targeting spending in particular areas may also make it easier to reach ex-offenders, and those at risk of offending, who are not in contact with the criminal justice system. Frances Crook believed that local authorities should not deliver specialist services to people just because they have committed a crime. She argued that offenders in the community should have access to mental health services, drugs services and housing anyway, as members of their communities.[405] However, we heard that those at risk of offending frequently do not use mainstream services even though they may benefit from them. Community-based agencies, like the Learning and Skills Council, which have attempted to provide targeted support to offenders have often encountered difficulties in identifying offenders in the community unless it is directly through the criminal justice system. It is very difficult for such agencies to ascertain whether offenders, who have completed their period of supervision by probation services, are engaging with the services they may require to maintain any reduction in their offending.[406] There are of course arguments for directing specialist services to offenders who have been in custody to counter the effects of prison and to those for whom mainstream services are not appropriate.[407]

244. In principle, the savings made by adopting justice reinvestment approaches should be invested in local communities in a non-targeted manner so that whole communities benefit, not only offenders. The Making Every Adult Matter coalition emphasises the overlap between issues such as homelessness, crime, drug misuse and mental illness among adults who fall through the 'gaps' in services.[408] Justice reinvestment could also enable some direct targeting of resources in a more flexible manner than is currently possible. For instance, by making it easier for funding to follow the individual person when they fall through these gaps. Richard Kramer, of the Centre of Excellence for Connected Care, explained that such "personalisation" of support, is less advanced in criminal justice than in social care.[409] Others agreed that there was scope for targeting resources on particular individuals, in contact with the criminal justice system, in this way.[410][411]

245. Being tough on reducing re-offending is not being soft on offenders. Local strategies must take a more integrated and comprehensive approach which recognises that many of those who commit offences are also victims. Justice reinvestment would enable the most victimised communities, as well as offenders and their families, to benefit from additional targeted support. It could therefore provide a means to ensure that 'firewalls' are put in place to address the social exclusion factors that may lead to involvement with the criminal justice system.


246. Regional relationships and partnerships for reducing re-offending are fairly strong following the creation of regional reducing re-offending partnership boards and new directors of offender management should strengthen these. However, the mechanisms for linking regional partnerships and plans to local partnerships and local reducing re-offending plans are unclear. Jeremy Beecham drew our attention to the potential for justice reinvestment of multi-area agreements (MAAs), which bring several local area agreements together. [412] According to the Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA), MAAs are well placed to tackle issues that are best addressed in partnership at a regional and sub-regional level. The examples of integrated offender management, discussed below, illustrate the possibilities for sub-regional collaboration to address joint priorities.

247. Local structures are beginning to emerge which could provide a mechanism for justice reinvestment, including clearer local performance frameworks and integrated priorities through the local area agreement, and reforms which clarify the accountability of crime and disorder reduction partnerships in England and community safety partnerships in Wales (CDRPs/CSPs) and local criminal justice boards (LCJBs) to reduce re-offending (see Annex 2).[413]

248. In 2006 the Government's Strong and Prosperous Communities White Paper described the relationships between local agencies in relation to crime reduction:

    "Performance of local partners on community safety is still too varied. […] This is partly because local authorities do not always see it as their job to tackle anti-social behaviour or to improve community safety. But there is also the problem of a large number of different partnerships, performance frameworks and funding streams at the local level meaning that different bodies are often pulled in different directions, rather than working together to meet shared priorities." [414]

We heard that, since 2006, the coordination between these partnerships has been strengthened considerably by reforms to CDRPs and LCJBs, and by the advent of the local area agreement. There are, however, still a large number of different partnerships and funding streams; the relationships between agencies and partnerships remain complex and are still developing. Witnesses discussed the relative merits of performance-based incentives such as the local area agreement and financial incentives to reallocate resources at local level (discussed below).

Local area agreements

249. Performance frameworks such as the local area agreement are important in embedding shared priorities and can influence the way in which limited resources for meeting criminal justice objectives are directed at local level. The Local Government Association (LGA) report Going Straight proposed piloting justice reinvestment in England, suggesting that its principles are consistent with the current development of local public service agreements and local area agreements in English local government.[415] Structures in Wales are not prohibitively different.[416] Jeremy Beecham, vice-chair of the LGA, explained that the local area agreement could be used to move money around so as to deliver locally agreed targets under a justice reinvestment model.[417] Zoë Billingham from the Audit Commission agreed that some reinvestment could be achieved within current local structures:

    I think that there is tremendous scope within the existing arrangements that we have to better pool budgets, to base spending decisions better on evidence, and if it is evidence of preventing something from happening, that ought to be a key factor in decision-making in terms of where resources are deployed, and there are all sorts of examples of the public sector cross-fertilising, in terms of finances, other outcomes.[418]

250. Frances Done, Chair of the Youth Justice Board, agreed that, for the first time, priorities across key partners, particularly the police and local authorities, are now aligned. This creates an incentive for better performance.[419] She suggested, however, that these new arrangements would underline the inadequacy of existing local provision for reducing re-offending, and argued that more explicit duties needed to be placed on local authorities and their partners.[420] Ruth Gaul, Strategy Safety Manager at Gateshead Council, noted variations in the strength of relationships between crime and disorder reduction partnerships and criminal justice agencies.[421] It must be made clear that because multiple factors contribute to criminality, those organisations and agencies whose task it is to tackle such specific issues, must contribute to reducing crime and anti-social behaviour. We heard that clearer accountability to reduce re-offending should be provided by the new duty placed by the Policing and Crime Act on the constituent agencies of CDRPs.[422]

251. We heard of examples of very promising results from integrated planning between LCJBs and CDRPs/CSPs, but it was clear that these practices are not yet widespread. David Scott, then chair of the Probation Chiefs' Association, argued that LCJBs were already forging links with CDRPs and local authorities, and that some were working together to reinvest resources at the frontline without having to wait for resources to be freed up by reducing the prison population. For this reason he did not believe that the system needed to be re-configured to enable rational decision-making about the direction of resources at local level.[423] He explained that when LCJBs were first established, they concentrated on the front-line of the justice system, but now they had an incentive to shift their focus to what happens once offenders are sentenced.[424]


252. The Ministry of Justice has funded three pilot projects which build on existing partnership approaches. These projects, two of which are described in the box below, prioritise offenders who pose the greatest risk to the community (e.g. prolific and priority offenders), developing what the Ministry calls 'Integrated Offender Management' (IOM).[425] The Ministry of Justice has coined the phrases 'diamond districts' or 'neighbourhood pathways' to describe some of these projects. In particular, one of the projects, led by the London criminal justice board, has used the analytical component of the American model to devise a devolved, locally focused approach to reducing re-offending and improving compliance in areas with a high resident offender population.[426]

Mr Scott, former Chief Probation Officer for London, spoke of the benefits of the London 'Diamond Initiative' project:

    We have seen in London that co-locating police and probation, very much a joint business, brings tremendous benefits over working in the individual silos, as they used to be called; similarly with the multi-agency public protection arrangements […] For us the Diamond initiative takes this on a step forward […] we are beginning to see prison governors becoming more involved with local authority chief executives, crime development reduction partnerships and so on. You begin to start unlocking some of the potential and for me it means that for all of our agencies we have to stop being precious about what it is we do and we have to look to see where, if we can work together more effectively, we can find some real benefits.[427]

253. Clinks director, Clive Martin, pointed out that local criminal justice boards (LCJBs) may only facilitate the reinvestment of resources between criminal justice agencies.[428] Whilst the experience of the integrated offender management pilots suggests that LCJBs can perform a useful linkage role between crime and disorder reduction partnerships and NOMS, it is important to note that these were established with central funding.

254. The implementation of Integrated Offender Management, and the London pilot in particular, shows that some of the principles of justice reinvestment can be applied successfully to England and Wales, although the framework for longer-term funding and national roll-out of such initiatives is, as so often is the case, uncertain. We have some concerns that justice reinvestment projects which are heavily criminal-justice driven, for example by local criminal justice boards or by the police, may result in external agencies believing that it is the responsibility of criminal justice agencies to drive reductions in crime. We urge the Government to think more widely in any application of justice reinvestment principles at a local level; in particular engaging local government, the health service and non-governmental sectors.

255. A regional or sub-regional model of reinvestment may be possible in the future if the national custody budget for the majority of the prison estate could be fully devolved to directors of offender management. Resources could then be moved from prisons to probation and crime and disorder reduction partnerships (CDRPs). In the meantime local criminal justice boards should be encouraged to provide a linkage role between regional and local reducing re-offending plans and between NOMS and CDRPs, in addition to probation, to ensure that prisons are included, where possible, in local partnership plans.


256. Witnesses repeatedly suggested that a justice reinvestment approach could result in improvements in mental health, substance misuse and education and training provision which offenders can access at various points in the criminal justice process and the promotion of better access to employment for ex-offenders.[429] The Ministry of Justice argued that its thematic work on addressing the underlying causes of offending was consistent with the principles of justice reinvestment.[430] However, this does not amount to a clear commitment by the Government to focus efforts on reducing crime by shifting spending away from the criminal justice system to other services.[431] We heard that spending on criminal justice has in fact increased since the Inter-Ministerial Group on Reducing Re-offending was established. We found only limited evidence of genuine reinvestment of resources in the community (see Annex 1).

257. On the other hand, measures set out in the Ministry of Justice consultation document 'Working in partnership to reduce re-offending and make communities safer' suggest that Government policy is moving in a direction which is more aligned to some of the principles of justice reinvestment. It includes reference to:

  • identification of a need to make a strong economic and social case for partners to be increasingly involved in work to reduce re-offending
  • research into the cost of re-offending and the comparative cost of interventions and activities to reduce re-offending to build up an understanding of the social benefits of reducing re-offending in terms of the cost of crime avoided, and
  • emphasis on developing links between crime and disorder reduction partnerships and local criminal justice boards which are locally determined rather than centrally proscribed

In addition, the NOMS Strategic Plan consultation document notes the need to examine how performance is measured across the "reducing re-offending pathways" and to develop improved means of assessing costs and value for money.[432][433]

258. We do not consider that the Government's existing programme of work to reduce re-offending pays sufficient attention to the opportunities suggested by a justice reinvestment approach. Although there are welcome signs of an interest in costs and benefits, and some movement of resources between departments, this policy has not been backed by a demonstrable strategy to reduce the use of imprisonment and shift resources from within the criminal justice system; predominantly from prisons.

The four stages of justice reinvestment

259. We now consider how justice reinvestment approaches could be applied in the context of the structures and systems which plan, commission and deliver services in England and Wales. We have identified a series of key requisites for justice reinvestment based on the methodology underpinning the four stages of the justice reinvestment model. We discuss these in turn below.

Stage 1: Justice mapping

260. In its purest form, justice reinvestment seeks to change the way public expenditure is allocated, using data to map where local offenders live, how this relates to deprivation and how resources are currently allocated to crime reduction in the identified areas. Such mapping—using a computerised system known as Geographic Information Systems (GIS)—has been used in the US to examine how criminal justice, social welfare and economic development policies are related to particular neighbourhoods. In this context, GIS generates maps which present statistical data on:

  • adults and young people going in and out of prison, people on community sentences and those under the supervision of probation after leaving prison
  • administrative, political, social, educational, and other boundaries, such as school catchments, council jurisdictions, neighbourhoods, or police areas
  • socio-demographics, such as single parent households, unemployment, home ownership rates, poverty, and income
  • health and welfare services, child welfare and benefit claimants
  • prison expenditures
  • probation caseload distributions, and
  • geographical, and neighbourhood, overlaps between criminal justice and other agencies providing local services.

261. These data are used to examine the economic costs of communities with high rates of prison admissions and releases, and the effectiveness of custodial policy in terms of rehabilitation and reform. Eric Cadora, a founder of the Justice Mapping Center in New York, argues that such an approach can determine the impact of criminal justice policies in particular neighbourhoods:

    […] high incarceration rates hinder government efforts to turn around troubled neighbourhoods by taking people out of the work force, compelling families to rely on government assistance and scaring away investment.[434]

262. In the UK, a similar approach to reducing benefit claims based on the results of geo-mapping has led to significant cost savings. For example, the Kent Supporting Independence Programme delivered targeted support in areas which were found to have the highest concentration of benefits claimants. Those living in a targeted ward were 29 per cent. likely to stop claiming benefits than those from similar areas.[435] This suggests that there is potential for geographically targeted local initiatives to reduce national expenditure.

263. The first stage of the justice reinvestment process thus relies on:

  • the expertise and capacity to undertake justice mapping and interpret the analysis
  • the availability of data to input into the mapping process, and
  • the existence of costs data on current service provision to offenders in a particular locality both within, and external to, the criminal justice system.


264. There is emerging evidence that justice mapping is viable at local level in England and Wales. Each crime and disorder reduction partnership and local criminal justice board follows an annual process of review, assessment and planning which reflects both national and local priorities.[436] Under provisions in the Policing and Crime Act 2009, crime and disorder reduction partnerships will also be expected to publish a specific strategy for reducing re-offending. Geographical mapping has been used in police planning models for some time to identify areas with high concentrations of crime ('hotspots') for example, but some local partnerships are now using these sophisticated mapping techniques more broadly to audit needs and thereby determine their priorities, in particular in relation to crime and disorder reduction strategies. Such techniques have proved valuable in prioritising resources in Manchester and, to a lesser extent, in Birmingham and Gateshead.

Guidance and expertise

265. The Government has attempted to promote a more systematic use of data to develop local priorities through its guidance to crime and disorder reduction partnerships (CDRPs), which states that each partnership's analysis should include:

    […] an overview of the partnership area including relevant geographic, demographic, socio-economic factors and unique issues that might impact on this strategy such as population change, housing growth, large scale planned events, regional or cross- border issues.[437]

266. The extent to which this guidance is used in practice has been questioned and does not appear to have been the subject of monitoring. The use of mapping techniques to indicate priority neighbourhoods where offenders are concentrated, or which examine, at neighbourhood level, the factors which may contribute to offending, are not common. Some of our witnesses sought to explain why these techniques have not been used to determine priorities for crime reduction in England and Wales. For instance, Zoë Billingham, from the Audit Commission, told us that the Commission found that the use by crime and disorder reduction partnerships (CDRPs) of police intelligence models to identify priorities is limited.[438] Ellie Roy, former chief executive of YJB, agreed that CDRPs do not have a single methodology for auditing but identified that some do use geo-mapping to inform tasks.[439] Greater Manchester Against Crime (GMAC), which works with all 10 CDRPs in Greater Manchester to support local partnership planning, explained that the use of justice mapping is not currently championed or subject to specific government guidance.[440]

267. Another reason for the under-use of justice mapping is that it requires specialist expertise. Jonathan Shepherd CBE, Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at Cardiff University, explained that more imaginative use could be made of existing local data without extra cost, if it is collated by the partner agency electronically, anonymised and passed on to someone with the capacity to analyse it.[441] However, David Ottiwell of GMAC explained that the use of geo-mapping requires professional skills that are now bedded-in for the police and some local authorities, but not for other criminal justice agencies.[442] Greater Manchester is the most advanced area in the use of mapping to develop 'business' priorities and GMAC has developed a "data hub" to make use of data from all partners, serviced by a team of analysts.[443] A clinical approach, in Cardiff to tackling violence has led to a 40% reduction in the number of victims presenting themselves for treatment at an accident and emergency unit following an incident of violence.[444]

268. The under-use of geographical analysis is partly the result of a lack of available expertise in mapping techniques and a lack of resources to conduct the necessary analysis. Where local leadership by local authorities and the police has driven the development of effective, analytical and innovative crime reduction techniques within proactive partnerships this has been extremely successful. The Government should undertake audits of the capacity of crime and disorder reduction partnerships, local criminal justice boards and local authorities to use geographical mapping. The combined results should determine whether additional resources must be employed to increase such capacity, for example, by providing hubs for technical support or by developing local expertise through training. Whatever form this capacity building takes it should be targeted in the first instance on improving areas which are failing against relevant public service agreement targets.

The quality and accessibility of data

269. Justice mapping is dependent on good quality and accessible local data on the concentration of crime, the neighbourhoods where offenders tend to live and the needs of offenders in those localities. We heard that there may be difficulties in accessing sufficient data to develop a picture of local needs. In partnership with the International Centre for Prison Studies, Gateshead Council employed justice mapping techniques to identify local needs. It encountered difficulties, however, with the quality of data available, in particular information from prisons about where offenders live; these data are not collated centrally.[445] Professor James McGuire suggested that localised data would better inform local decision-makers about the factors that influence patterns of offending in different places at different times and how this contributed to the 'amount' of intervention needed.[446] Dr Chloë Chitty told us that good information on re-offending rates was now available at local authority level, but difficulties remained in obtaining this information at district level,[447] which would better support justice mapping and the estimation of costs. NOMS plans to expand needs assessment to all offenders[448] but there is not currently a mechanism for these data to be made available to local authorities, LCJBs or CDRPs (in an aggregated, anonymised form) to inform local priority-setting.

270. Our witnesses raised questions about the capacity of some agencies to collate data that could offer a valuable contribution to more robust analysis of local priorities. For example, West Yorkshire police commented on the lack of a comprehensive offender health and social care needs assessment to drive service commissioning, resulting in an inability to provide evidence for and meet such needs within its Integrated Offender Management pilot.[449]

271. Priority-setting to concentrate effort on existing offenders in particular areas is hampered by both the poor quality of data available locally and lack of accessibility to data that is available. We find it remarkable that there are still problems with information sharing when it is over 10 years since the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 made it quite clear that information can be shared for the purposes of preventing offending. Justice mapping may also be hindered by the way in which some data is held. For example, the prison service does not collate information centrally about where offenders live and records kept by individual prisons are limited.


272. Dr Kadhem Jallab, who conducted justice mapping in Newcastle, said that the results generated by justice mapping may not be surprising. For instance, probation caseload maps of needs showed the same pattern as the needs of the wider community—i.e. offenders are concentrated in particular wards and these show a very strong correlation with indices of deprivation.[450] This also holds true in rural areas.[451] Despite this, locally aggregated information on offending-related needs can be used to build up the case for investment with local partners and consequently provide a potential lever for resources from outside the criminal justice system.[452] David Ottiwell of GMAC spoke of the effectiveness of mapping in demonstrating to the various component agencies comprising local strategic partnerships that the challenges they are seeking to overcome are concentrated in the same geographical areas, and that this coincides with the areas where offenders tend to live.[453] He emphasised the distinction between the use of justice mapping to drive activity and its use simply to record a problem.[454]

273. Attempts to use justice mapping to drive activity appear to have had mixed results. Birmingham CDRP has used justice mapping techniques to provide a clear assessment of need. Neighbourhoods were classified into three groups, "priority", "at risk" and "stable", which allowed the CDRP to target resources more effectively into priority areas. Subsequently, not only has crime reduced in these neighbourhoods but the gap between them and less deprived neighbourhoods has narrowed.[455] The experience of Gateshead community safety partnership indicates, however, that whilst justice mapping can be a catalyst to the mobilisation of partnership activity to reduce re-offending, it cannot in itself change the way that activity is targeted and prioritised at a local level. Ruth Gaul, Strategy Safety Manager at Gateshead Council, explained that the mapping project in Gateshead had led to further funding for prolific and priority offenders (PPOs), but had not yet resulted in more fundamental changes in the direction of resources.[456]

274. Rainer Communities that Care has used geographical mapping to make recommendations to commissioners both to prevent youth offending and to promote better long-term outcomes for young people, based on evidence of effective practice. Its projects have encountered some difficulties in encouraging these commissioners to change their practices, including a lack of commitment of long-term funding, partner "buy-in", competing agendas and the evidence base to identify and meet mapped needs.[457] David Ottiwell of GMAC explained that there had initially been similar resistance in Greater Manchester. He put this resistance down to a lack of buy-in among project leaders to the concept of using technology and spatial evidence to make spending decisions and suggested that this could be overcome through appropriate training. [458]

275. One practical aspect of the justice reinvestment approach is for agencies such as probation to deliver their services at a more local "patch-based" level.[459] The expansion of neighbourhood-based policing offers a model for multi-agency teams to work together at a very local level to 'manage' known offenders, like the 'hubs' established in the West Yorkshire Integrated Offender Management pilot discussed in box 8. This is counter to some efficiency practices that seek to reduce costs, for example, by merging smaller probation offices into "super probation centres".[460] There are proposals for the co-location and virtual co-location of agencies attached to courts in the Government green paper Engaging Communities in Criminal Justice discussed below.

276. Justice mapping may confirm the concentrations of deprivation and identify the communities where offenders tend to live but it can also provide a strong case for locally determined and locally targeted intervention to tackle social exclusion as a means of reducing crime. Justice mapping should be used as a catalyst for stronger local authority and partnership strategies which prioritise the reduction of crime and re-offending in particular areas through, for example, local area agreements and crime reduction plans. Such plans and agreements should all include a specific justice reinvestment element. Existing guidance on the methodology for the strategic analysis of priorities does not appear to be sufficient to encourage these partnerships to use geographical analysis, undertake robust clinical analysis of crime problems, or to ensure that a consistent methodology is used. In particular, Government guidance to crime and disorder reduction partnerships (CDRPs) on the new reducing re-offending plans should encourage a much longer-term view on achieving desired outcomes and an explicit focus on justice reinvestment.

277. The co-ordination of justice mapping activity at local level must be locally determined. Crime and disorder partnerships appear to be best placed to perform this function, but it will rely on information sharing between partnerships, with local criminal justice boards facilitating access to data from prisons and the courts and local authorities facilitating access to data through members of local strategic partnerships. Mapping can also suggest where agencies should deploy their staff, for example the 'multi-agency hubs' established in West Yorkshire and the community courts.

278. Justice mapping would also be beneficial in informing reducing re-offending plans at a regional level and in enabling Directors of Offender Management (DOMS) to determine the allocation of resources. The Ministry of Justice, the Home Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government should devise guidance and a mechanism whereby DOMS and Government Offices can work with regional "reducing re-offending" partnership boards to use justice mapping to inform their plans. The aggregated mapping information generated by local partnerships would similarly provide valuable data to inform national policy.

Calculation of cost-effectiveness

279. A key part of justice mapping is the calculation of existing spending on the geographical areas identified as high priority. These costs can then be used to develop a business case for community agencies, and local authorities in particular, to strengthen provision for reducing re-offending with a view to making cost savings. Mike Thomas, chair of the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers, spoke of a need to demonstrate the wider costs of youth offending and the benefits of joint working; that is, what costs can be saved to the community as a whole and to each component agency which makes up the partnership.[461]

280. The Home Office produced guidance on calculating the costs of crime to local areas that has been revised and promoted by the NOMS Reducing Re-offending Civic Society Alliance, which works with local authorities, other partners and local people to improve support to offenders, and ensure that they have equality of access to services. The London Borough of Tower Hamlets and Leicestershire, among other councils, have demonstrated that it is possible for local authorities to make a financial case to elected members to finance activity to reduce re-offending.[462]

281. One of the problems in applying justice reinvestment principles is that existing calculations of the costs of re-offending to local areas include neither the costs of the use of custody (which are not borne directly by the local area) nor the wider social costs of crime. The Youth Crime Action Plan includes proposals to make local authorities aware of the cost of custodial places and raises the possibility of local authorities paying for custodial places for young offenders (discussed below). Frances Done, chair of the Youth Justice Board explained that such financial considerations are explicit in other fields, such as special education, where decision makers are very conscious of the cost of placements in institutions.[463] The Youth Justice Board has since written to each local authority illustrating the cost of the use of custody in the area and an indication of how this relates to average rates of custody.[464]

282. Bringing together justice mapping with information on the costs of re-offending to local partners may provide a sufficient incentive for the reallocation of partnership resources in some areas. We welcome the evidence that local authorities have successfully used NOMS/Home Office methodology to help mobilise resources to reduce re-offending. The NOMS Civic Society Alliance should promote the principles of justice reinvestment among local authorities as part of its ongoing strategy to build capacity to reduce re-offending. All local strategic partnerships should use the NOMS framework to illustrate the costs of re-offending to local authorities and health care trusts.

283. Exposing the costs of re-offending is not, however, the whole answer to promoting justice reinvestment because it does not take into account the costs to the national criminal justice system. The costs of custody at local level are currently hidden. We welcome the work of the Youth Justice Board in exposing the costs of the use of custody for young people at local level and recommend that the same is done for adults.

Stage 2: Devising options for policy makers

284. We have noted above the work of the US Council of State Governments' Justice Center, which uses the results of justice mapping in an individual State to generate tailored options for policymakers to manage the growth in the prison population and increase public safety by reducing crime. There are several key pre-requisites underpinning this stage of the process:

  • agreement on which departments, agencies or partnerships constitute the policymakers;
  • the existence of an organisation or other mechanism to generate options for policymakers to manage the growth in the prison population and probation caseloads
  • the existence of a robust, high quality, evidence base of the cost-effectiveness of alternative approaches to manage the growth in the prison population;
  • the willingness and capacity of policymakers to adopt the policies identified.

Identifying the policymakers

285. The policy options for managing the growth in the prison population generated in the US typically include changing sentencing, bail and enforcement policy within the criminal justice system, (for example, by reducing or increasing the lengths of sentences for certain offences, reducing remands or increasing compliance with court orders), and changing policy outside it, (for example, the provision of mental health support or residential drug treatment). Mr Bridges described the types of decisions which could be taken to release resources:

    Hypothetically, if every current sentenced prisoner served five weeks less than currently planned there would be a tiny increase in the amount of crime prevented, and if every current sentenced prisoner served five weeks less than currently planned there would be a tiny decrease. But in the latter instance there would be a major financial saving, some of it available almost immediately, that could be available for [j]ustice [r]einvestment.[465]

In 2003 and 2004 the Home Office modelled the relative contributions which planned measures to reduce crime were expected to make to targets to reduce crime, assuming that sufficient rehabilitations can be and are provided.[466] This indicated that while the toughening up of enforcement practices can make only minimal contributions to reductions in re-offending, expanding the provision of drug treatment and offending behaviour programmes can make a more significant contribution.

286. As we noted above, radical shifts in policy decision-making to reduce the prison population have taken place in Finland, Canada and Germany, driven by central Government, with no detrimental impact on crime rates. Similar initiatives are now being implemented in Scotland. In June 2007 the Scottish Parliament established an independent commission to consider the current state of the criminal justice system in Scotland. The Scottish cabinet secretary for justice, Kenny MacAskill, commented:

    It is simple to say that we will build more prisons, but resources are not infinite and each new prison means one fewer new hospital, school or community investment that would benefit the people of Scotland.[467]

After an extensive investigation and consultation amongst a wide variety of criminal justice stakeholders and the public, the Commission's recommendations comprised a cohesive approach to reform across the entire system. These included the creation of a general duty to enhance public understanding; a duty on judges to impose community sentences in cases where they would give a sentence of six months imprisonment or less unless there were exceptional circumstances; and, most radically, that the Government aim to reduce the prison population by two-thirds. The Government accepted these proposals but, according to Mr MacAskill, they are being introduced in the absence of political consensus.

287. In of England and Wales, sentencing and enforcement policy is determined nationally and applied locally by sentencers, police and probation services to various degrees of consistency. Realising the resources required for reinvestment would require a willingness by policy-makers at national level, including the Ministry of Justice, cross-departmental Ministers and HM Treasury, to change the pattern of spending at national level to facilitate new approaches to manage the growth in the prison population and probation caseloads, for example, by considering the non-implemented measures examined above. The proposed Sentencing Council would have a specific role in promoting a more sustainable sentencing framework, for example, by reviewing the feasibility of some of the red and amber measures considered and rejected by Lord Carter (see chapter 2).

288. Although much of the decision-making about the commissioning and delivery of local services or interventions which would reduce crime and re-offending are now devolved to local policy-makers, many of the partnership arrangements that determine relationships between the agencies that commission and deliver them are prescribed at national level. The locus of proposed policy changes is therefore complex and would require national, regional and local approaches to be co-ordinated.

A mechanism for generating options for policy-makers

289. Justice reinvestment relies on both good quality research to provide the basis for policy options and the existence of a hub of expertise, possibly at national level. A co-ordinated programme of justice reinvestment approaches would require the development of a series of alternative policies which could be adopted by national, regional and local policymakers, a function which is performed in the US by the Council of State Governments' Justice Center (see box 11).

290. Witnesses proposed that the Government should examine models adopted by other disciplines and other jurisdictions to devise a balanced, evidence-based, crime reduction policy which makes optimum use of resources.


291. Professor Cynthia McDougall, a criminologist from the University of York, pointed to the healthcare system as a possible model for considering how criminal justice policy could be linked to analyses of resources.[468] She said: "It has long been accepted in the National Health Service that there is a finite amount of money to spend on the nation's health, and it is fairer to base spending on what is most effective for the majority of people, based on the ratio of costs to benefits". She posed the question of whether there are "similar opportunities" in the criminal justice system.[469]

292. Some witnesses proposed that a criminal justice equivalent of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), or other national centres of excellence, might provide a means of developing a more rational approach to the use of resources for crime reduction.[470] Health economist Barbara Barrett from King's College London explained that NICE reviews the available evidence about clinical and cost-effectiveness of medical interventions and on the basis of that review, makes guidance which has to be followed by medical practitioners.[471] The aim of NICE is to reduce expenditure on treatments or therapies that are not effective.[472] The same should be the case when it comes to promoting public safety. As we noted above there is a need to find a method of assessing the relative cost-effectiveness of approaches both within and outside the criminal justice system.

293. However, Mr Faulkner interjected a note of caution, pointing out that criminal behaviour was 'inherently unpredictable' and that it may therefore be difficult to use the same economic models as used in other areas of policy.[473] Professor Cynthia McDougall agreed that economic research is more difficult in the field of criminal justice but added that this does not mean it is not possible.[474] The Chief Inspector of Probation, Andrew Bridges, believed that important differences meant that the analogy with health should not be taken too far.[475] Others argued there were sufficient similarities to do something akin to it. Professor Shepherd cited the example of the Cardiff Violence Reduction Programme in highlighting the value of taking a wider clinical approach to assess the crime problem, what is causing it and developing a targeted approach to overcoming it e.g. by using accident and emergency data about violent incidents in addition to reported crime figures.[476]


294. Making decisions about the optimum use of resources to prevent further escalation of criminal justice costs relies on the use of good quality data about the needs of offenders and the existing costs of criminal justice, and external activities to determine the appropriate level of resources and priorities i.e. which services to invest in and which to disinvest in. One concern raised about the possibilities of practically applying cost-benefit analysis to the area of criminal justice is the availability and quality of data on which to base decisions about criminal justice policy and measure its effectiveness. There was disagreement amongst our witnesses about whether the existing evidence-base was sufficient.

295. Several witnesses argued that there is a growing body of evidence on how best to reduce re-offending.[477] Mr Faulkner agreed that external research is providing pointers for policy but is not being brought into the Government's approach.[478] Professor McGuire explained that there is potential for very large returns on investment through good interventions based on US evidence.[479] Professor Cynthia McDougall agreed that there could be a greater emphasis on targeting individual offenders with the knowledge we have of what works for them.[480]

296. Others disagreed that existing research is sufficient. Justice Secretary, Jack Straw MP, told us that the impact that evidence-based policy can make on reducing re-offending in practice is still not clear:

    There is a wealth of evidence in the "what works" framework of research which suggests that certain things work better than others, and some things do work better than others, but the differences in re-offending rates are quite slight.[481]

He also explained that there is a lack of evidence on the cost-effectiveness of policies in the UK:

    […] so far I have seen no evidence that says, "If you spend this amount of money, then we can guarantee that there will be this fewer crimes committed, this fewer victims and, therefore, the demand for prison places will drop correspondingly". That is the difficulty.[482]

297. On the other hand, Professor Cynthia McDougall suggested rather that a whole system approach which looks at cost-effectiveness has not been properly considered: "nobody pulls research altogether into a strategic approach to what kind of research we need in order to have a cost-effective model of dealing with crime."[483] She added that lots of research of this nature is being conducted in the US, for example to measure the optimum length of sentence required to reduce recidivism. This may be partly because, as we noted above, resources have not been shifted into targeting re-offending on a scale which would provide sufficient evidence of effectiveness, but Frances Crook believed there is indicative evidence on a smaller scale.[484]

298. It is possible to conclude from our evidence that the volume and quality of research must be driven up in this area to both increase the number and quality of offender interventions and so that informed decisions can be taken to disinvest in things that do not work. Dr Chitty identified some gaps in the Ministry of Justice's data, and acknowledged that the quality of costing and cost-benefit analysis could be increased, but assured us that analysts are continuously working at improving the data and it is getting better as a result.[485] She explained that better evidence exists on some interventions; for example, offending behaviour programmes, drug treatment and good family ties.[486] The Government's response to our report Sentencing guidelines and Parliament: building a bridge sets out the Ministry's current programme of research.[487]


299. Notwithstanding limitations in international research evidence,[488] some other jurisdictions have devised rational approaches to the use of resources based on an analysis of the available evidence; indeed we heard that many European countries turn to UK research as a basis for policy-making. In Seattle we heard about the application of a cost-benefit approach to developing financially sustainable long-term policy by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) which carries out practical, non-partisan, research for the Washington State Legislature.

The Matrix Knowledge Group has conducted the first stage of such research in the UK, focused on the effectiveness of prison compared to its alternatives but this has not been tied to a broader evaluation of the most effective use of resources to reduce the cost of correctional services (see chapter 3).

300. Multnomah County Sheriffs Corrections Division, which we visited in Oregon, undertook analysis to correlate the number of available prison beds and their attached costs, to the number of offenders in prison according to their offence type and seriousness of the offence. This was used to provide a visual illustration to policy-makers of the choices that must be made between purchasing decisions on the appropriate use of custody when resources are constrained. Similar calculations were made to cost the use of courts and drug and alcohol treatment programmes.

301. The Government has not demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of its policies to reduce crime or re-offending. Neither has it produced any evidence that the prison building programme and the establishment of the Sentencing Council together represent a sustainable long-term policy. Other jurisdictions have been able to make transparent strategic decisions to change the direction of policy within available resources based on the evidence which is available. We are disappointed that despite the quality of much of UK research this has not happened here. We welcome the work of the Ministry of Justice on the cost-effectiveness of sentencing and other criminal justice interventions, and note the high regard in which this research is held internationally, but this is of limited value on its own. Internal researchers have neither the capacity nor the remit to develop an overarching cross-Government model for a system which is financially sustainable. While Government can do more to identify those interventions which are successful by investing in high quality evaluation, a policy which promotes the most effective use of resources to reduce crime and manage offenders would benefit from the existence of an independent cross-disciplinary centre of excellence. Government could then identify the level of resources that should be invested in what is already known to be effective on a scale which would reduce medium and long-term costs to the criminal justice system.

302. The Government should establish a national justice reinvestment working group at Cabinet Office level, for example, as a sub-group of the National Crime Reduction Board. As a starting point the Government should analyse the existing flow of resources at national level including total spending across central departments, for example on health, education, social welfare and criminal justice for key groups of offenders, including women, young people, young adults and persistent offenders. This, coupled with robust economic modelling of what is effective in reducing crime and re-offending, can be used to inform the development of a national justice reinvestment plan.

303. Effective crime reduction policies should lead to reduced spending on the prison system and better return on investment in efforts to reduce crime and re-offending over several spending cycles. The Government must therefore develop incentives for longer-term planning nationally, regionally and locally. Understanding how central resources could flow more easily at local level between the constituent members of crime and disorder reduction partnerships, local strategic partnerships and local criminal justice boards is also vital in to developing justice reinvestment approaches.


304. Many of our witnesses identified weaknesses in the relationship between research, policy and practice which hinders the application of effective practice to efforts to reduce crime and re-offending. Professor McGuire told us that there is underinvestment in research in this area, admitting that such a statement was to be expected from an academic, but he emphasised that the paucity of resources is "quite major if you compare it with some of the other areas of inquiry that inform government policy".[489]

Stronger relationships between research and policy

305. Dr Chloë Chitty, Ministry of Justice researcher, outlined for us the ways that internal research feeds into policy development, for example in scoping prospective new policies and monitoring and evaluating existing initiatives.[490] Professor McGuire explained that the research functions of the Home Office and Ministry of Justice are held in extremely high regard all over the world.[491] Yet, as we noted above, the capacity of the Ministry of Justice to apply the evidence base to strategic planning has been assessed as poor. Witnesses, including Professor McGuire, also raised questions about the effectiveness of relationships between internal (departmental) and external (independent academic and other) research.

306. The Scottish Government takes a different approach to the use of external research which is unique in the UK. It works closely with the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research (SCCJR), which brings together cross-university consortia, comprising multi-disciplinary academics, to inform policy.

Kenny MacAskill MSP, Justice Minister, Scottish Government, and Michelle Burman, co-director of the Centre, told us that these arrangements were beneficial to both the Scottish Government and the universities in developing a better correlation between what the policy-makers need to know and what the academics are researching. The Scottish Government and the Centre have developed a sustainable and constructive relationship, for example, the SCCJR provided independent academic support to the Scottish Prisons Commission team. The Centre has also made use of repositories of national data which were not previously exploited. Dr Chitty highlighted the value of closer relationships between external researchers and policy-makers in England and Wales which she agreed was mutually beneficial.[492]

307. We heard other examples of the value of closer relationships between academics and policy-makers on criminal justice. In Germany, at the Criminological Research institute of Lower Saxony, Professor Christian Pfeiffer, a prominent criminal justice figure, wrote to politicians, media editors and church leaders that explained what research and statistics had to say on the factors which contributed to the need for further prison building in Germany. As a result of the ensuing policy debate the legislature stopped its prison building programme shortly thereafter.[493] This example also highlights the value of having an 'independent voice' to inform both the media and politicians of the relative merits of various policies, which could dilute calls for constant legislative change. The weight of independent research evidence has similarly driven reform in Canada. A report commissioned by the Solicitor General in Canada on the relationship between lengths of prison sentences and the likelihood of recidivism contributed to a change in policy which led to a significant reduction in the Canadian prison in recent years, reversing massive growth, as we noted above.[494]

308. We recommend that the Government gives consideration to the most appropriate means of drawing together existing research with a view to devising a transparent and coherent model for directing resources more effectively to prevent further expansion of the criminal justice system and increases in costs. While our preference would be to establish an independent national crime reduction centre of excellence, we acknowledge that this may not be immediately feasible in the current economic climate. Alternative shorter-term mechanisms could include: establishing a multi-disciplinary team of internal researchers from across Government; drawing on the expertise of a consortium, or regional consortia, of external academics similar to the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research; or, an enhanced role for the correctional services panel which currently advises NOMS.

Stronger relationships between research and practice

309. Professor Jonathan Shepherd advocated offender management schools and institutes in research intensive universities, similar to the police school model, and argued that such institutions can be cost-neutral.[495] Mr Scott supported the need for a much better fit between the concerns of frontline practice and academic inquiry and more active research into what is effective.[496] Closer relationships may increase the number and quality of interventions to reduce crime. Professor Cynthia McDougall drew our attention to the joint work of probation and magistrates in Durham and the University of York to test the application of cost-beneficial community sentencing options.[497] The cost-effectiveness of diversion from the criminal justice system provided by community, rather than criminal justice, agencies is also being explored.

310. We consider that regional and local partnerships would benefit from closer relationships with local academic institutions in designing appropriate programmes to meet locally identified needs.


311. In England and Wales decisions about the allocation of resources are made at local level based on locally determined plans. Local partnerships therefore also need to understand how evidence of effective practice could be used to devise appropriate products to address local priorities. There are mechanisms for central support to be provided to local strategic partnerships, crime and disorder reduction partnerships and local criminal justice boards. However, while these support bodies share best practice they neither work together coherently nor provide the level of expertise necessary to advise local areas on options for justice reinvestment. Although the Home Office has established an Effective Practice Database for CDRPs,[498] allowing officials to search for effective practice to assist them in improving the actions taken to reduce crime and disorder, this is not supported by a wider infrastructure. Initiatives taken by other Government departments, like the Narrowing the Gap programme described in box 14, can support this.

312. If local efforts to reallocate resources are to be effective in reducing the national costs of custody, local plans must be linked to a national strategy and subject to a quality assurance process to couple the results of mapping with the use of research on effective practice to determine the most cost-effective ways of meeting priorities. We are encouraged that the Home Office has established an Effective Practice Database for crime and disorder reduction partnerships (CDRPs) and we trust that this will include robust assessments of costs and benefits to enable sound investment decisions to reduce re-offending as well as prevent crime and disorder more broadly. A justice reinvestment approach requires a broader perspective to be taken to ensure that the planning processes of the various local partnerships are consistent with each other. A 'checks and balances' mechanism should be found similar to the Narrowing the Gap programme to enable the national centre of excellence or other hub of expertise to provide assistance to local partnerships in developing their plans. The national centre should undertake monitoring to: ensure that local plans are based on robust evidence of effective and cost-beneficial practice; determine whether progress is being made in delivering results; and advise partnerships on adapting their plans if the desired outcomes are not being achieved.

Stage 3: Quantify savings and reinvest in select high-stakes communities

313. In the US, policy analysts at the Council of State Government's Justice Center work with state policymakers to determine the level of costs which could be saved or avoided by adopting some or all of the options identified for reducing the use of imprisonment. Plans are then developed to reallocate a portion of the calculated savings in improving the coordination of services in the areas where the majority of people released from custody return to. This step relies on:

  • an understanding of how resources are directed at national and local level to calculate where savings can be made, and
  • a mechanism for reallocating the potential cost savings to those responsible for commissioning and delivering services at local level.


314. While it makes sense to develop a rational, coherent policy it may be difficult to move to a new longer-term strategy when resources are being absorbed by the current over-crowding and new provision for the predicted expansion of the system. Many of our witnesses were sceptical of the potential for re-allocating resources and in this sense it appears that criminal justice policy may be caught in a catch-22 situation.

315. Both Lord Dubs and Mr Aitken believed that the Government's current financial commitment to the prison building programme almost certainly rules out significant investment in alternatives.[499] Their message was echoed in our e-consultation, where one comment began: "Of course it is better to spend money on prevention and rehabilitation than more punishment. The trouble is that we seem pretty powerless in the face of growing prison numbers to do much by way of starting to reduce the demand for prison places, so the question seems rather redundant."[500] The Justice Secretary explained that while there is evidence on what works, differences in re-offending rates are slight, and his imperative was: "for all sorts of reasons, not least a tougher climate against crime, a desire by Parliament and the public and sentencers to ensure that more and more serious and violent offenders were sent to jail and sent to jail for longer, which made it almost a certainty that we would have to increase the prison population".[501] We discuss the quality of the evidence for alternative policies above.

316. There was agreement from our witnesses that it does make sense to shift resources, however gradually, to invest in preventative programmes and alternative sentences, rather than expanding the use of custody, unless it is genuinely needed for public protection. The then Director of Probation, Roger Hill suggested that there would need to be a policy direction to reduce the prison population and it would then be possible to reinvest the money saved by creating this headroom.[502] Ms Lyon reminded us that former Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf recommended that the prison population could be safely capped at 40,000.[503] Legislatures in Finland, Germany, Canada and some US states have made deliberate decisions to reduce the prison population and the ensuing costs of penal expansion by introducing alternative policies and to move away from taking criminal justice policy decisions in response to high profile cases. We see no reason why the same is not possible in England and Wales, thus averting the need for the scale of the prison building programme which is currently proposed. Justice reinvestment approaches typically calculate these cost savings and allocate a proportion of the savings to initiatives to reduce the prison population. This may require a longer-term perspective to be taken to savings. As we noted above, while there are considerable immediate costs for the earlier parts of the prison capacity programme, much of the new estate expansion is being financed by PFI so the costs to the Government are spread over several decades.

317. Assuming it were possible to reduce the prison population, it would also take some time to release additional funds for reinvestment from the existing prison estate. Policy Exchange raised the possibility of releasing funding to modernise (and expand) the prison estate by selling prison sites to property developers.[504] However, The Justice Secretary told us that simply closing a prison could be done very rapidly if there was a surfeit of accommodation but realising the assets would take longer. He cautioned that the amount of capital which could be released may in any case be limited: restrictive covenants exist on some land grants which give former owners the right to buy land back at very low cost.[505] Ms Roy made similar observations about the scale of reductions in youth custody that would be required to release funds by closing youth custodial establishments.[506]

318. However, even if it were possible to release funds from the prison estate, there is a systemic weakness in obstacles to moving money between Government departments to develop a more coherent approach to reducing re-offending. Some witnesses argued for a radical shift in resources, especially at local level but also at national level.[507] Lord Dubs lamented the structural barriers which currently prevent Government from saying that spending on prisons will be cut and the money put into other departments' budgets to provide support for people who would go into prison.[508] Alan Campbell MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office, argued that there were already mechanisms to move resources between central departments where appropriate.[509] For this reason he did not accept that a 'seismic shift' in resources was required.[510] However the weight of evidence we heard suggested that this shift has not happened sufficiently either to reduce the costs of the criminal justice system or ensure that other departments meet their obligations towards reducing re-offending (see annex 2).

319. The Revolving Doors Agency proposed that departments should have powers to invest in other areas via a new commissioning model.[511] For example, as the Ministry of Justice has overall responsibility for reducing re-offending, under a long-term strategy its resources (for prison and probation) would be shifted to fund initiatives to reduce re-offending external to the department. When we challenged the Secretary of State on whether money being spent on prison places could be spent on measures to reduce offending instead he responded that "we need more prison places, on any realistic analysis of demand, over the next ten years."[512] However, he acknowledged that there is a point when it is no longer possible to release additional resources through efficiency savings and it becomes necessary to put more money into the system: "I say to each part of the public services for which I am responsible, the more you show me you are both efficient and effective and doing better, the stronger my case when it comes to getting money out of the Treasury."[513] He also conceded that it makes sense to build into the system an acknowledgement that resources are restrained.[514]

320. Former Treasury minister and ex-prisoner, Jonathan Aitken, accepted that the Treasury is capable of being responsive to "solidly based new ideas" which show costs of measures to deal with prisoners and ex-prisoners and reiterated that there are convincing arguments that rehabilitation is cost-effective.[515] Professor Loader highlighted the potential value of "playing the Treasury card" in shifting the direction of policy i.e. identifying that the use of prison is expensive, wasteful, counter-productive, and fundamentally unsustainable especially in times of recession.[516]

321. The prison population could be safely capped at current levels and then reduced over a specified period to a safe and manageable level likely to be about two thirds of the current population (taking Lord Woolf's 1991 proposal as a model and bearing in mind comparable figures from other Western European countries).

322. There is potential for moving resources from a significant part of the prison building programme if the numbers entering the system could be reduced by a sufficient amount before the new places are completed in 2014. Community programmes are much faster to implement than prison construction. There is therefore approximately 5 years to make a serious effort to genuinely reducing re-offending by reforming offenders rather than simply containing them and to find more effective ways of preventing people from entering the criminal justice system in the first place. Washington State Institute for Public Policy created a model which would break even in its costs within 5 years and yield considerable cost savings thereafter.[517] Justice reinvestment approaches implemented in Kansas since 2004 have produced savings over a similar period. The state has closed three small prisons, and a cell block in a fourth, generating annual savings of $4 million and avoiding $500 million of expenditure which would have been required to finance a new prison had the prison population continued to grow at the rate it had been before the programme began.[518]

323. It will take time to realise both the assets from the custodial estate and savings from the prison expansion programme, the payments for some of which are spread over 30 years. Initial investment is therefore required as part of an explicit attempt to reduce prison population. The Ministry of Justice cannot take forward such a policy on its own. It requires a higher level Government commitment and a combination of short-term and long-term strategies. We recommend that a business case is made to the Treasury for spending a significant part of resources which are currently earmarked for the new prison building programme on a programme of justice reinvestment.

Existing mechanisms for reallocating resources at local level


The alignment and pooling of budgets

324. A growing proportion of government funding streams, including the crime and disorder reduction budget, are now combined into a single area-based grant to support the improvement targets agreed by local strategic partners.[519] However, local strategic partnerships do not have money of their own; decisions about spending are still made by their component agencies, each with its own separate commissioning process. Furthermore, although funding is no longer ring-fenced for particular purposes these grants comprise pre-existing funds that are already committed to existing service provision,[520] and, as we noted above, agencies still tend to work in their own silos to some extent.

325. Many witnesses argued that the movement of resources through existing performance frameworks, and the local area agreement in particular, would require further development to facilitate justice reinvestment approaches. Jeremy Beecham, vice-chair of the Local Government Association, explained that existing budgets would need to be pooled to bring existing financial structures for different organisations such as local government and criminal justice closer together.[521] Amelia Cookson, of the Local Government Information Unit, told us: "we are on the cusp of a fundamental shift to move resources into local area agreements that could suddenly start to make dramatic decisions about moving resources in a much more open-ended way than we have seen before."[522] She proposed that a single pot of money be introduced to benefit the entire community by funding a range of interventions to reduce crime which are targeted on addressing exclusion in particular areas.[523]

Better integrated commissioning arrangements

326. Alan Campbell MP, Home Office Minister, emphasised the role of local level partnerships in enabling the joint commissioning of services to achieve joint outcomes.[524] Mr Hadjipavlou, Ministry of Justice, suggested that achieving better outcomes in commissioning was about the integration and connection of services to meet the needs of individuals.[525] He conceded that this required more thought on the part of Government departments:

    […] one of the major challenges which we do face is joining up services, and if there is a frustration between services at the moment it is linked to the way that partnerships work and the weaker governance arrangements generally […] I would agree that one of the emphases that we have got to look at is the extent to which we can join up services and certainly pooling the budgets of one sort or another are a way of gaining engagement.[526]

327. However, as we noted above, there is a lack of strategic activity aimed at addressing the longer-term reduction of crime or re-offending at local level. One of the drivers for better integrated commissioning between health and social care is the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. This Act places a duty on primary care trusts and local authorities to develop a joint strategic needs assessment using data on inequalities experienced by specific groups in the local population and assessments of their future health, care and well-being needs. This assessment informs the long-term strategic direction of service delivery to meet identified needs.[527] Sustainable communities strategies should also take a much longer-term approach to planning for local needs, based on evidence and forecasts of economic, social and environmental trends. The Howard League for Penal Reform believed that there was a potential opportunity to link crime and disorder reduction partnerships with healthy city partnerships.[528] These are promoted by the NHS and bring together representatives from city council, neighbourhoods, community and voluntary sector, health, business and academic sectors.

328. There is an urgent need to develop mechanisms for a longer-term approach to planning for crime reduction, including reducing re-offending, at the local level. We consider that a joint strategic needs assessment approach, similar to that required of primary care trusts and local authorities, should be applied to crime reduction and the reduction of re-offending. Justice mapping could support this.

329. Richard Kramer, of the Centre for Excellence in Connected Care, agreed that existing commissioning arrangements would provide sufficient incentive for joining up services to reduce re-offending if they were better connected with health and social care than at present. He explained, however, that there needed to be greater flexibility of funding arrangements between community and criminal justice interventions.[529] The Centre for Excellence in Connected Care works with commissioners to chart the flow of resources in health, housing and social care and model the consequences of existing commissioning decisions, which tend to be taken in silos, and the potential cost-benefits of integrating services together.[530] However, because of the way the system is currently funded, this model could only be extended to include the police and probation.

330. Probation areas and trusts are an anomaly in local structures: unlike most local commissioners they must work with regional commissioners (Directors of Offender Management) to determine the mix of services which they will deliver at local level.[531] The Integrated Offender Management pilots suggest that it is possible for probation to be involved in the creative use of resources within local partnerships but as we noted above these are criminal justice based projects. It may be more difficult for probation to contribute to budgets which may be spent outside the criminal justice system.

331. Witnesses discussed the need for probation to have flexibility in their funding to contribute to local solutions for local problems. The Probation Boards' Association suggested that trusts need the freedom to be entrepreneurial and innovative.[532]
Rt Hon David Hanson MP, Home Office, spoke of a need for probation trusts to work better at district level. He explained that the trust status "gives much more local flexibility, much more local responsiveness and freedom from the centre while still working in a framework that we are setting as ministers to undertake much more flexibly things at a local level and to determine their resources in a much more local way."[533] However, few probation areas have met the criteria to become trusts in anticipation of full roll-out by March 2010. It will therefore be some time before they are able to contribute fully to integrated commissioning arrangements.

332. It is worrying that so few probation areas have become trusts in anticipation of the Government's aspiration for all areas to have done so by March 2010. We are concerned that the capacity of probation areas to make the transition to trusts is being undermined by the severe scarcity of resources for them to perform even their most basic functions. We envisage that these trusts will take some time to embed and we expect the Government to take this into account in movement towards opening probation to competition.

333. We do not believe that performance incentives alone will result in the reallocation of resources at a scale and pace sufficient to prevent further prison building. Although there is undoubtedly considerable scope for reinvestment between agencies, there are significant variations in the extent to which local partners have aligned or pooled their budgets to facilitate integrated commissioning. This is complicated by the fact that prisons do not fit neatly into devolved local commissioning structures. It is relatively early days in the embedding of local area agreements before they can become the mechanism to direct real resources. If the Government is to realise its aim of integrated local commissioning in sufficient time to prevent the further escalation of criminal justice costs, there is an urgent need for further national direction. The Government should clarify roles and the methodology for determining and meeting partnership priorities, including the expected flow of resources between their constituent agencies. The relevant agencies and partnerships would benefit from their responsibilities and shared concerns being collated and published together in a single guidance document. This should be published as soon as possible after probation becomes a responsible authority in crime and disorder reduction partnerships following the passage of the Policing and Crime Bill.

Lack of financial incentives at local level

334. Configuring local structures to facilitate justice reinvestment approaches relies on more than building stronger relationships between agencies and better integration of priorities through reforms to CDRPs and LCJBs and the introduction of local area agreements. A Local Government Association survey of 176 local authorities, conducted in 2007, looked at the barriers to effectively reduce re-offending at local level. Although approximately half of local authorities identified both a lack of clear responsibilities and a lack of communication between agencies, the most common barrier to reducing re-offending, noted by over three-quarters of local authorities, was funding deficiencies.[534]

335. Although there is now a stronger performance incentive to move money, there is no financial incentive for local agencies to begin to shift resources to reduce the financial burden on the criminal justice system. Discussing the difficulties of funding sustainable projects, Catherine Hennessy, of the Revolving Doors Agency, quoted a local councillor who told her "if we succeed in keeping people out of prison we don't get that money; the prison saves the money".[535] Local agencies will find themselves with an additional costs outlay if they meet their responsibilities to reduce re-offending or devise schemes to divert local people from the criminal justice system.

336. There was considerable consensus from our witnesses, that the national funding of prison places for both adults and young people mean that prison essentially operates as a 'free good'.[536] As a result there is little financial, or other, incentive either for national departments or local agencies, in particular health and local government, to make provision available to address the needs of offenders; prison hence becomes a substitute for community provision, with significant cost implications. Ms Frances Done, of the Youth Justice Board, told us that engagement with the Department for Communities and Local Government and Department of Health represented the "biggest challenge" but was supportive of the value of the new performance framework in making this easier to evidence.[537]

337. The question of where the costs and benefits are realised, and the incentives or otherwise this creates, goes right to the heart of the justice reinvestment argument. While the current disincentive may be partly offset by a better understanding of the current costs of re-offending to local agencies, and the new performance frameworks, it is not the whole answer. Even those witnesses who were most positive about the potential of local reforms to deliver justice reinvestment believed that the movement of resources represented the biggest obstacle to success. They raised questions over whether the scale of reinvestment which must take place to avert further growth in prison and probation expenditure could be achieved given the current state of progress with the alignment and pooling of budgets.

338. There is potential for both re-prioritising money from the criminal justice system to mainstream community agencies and vice versa, but these resources would not be released at the same time. The costs and benefits of reducing imprisonment are not borne in the same place. There needs to be a direct financial incentive for local agencies to spend money in ways which will reduce prison numbers. In order for the public to have confidence in such a re-directing of resources, it will be essential for the benefit of reducing prison places to be experienced by local communities or local community agencies. There is no clear model for commissioning joint services to reduce crime and re-offending, or for changing the flow of resources inside and outside the criminal justice system, which would enable savings to be realised quickly and transparently. It has therefore been difficult for us to identify an obvious model for justice reinvestment which shows how options for investment can be agreed, how they would be funded and how savings will be generated by reallocating resources through existing mechanisms unless significant changes are made.


339. Some witnesses argued for the devolution of criminal justice resources through local authorities. Jon Gamble, of the Learning and Skills Council, and Jonathan Aitken believed that giving budgetary control of the prison budget to local authorities would help achieve better outcomes by providing a direct financial incentive to reduce the use of custody.[538] The LGA and Clinks agreed that justice reinvestment could address local concerns by giving local authorities the budget and management responsibility for criminal justice.[539] More radically, the International Centre for Prison Studies proposed that prison and criminal justice costs could be met from local taxes and the revenue from fines.[540]

340. The Youth Justice Board expressed interest in means of exploring financial as well as performance-related rewards for reducing the use of custody.[541] John Coughlan, former president of the Association of Directors of Children's Services, agreed that additional levers were required to make mainstream agencies spend money on young offenders more quickly and more systematically. He did not, however, support the full devolution of the custody budget.[542]

341. Juliet Lyon, from the Prison Reform Trust, highlighted disparities in the use of youth custody by area which cannot be explained by differences in patterns of offending.[543] This was illustrated by the Policy Exchange. In the London borough of Lambeth 1 in 367 young people were in custody during 2008, costing the Youth Justice Board £5.2m. By contrast 1 in 1894 young people were in custody in the borough of Enfield at a lesser cost of £1.4m. Newcastle had the same proportion of young people in custody as Enfield, whereas 1 in 550 young people were sentenced to custody in Manchester, equating to a cost of £7.8m.[544] Similar disparities exist in relation to the use of custody for adults.

342. If effort is concentrated on reducing the use of custody in those areas where current use is disproportionately high, there is scope for reducing costs quite considerably. For example, if the custody budget was devolved and local authorities were required to meet some or all of the cost of juveniles sentenced to custody, they might work harder to develop preventive programmes or to improve the availability of community-based alternatives to custody for sentencers. Children's Trusts or youth offending teams could be given a sum based on the costs of average use of custody over the last three years. They would then be charged for using custody in the following year but could keep any savings. This form of justice reinvestment has proved successful in reducing juvenile incarceration in Oregon USA.

343. We heard that similar proposals have been developed for some elements of policing. Both the Local Government Information Unit (LGIU) and New Local Government Network have called for greater devolution in criminal justice by enabling councils to commission police services.[545] A workable model for doing something similar with the prison budget is less straightforward, although several organisations have recently undertaken work on this. The possibility of devolving the custody budget to 'clusters' of local authorities was mooted by Policy Exchange.[546] The LGIU has developed a commissioning framework which could deliver justice reinvestment by diverting the cost of imprisonment to local authorities as part of local strategic partnerships. Amelia Cookson, of the Local Government Information Unit, advised us that this could be put in place relatively easily.[547]

344. The Youth Justice Board has been considering the potential for developing a local authority purchasing system for custodial places, but we heard that there were several practical difficulties in devolving youth custody budgets.[548] We heard that the Board believes that these difficulties can be overcome and it has written to Ministers requesting an informal consultation on the possibility.[549] The pros and cons of such an approach have been the subject of several recent reports;[550] all have concluded that it warrants further exploration, although the Howard League raised concerns that it may cost more, drive down quality and standards and impact adversely on child welfare budgets.

345. Local authorities have understandable concerns about costs being transferred to them in this way. The LGIU cautioned us that local authorities would not want devolved custody budgets unless there was some initial pump-priming of money to enable them to invest substantially in a range of alternatives to custody.[551] John Coughlan, former president of the Association of Directors of Children's Services, identified a further barrier, namely that local authorities do not have control over the sentencing, which is a matter for the courts.[552] We consider this barrier in the following chapter. Mike Thomas was supportive of the pump-priming approach, but suggested that, as an alternative youth offending teams, as statutory partnerships, could be given this money to reduce the use of custody for young people.[553]

346. We discussed the dilemma of the devolution of budgets with The Justice Secretary who agreed that it would be difficult to achieve, although he felt that elements of police budgets could potentially be devolved to local authorities at a district level for community safety.[554] Rt Hon David Hanson MP, the then Prisons Minister, believed that the direction of cross-departmental resources warranted consideration: "we probably need to improve our co-ordination [...] and improve our silos because we are dealing with people at different stages of their life and through different parts of government without necessarily looking at the whole justice reinvestment argument".[555]


347. Several witnesses, including Nacro argued that there must be financial as well as performance incentives to reduce the use of custody.[556] David Scott, then chair of the Probation Chiefs' Association, believed that there had to be more investment to make local networks operate and to pay more attention to enablers centrally so that they deliver effectively.[557] Catherine Hennessey, Director of Operations, Revolving Doors Agency, advocated a "mechanism whereby local areas which respond to address the needs of offenders or particular groups of offenders can be rewarded for their effort by levering resources from the criminal justice system".[558]

348. Chris Leslie, of the New Local Government Network, also advocated local rewards for reducing re-offending:

    It also requires, in my view, a lot of agencies that are currently accountable in their little vertical silos to stop being so territorial about things, to join together and to actually trust some local leaders to say, "If you manage to reduce that re-offending, we will not only be able to credit you with that success in having led that reduction, but we will reward you and incentivise you to do it further with a specific amount of money." That requires a lot of trust with the public sector that does not often exist.[559]

He proposed establishing pilots of various different mechanisms for the reallocation of resources.[560] Jonathan Aitken also proposed testing reinvestment through pilot schemes and called for a national model which could be rolled out locally.[561]

349. The Local Government Association and Clinks advocated giving savings in the penal budget to local authorities or enabling costs to be 'reclaimed' after use of custody reduced to create additional encouragement for local communities to improve local levels of re-offending and to prevent the unnecessary use of custody.[562] They provided an explanation of how this could be achieved in their report Going Straight:

    Any initiatives to restore confidence in the effectiveness of fines as an alternative to prison should also consider payment of fines to a local 'community chest' in the area (rather than to HM Treasury) where the crime has been committed. This would demonstrate immediate reparation to the community and the chest could be a fund administered by the CDRP [Crime and Disorder reduction Partnership] in conjunction with local people for crime reduction measures.[563]

350. The Young Foundation has proposed an alternative idea, suggesting that a "justice dividend" could be created for local communities to share the savings from reducing the use of custody.[564] Rushanara Ali, from the Young Foundation, explained this could empower communities to change their local circumstances.[565] Frances Crook, of the Howard League, agreed that local communities should benefit directly from any reinvestment dividend:

    If you are to reorganise and restructure, release money and get public support for quite a radical idea local people have to see that they will get something out of it too. Whilst it is absolutely right that you should point services at particular people who are likely to be or are being troublesome you must also benefit the whole community because at the moment there is no public confidence in the criminal justice system. Nobody sees it; it is all being retracted and taken away from local communities. You have to give justice and resources back to local communities.[566]

351. The Young Foundation and Social Finance have further developed the idea of justice dividends. Social impact bonds would allow social investment to be made (by commercial investors, foundations, local authorities or other commissioners) to finance a programme to address a clearly defined need in a specified geographic area on the basis that government will make payments to the investors linked to outcomes achieved.[567]

352. There is a strong case for exploring greater devolution of custodial budgets, and we are encouraged that this is currently being given serious consideration with respect to youth justice. We are not convinced that simply making local authorities pay for custodial places represents the most constructive means of redistributing resources. We do not believe that this will be either possible or acceptable unless some money is invested up-front to enable local authorities to reduce the use of custody in their area. There is support for local partners to share money and invest in jointly funded services if there is some initial pump-priming. Devolution of custodial budgets must therefore be viewed as a longer-term goal. Such a model would also require much greater engagement between local authorities and the courts but this may be possible if the community justice court model were to be adopted universally.

353. We believe that the movement of resources could be achieved much more quickly, bringing down spending on imprisonment more dramatically, if local partnerships were given an added financial incentive to reduce the use of custody as a proportion of the 'expected' rate, based on the characteristics of local offenders and the sentencing trends of the local courts. We consider that the use of social impact bonds— as a means of reducing crime and re-offending in particular areas by particular groups, including women, young adults, persistent offenders and those with substance misuse or mental health problems—warrants serious consideration by Government.

A national justice reinvestment fund

354. There are precedents for pooling resources for crime reduction at the national level which show that it is possible to use national funds as an incentive for the constituent agencies of local partnerships to take joint ownership of local problems. For example, when crime and disorder reduction partnerships were established in 1998, a central fund was created to kick-start their work, with shared ownership across the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Department of Health and, the Department for Education and Skills and Communities.

355. Similar funds have been used to develop a neighbourhood approach to reducing problems in areas of high deprivation. Targeted approaches to addressing deprivation by injecting significant levels of funding have been shown to result in reductions in crime. For example, 39 New Deal for Communities Partnerships received a total of £2bn over 10 years to cut crime, improve educational achievement and boost job opportunities in deprived communities. A recent study looked at the impact of these partnerships on their local areas over their first six years. It found that local areas have benefited from both reduced crime and reduced fear of crime.[568] The European Social Fund has also focused resources geographically to tackle re-offending. These initiatives indicate the potential for reductions in crime from approaches which specifically aim to reduce crime.[569]

356. We also heard criticisms of these initiatives. The Policy Exchange, in its report Less Crime, Lower Costs, concluded that the Crime Reduction Programme funding did not produce the desired results because it was linked to nationally prioritised initiatives which may not have reflected local priorities. Furthermore, such initiatives were not implemented in line with effective practice and they faced the additional problem of competing partner priorities.[570] There is persuasive evidence that local partnerships are now more willing to pool resources to meet shared local priorities by devising more flexible services. The local area agreement partnership arrangements may therefore provide a better framework for implementing a new crime reduction programme in targeted areas. We noted above the promising examples of integrated offender management for offenders in contact with the criminal justice system. However, such approaches have been initiated by national pilot funding. We also heard several examples of the benefits of wider cross-departmental initiatives outside the criminal justice system through the Adults Facing Chronic Exclusion (ACE) projects described in the box below.[571]

357. Catherine Hennessy, of the Revolving Doors Agency, explained that central initiatives such as ACE can help to overcome individual agencies' reluctance at sharing money for a jointly-funded service.[572] They tend, however, to have limited lifetimes, funding several series of pilots which prove successful but are not sustainable when the funding for such initiatives ends. The failure to find mainstream funding for the Together Women centres for women offenders discussed above is a prime example of this. The Government has not yet found an effective way to mainstream the concept of pooled national funds.

358. We recommend that the Government provide financial support at the local level to kick-start the process of reallocating resources to reduce crime. The Adults facing Chronic Exclusion pilots show the benefits of cross-departmental investment, but pilots such as this are not self-sustaining. A national justice reinvestment fund should be created, based on a business case for the long-term movement of resources from the criminal justice system to local areas. Funds previously allocated to building the three planned large accommodation prisons, and a significant proportion of the money which must be found annually to support the cost of the resulting new prison places, should be included in the new fund. Other government departments must also be encouraged to allocate resources to the fund. This fund should be used to provide central match funding to encourage partnerships develop plans to pool and align budgets and reduce the use of custody. It could also be used to support the use of social impact bonds. The fund could eventually become fully devolved as part of the local area grant once the pooling of resources for reducing re-offending is common practice.


359. There are some possible mechanisms to reduce the use of custody and free up resources with almost immediate effect. One example would be targeting those who are currently expensively—and unnecessarily—supervised by Youth Offending Teams and the Probation Service. Mike Thomas, Association of Youth Offending Team Managers, proposed the creation of teams to deal with cases on the cusp of the criminal justice system, questioning the need to criminalise individual young persons when their behaviour causes them to become known to the police or other agencies.[573] One of the initiatives established under the Howard League for Penal Reform and Local Government Association's 'Children in Trouble' project performs a similar function to this for young people entering custody for the first time. The 'custody panel', formed in Wessex in 2007, comprises representatives of the young offending team, children's services and the voluntary sector. It reviews each case in which young people receive a custodial sentence to see what action could have been taken to avoid the use of custody and uses the lessons to improve partnership practice. This approach has demonstrated success in reducing the use of custody in this area, which has fallen by 42%.[574] The value of multi-agency panels to review the cases of young people and adults on the threshold of the criminal justice system and at risk of custody should be highlighted in guidance issued to crime and disorder reduction partnerships.

360. A justice reinvestment approach could eventually pave the way for a two-tier system of managing offenders, including the transfer of responsibility for managing lower level offenders to local authorities. General Lord Ramsbotham noted:

    […] one of the great successes particularly of the youth justice board is the youth offender teams run by local government. Having talked to local government I would like to see that extended. The ones I have talked to are quite happy that there should be regional offender teams for adults, male and female, in each area alongside the youth offender teams. They would be responsible for the supervision of the lower grade offender in criminal terms, releasing the trained probation officers to concentrate on the higher end. At the moment the problem is that probation is so overwhelmed that it is not sure exactly what it is doing and is not able to do enough with either group. Its expertise is needed to guide the offender teams who could be part of the same structure.[575]

361. It is now 10 years since youth offending teams were established as a means of bringing together individuals from a variety of agencies with the appropriate professional expertise and resources that had failed to work together effectively despite a manifest need to deal with young offenders better. The evidence to this inquiry suggests that youth offending teams are now seen to some extent as 'other' and 'external' to those local agencies, and that there may be a need for action to refresh the concept of such teams as an interagency lead for effective intervention with young offenders. This approach has worked, and it is therefore important not to "reinvent the wheel" but to make sure it is in good repair and to ask whether a similar approach to offenders in the 18 to 25 age group might bring equal benefits and reductions in re-offending.

362. Local agencies must also work much harder to develop effective ways to deal with low level young and adult offenders outside the criminal justice system altogether rather than them unnecessarily absorbing the resources of Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) and the Probation Service. Lower risk offenders should ultimately become the responsibility of local authority and other mainstream agencies, enabling probation trusts and YOTs to concentrate on the core business of supervising serious, high risk and dangerous offenders.

Stage 4: Measuring the impact of justice reinvestment approaches

363. The final stage of the justice reinvestment process seeks to ensure that the new approaches have been implemented effectively, resulting in the desired savings and outcomes. Monitoring the effectiveness of these approaches therefore relies on:

  • appropriate performance measures including, for example, the amount of criminal justice expenditure saved or avoided, recidivism rates and the benefits to local communities;
  • appropriate monitoring systems to collate data across agencies on outcomes and the capacity of agencies to collect, record and monitor the data required;
  • the expertise to review how closely the actual impact corresponds to projections; and
  • commissioning arrangements to enable changes to be made to the delivery of services in the event that the policies are not having the desired effect.


364. The effectiveness of local partnerships in working together to deliver priorities in England will be assessed by the new Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA).[576] Zoë Billingham, of the Audit Commission, was confident that the CAA would support 'seamless delivery of outcomes' as partnerships would be assessed against all national indicators regardless of whether they had been adopted as local priorities.[577] In the context of youth justice, Frances Done, of the Youth Justice Board, agreed that there was capacity under the CAA to improve areas or partnerships which were under-performing.[578] An indicator for the proportionate use of custodial sentences for young people is included in the National Indicator Set for England. However, as we noted in chapter 4, no local strategic partnership has chosen to include this in its 35 improvement targets. Despite the intention that partnerships' progress will be measured against all indicators under the CAA, there is no central driver to ensure that the reduction of custody will be afforded the attention required to support justice reinvestment approaches.[579] There is no equivalent indicator for adults.

365. The lack of a national indicator to reduce the use of custody for adults, and the fact that the indicator for young people is not being used, represents a barrier to the reallocation of resources which underpins justice reinvestment. Local partnership work should have the reduction of the use of custody as its key goal, rather than simply crime reduction or the reduction of re-offending. Resources should be prioritised with that explicit aim in mind. We urge the Government to consider introducing an explicit indicator for adults related to reducing the use of custody in the next National Indicator Set. Areas which have been found to over-use custody in relation to the characteristics of those sentenced should then be encouraged to take up these indicators in the next negotiation of local area agreements.

366. The experiences of the West Yorkshire integrated offender management project suggested that it is difficult to evidence the effectiveness of complex partnership projects through a simple partnership performance framework. Nevertheless, developing appropriate performance frameworks are important for justice reinvestment to enable partnerships to share processes and tools for monitoring, and to highlight the outcomes of their investments; this information is a key factor in securing ongoing financial commitment from contributing partners.[580]

367. The Public Accounts Committee, in its report on crime and disorder reduction partnerships, examined their existing evaluation processes and noted that effective self-assessment depends on reliable data about the outcomes of projects run by each partnership. The Committee recommended that the Home Office should develop a simple evaluation methodology to be adopted for all larger projects and funding applications for larger schemes should demonstrate how that methodology would be used.[581]


368. We heard that more sophisticated monitoring may be required to understand the full benefits of justice reinvestment. Some witnesses argued that the current system for measuring outcomes does not take into account the true effects of the use of imprisonment on offenders, their families and communities. For example, New Economics Foundation (NEF) told us that measures for assessing policy interventions should take a longer-term view.[582] It further argued that considering the 'social return on investment' provided sentencers and policy-makers with "a more comprehensive and transparent framework for decision-making" and was consistent with the principles of justice reinvestment.

369. Witnesses were critical of the limitations of existing targets and monitored outcomes as measures to indicate the true effectiveness of the system and hence to determine the best allocation of resources. Eilís Lawlor, researcher at NEF, emphasised the importance of examining wider outcomes, explaining that the things that are measured are the things that are prioritised.[583] According to David Faulkner measures of the effectiveness of the system currently concentrate on efficiency, public confidence and public safety, not outcomes.[584] Napo agreed that existing targets do not concentrate enough on outcomes.[585] This is evident in the monitoring of starts and completions of offending behaviour programmes, educational courses or drug treatments rather than longer-term outcomes which would evidence a change in cognitive skills, securing employment or abstaining from drug use (see annex 1). On the other hand, there are obvious difficulties in measuring some outcomes once an offender is no longer in prison or on a community order, for example, the Learning and Skills Council cannot collect data on employment status once someone has left the criminal justice system.[586]

370. We were persuaded by the view of some of our witnesses that criminal justice-centred outcomes like reconviction are too narrow as a true measure of the effectiveness of the system. According to Ms Lawlor, the problem with relying on reducing re-offending as a measure is that it assumes people offend in isolation from the rest of the circumstances in their lives, and other outcomes must therefore also be measured.[587] She described some examples of these from nef research:

    The offenders that we have been concerned with in our research are non-violent offenders, and we are looking specifically at women, and they tend to be drug users, have mental health problems, have debts, live in poverty, and all of those things contribute to their offending behaviour. If we do not measure and value those things as they change, then we will not understand why people are succeeding and why they are improving their lives.[588]

371. The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health also observed that effectiveness in rehabilitation means improved health, housing and employment outcomes.[589] Assessments of the cost-benefits of approaches to reduce crime do not typically take into account the wider benefits which may accrue outside the criminal justice system, for example the reduction in benefit claims by unemployed offenders or costs in terms of unpaid tax contributions as a result of an income from crime.[590] The Government has acknowledged the need to examine how performance is measured across reducing re-offending pathways and to develop improved means of assessing costs and value for money. [591] Lessons could be learned from the National Treatment Agency which has introduced a more sophisticated approach to measuring the effectiveness of various drug treatment options in four key areas: drug and alcohol use, health, social functioning and offending.

372. Professor Cynthia McDougall proposed a cost-related outcome measure like the Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY)[592], which is used for health economics, but focused on public safety[593] i.e. the quality of life for communities. She explained how this could be achieved for criminal justice:

    One of the measures we should be looking at is the cost of offences saved, and if what you do saves offending, then you have a prediction, and we have got some very robust predictive measures of what the offending rate would be of those individuals, but if we then look at the offences we have saved and look at what it has cost to the community, what it has cost to victims as well as the criminal justice system, then you can work out in an objective fashion how much you are saving by this particular intervention.[594]

Developing something akin to a QALY to measure the relative cost-effectiveness of measures to reduce crime could take into account the quantity and frequency of re-offending and the associated costs, plus wider costs to society, victims and offenders' families.

373. Our attention was also drawn to the potential for calculating benefits which do not generate a direct financial return. NEF contended that criminal justice policy could benefit from a 'social return on investment' (SROI) perspective which looks at the costs and benefits of interventions more systematically i.e. to a range of stakeholders (not just the criminal justice system and victims) and over a longer-term.[595]

374. As the Government has acknowledged, there is a need for better mechanisms to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of partnership interventions at a local level. This would enable areas to build up a picture of what policies are most effective.

375. A broader set of outcomes—including the wider social costs of imprisonment to individual offenders and their families, and costs to communities—needs to be captured as a complement to existing measures, perhaps based on social return on investment methodologies. We are encouraged that the Office of the Third Sector has introduced such methodologies but we would like to see them being adopted more widely by Government. We owe it to victims and communities to recognise the wider social costs of crime and those of our responses to crime.


376. Eilís Lawlor, researcher at NEF, told us that "Our view is that the true costs of crime are incredibly prohibitive and that we have to find alternatives." [596] Ms Done suggested that even if only the costs of custody itself could be released a great deal of money could be reinvested.[597] Policy Exchange research supports the view that only small reductions in re-offending would be required to fund many effective schemes.[598]

377. If costs and benefits are measured systematically even small reductions in re-offending can have huge cost savings from community interventions. It would only be necessary to reduce re-offending by a fairly small margin to cover the costs of many community interventions. The 'risk' of investing in interventions for which there is less robust evidence, but strong indicative evidence, may therefore be less of a barrier to shifting resources than it seems.

380   Q 97 Back

381   Ev 236 Back

382   Q 427 Back

383   Op cit. para 1.5 Back

384   Ev 153  Back

385   Ev 183 Back

386   Ev 184 Back

387   Q 601 Back

388   Q 589 Back

389   Ev 288 Back

390   Ev 252 Back

391   Q 518 Back

392   Q 412 Back

393   Ev 288 Back

394   Ev 164 Back

395   Ev 163ff, 166ff,Ev 178ff [Howard League for Penal Reform, ICPS, LGA/Clinks]; Q 99, 103, 165[Mr Faulkner, Professor McGuire, Ms Barrett] Back

396   Q 433 Back

397   Q 140 Back

398   Justice for All, Cm 5563, July 2002, p 27 Back

399   Q 10 [Ms Gaul] Back

400   Q 235 [Ms Casey] Back

401   Q 182 Back

402   Engaging Communities in Fighting Crime, Cabinet Office, June 2008, p.3 Back

403   Q 251 Back

404   Qq 145, 173, 186, 210, 216, 318-322, 329 [Professor McDougall, Ms Lawlor, Ms Done, Ms Roy, Mr Thomas, Mr Hadjipavlou, Ms Greatley]; Ev 232ff, 234, 259ff, 269,288ff [Nacro, Napo, Prison Reform Trust, Rainer, Revolving Doors Agency, ] Back

405   Q 460 Back

406   Q 397 [Mr Gamble] Back

407   See for example Qq 400, 460 [Mr Stewart, Ms Crook] Back

408   Clinks press release, New coalition urges politicians to act for the most vulnerable, 29 September 2009 Back

409   Q 357 Back

410   Ev 288 [The Revolving Doors Agency];Q 460 [Mr Martin] Back

411   We heard an example of this approach from the New Directions Team, South West London and St. Georges Mental Health NHS Trust, which used flexible budgets to purchase the right mix of services to meet individual needs (e.g. accommodation) for very small numbers of people identified as falling through the gaps in mainstream provision
Ev 243 

412   Q 19 Back

413   The roles and responsibilities of the key partnerships and agencies which have some accountability for crime reduction at national, regional and local level have been set out in several different strategies including for example Working in Partnership to Make Communities Safer and the National Community Safety Plan 2008-11. Back

414   Department for Communities and Local Government, Strong and prosperous communities, vol 2, Cm 6939-II,
October 2006, p 6 

415   Local Government Association, Going straight: reducing re-offending in local communities, 2005, p.11 Back

416   Local strategic partnerships operate in over 100 of the most deprived wards in Wales. These manage funding under the Communities First programme to tackle deprivation and build community capacity. Community Safety Partnerships are required to undertake annual strategic assessments and devise three year partnership plans. Back

417   Q 24 Back

418   Q 278 Back

419   Q 203 Back

420   Q 199 Back

421   Q 15 Back

422   Q 580 [Mr Campbell] Back

423   Qq 432, 544 Back

424   Q 537 Back

425   Ev 196-7 Back

426   See London Criminal Justice Board Neighbourhood Pathways Project: Review of Data Analysis. Back

427   Q 549 Back

428   Q 543 Back

429   See for example Ev 232ff, 259ff, 288ff, 295ff [NACRO, Prison Reform Trust, Revolving Doors Agency, Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health]  Back

430   Ev 193-200 Back

431   For example, the Government's proposals outlined in Improving Health, Supporting Justice to tackle offender health and mental health were not "subject to a full cost and benefit assessment".  Back

432   Ministry of Justice , Strategic Plan for Reducing Re-offending 2008-11, Working in Partnership to Reduce Re-offending and Make Communities Safer: A Consultation,2008 Back

433   While 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

434   "Texas seeks to break prison recidivism rates", The New York Times, 23 November 2007,  Back

435   New Local Government Network, The Local Journey to Work, February 2008 Back

436   HM Government, National Community Safety Plan, 2008-2011, 2008 Back

437   Home Office, Developing a strategic assessment: an effective practice toolkit for crime and disorder reduction partnerships and community safety partnerships, October 2007, p 18 Back

438   Q 283 Back

439   Q 197 Back

440   Ev 155 Back

441   Q 335 Back

442   Ev 155 Back

443 Back

444   Shepherd, S. Effective NHS contributions to violence prevention: the Cardiff model, October 2007. A similar approach was used to reduce incidents of criminal damage, see Q 290. Back

445   Qq 3-5 Back

446   Q 103  Back

447   Qq 71-2  Back

448   Q 363 [Mr Porée]. The Offender Assessment System (OASys) is only completed where offenders are held in custody for longer than 12 months  Back

449   Ev 307 Back

450   Q 29 Back

451   Q 5 Back

452   Q 216 [Mr Thomas] Back

453   Ev 154 Back

454   Ev 155 Back

455   Q 285 [Mr James]. See also Gardner, S. Creating cross-cutting opportunities in Birmingham's neighbourhoods, Birmingham Community Safety Partnership, presentation at the National Crime Mapping Conference 2008. Back

456   Q 11 Back

457   Ev 276 Back

458   Ev 155  Back

459   Ev 169 Back

460   "Probation 'super centre' review", BBC News online, 14 May 2009 Back

461   Q 215 Back

462   Q 416 [Mr Rickard]; Q 275 [Mr Hill]; Ev 173-178 [Leicester City Council] Back

463   Q 205 Back

464   "The YJB and Frances Done one year on", Children and Young People Now, 29 January 2009. See also Ev 321-322 Back

465   Ev 161 Back

466   See, Home Office RDS Directorate, Modelling crime reduction for the Home Office's strategic plan: economic and resource analysis, 2004 and Home Office RDS Directorate, Investigating links between probation enforcement and reconviction, 2003 Back

467   SP OR 20 September 2007, col 2002 Back

468   Ev 148ff Back

469   Ev 148 Back

470   Q 150, 334, 555 [Ms Barrett, Professor Shepherd, Mr Scott] Back

471   Q 150 Back

472   NICE is tasked with looking at particular drugs and devices when the availability of the drug or device varies across the country (because of different local prescribing or funding policies or confusion or uncertainty over their value). NICE uses clinical evidence to assess how well the medicine or treatment works and economic evidence to assess how well the medicine or treatment work in relation to how much it costs and whether it represents value-for-money. NICE guidance aims to end uncertainty and standardise access to healthcare across the country. The NHS is legally obliged to fund and resource medicines and treatments recommended by NICE. Back

473   Qq 95-6 Back

474   Qq 119-121 Back

475   Ev 162 Back

476   Q 335 Back

477   For example, see Q 466 [Mr Martin]; Ev 269-270 [Rainer] Back

478   Q 110 Back

479   Q 107 Back

480   Q 137 Back

481   Q 36 Back

482   Ibid. Back

483   Q 134. See also Q 121. Back

484   Q 465 Back

485   Qq 66, 69  Back

486   Q 66 Back

487   Ministry of Justice, Government response to the Justice Select Committee's Report: "Sentencing guidelines and Parliament: building a bridge", Cm 7716, September 2009  Back

488   Oral evidence taken before the Committee of Public Accounts on 23 April 2008, HC (2007-08) 508-i, Q 7 [Sir Suma Chakrabarti]  Back

489   Q 102 Back

490   Qq 65, 76  Back

491   Q 113 Back

492   Q 84  Back

493   Q 602 Back

494   Q 101 Back

495   Q 334 See also Shepherd, J. "The production and management of evidence for public service reform", Evidence and Policy vol. 3, no.2, 2007, pp231-251. Back

496   Q 446 Back

497   Ev 150. For example, Durham probation has developed shorter but more streamlined interventions and a citizenship programme, which encourages more integration with community support agencies. Back

498 Back

499   Q 517 Back

500   Matt K, see Annex 4. Back

501   Q 36 Back

502   Q 278; See also Qq 211, 429 [Mr Thomas, Mr Tidball]  Back

503   Q 166. At the time of the Woolf report, achieving a prison population of 40,000 would have required reducing the population by one-third. Back

504   Ev 253 Back

505   Q 37 Back

506   Q 210 Back

507   Q 199, [Ms Done], Ev 288ff [Revolving Doors Agency]  Back

508   Q 517 Back

509   Qq 587-588 Back

510   Q 600 Back

511   Ev 288 Back

512   Q 34 Back

513   Q 46 Back

514   Q 57 Back

515   Q 516 Back

516   Q 484 Back

517   Aos, S. et al, Evidence-based public policy pptions to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates, Washington State, June 2006. Back

518   Statement by Secretary Roger Werholtz, Kansas Department of Corrections to the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, U.S. House of Representatives, April 1, 2009. The prison population shrank by 2.5%; breach of parole fell by 48%; and, post-release reconviction rates reduced by 35%.  Back

519   Department for Communities and Local Government, Strong and Prosperous Communities, Vol II, Cm 6939-II, 2006 Back

520   For example the Home Office funding for the Stronger Safer Communities and Young People's Substance Misuse programmes are now directed through the area-based grant  Back

521   Q 22  Back

522   Q 454  Back

523   Q 464 Back

524   Q 580 Back

525   Qq 320-321 Back

526   Q 313 Back

527   Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, section 116 Back

528   Ev 164 Back

529   Qq 357-358 Back

530   See Q 351 and Ev 300-304 Back

531   National Offender Management Service, The National Commissioning and Partnerships Framework 2008-09, February 2008 Back

532   Ev 263 Back

533   Q 594 Back

534   Ev 181  Back

535   Q 350 Back

536   See for example Ev165-166, 180, 251, 261-262, 290, 308ff [Howard League for Penal Reform, LGA/Clinks, Partnerships in Care, Prison Reform Trust, Revolving Doors Agency, Youth Justice Board] Q 528 Jonathan Aitken  Back

537   Q 210 Back

538   Qq 412, 530 [Mr Gamble, Mr Aitken] Back

539   Ev 180 Back

540   Ev 169 Back

541   Ev 309-310  Back

542   Q 223 Back

543   Q 180 Back

544   Policy Exchange, Less Crime, Lower Costs: : Implementing effective early crime reduction programmes in England and Wales, May 2009  Back

545   See Local Government Information Unit, Getting to the Heart of Local Accountability, 2008; New Local Government Network, Your police or mine? Delivering local police leadership, November 2007 Back

546   Policy Exchange, Less Crime, Lower Costs: Implementing effective early crime reduction programmes in England and Wales, May 2009, p 12  Back

547   Q 454ff; See also All Party Parliamentary Local Government Group report Primary Justice: an inquiry into justice in local communities, July 2009 Back

548   Q 204  Back

549   Ev 319 Back

550   Howard League for Penal Reform, To devolve or not to devolve?, London, 2009; Policy Exchange, Arrested Development: reducing the number of young people in custody while reducing crime, July 2009; Standing Committee for Youth Justice, Funding of custody for children: devolving the budget, July 2009; Ev 310 [YJB] Back

551   Q 465 Back

552   Q 218 Back

553   Q 217 Back

554   Q 49 Back

555   Q 596 Back

556   Ev 233; See also Qq 206, 230 [Ms Done, Mr Reitemeir] Back

557   Q 432 Back

558   Q 356 Back

559   Q 277 Back

560   Q 278 Back

561   Qq 527-529 [Mr Aitken] Back

562   Ev 180 Back

563   Local Government Association, Going Straight, 2006 Back

564   Young Foundation, Escape from the Titanic, 2007  Back

565   Q 273 Back

566   Q 468 Back

567   Social Finance, Social Impact Bonds: Rethinking finance for social outcomes, August 2009; Murray, R. et al, Social Venturing, July 2009 Back

568   Minister confirms new deal for communities funding, Communities and Neighbourhoods Press Release, 1 July 2008 Back

569   Qq 409, 410 [Mr Stewart, Mr Gamble] Back

570   Policy Exchange, Less Crime, Lower Costs: implementing effective early crime reduction programmes in England and Wales, May 2009 Back

571   Qq 347-358 [Mr Kramer, Mr Rinaldi, Ms Hennessy]. See also Back

572   Q 353 Back

573   Q 224  Back

574   Howard League for Penal Reform, Custody panels: Impact of a pilot scheme on juvenile sentencing rates, 2009 Back

575   Q 476 Back

576   The Assessment was developed, and is being delivered, jointly by the main public sector inspectorates: the Audit Commission, the Care Quality Commission, HM Inspectorates of Constabulary, Prisons and Probation and Ofsted. Back

577   Q 266 Back

578   Q 203 Back

579   For example, the focus of targets in the Children's Plan is on reducing the number of young people entering the youth justice system and getting convictions, rather than reducing the use of custody. Furthermore the Youth Justice Board has now dropped its target for reducing the number of entrants to custody.  Back

580   Ev 306 Back

581   Public Accounts Committee, Twenty-third report of Session 2004-05, Reducing crime: the Home Office working with Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, HC 147. Back

582   Ev 246  Back

583   Q 168 Back

584   Ev 151 Back

585   Ev 236-239 Back

586   Q 388 Back

587   Qq 172-174 Back

588   Q 173 Back

589   Ev 295 Back

590   For example, the King's Fund commissioned a review to estimate mental health expenditure in England to 2026 and found that many people with mental disorders are either not in contact with services or are in contact but not receiving any treatment. The review suggested that net savings are likely to occur if treatment is given to those currently not receiving treatment as reductions in lost employment costs (estimated to be £26.1bn) should outweigh treatment costs. See The King's Fund, Paying the Price: the cost of mental health care in England to 2026, May 2008 Back

591   Ministry of Justice. Strategic Plan for Reducing Re-offending 2008-11. Working in partnership to reduce re-offending and make communities safer: a consultation, 2008 Back

592   QALY is a year of life adjusted for its value to provide an indication of the benefits gained from a variety of medical procedures. This enables the relative benefits of spending choices to be made explicit.  Back

593   Q 155 Back

594   Q 148 Back

595   Q 166 Back

596   Ibid. Back

597   Q 199 Back

598   Policy Exchange, Arrested Development: reducing the number of young people in custody while reducing crime, July 2009. The report cites figures from the National Audit Office which has estimated that if one in ten young offenders could be prevented from going to prison £100 million would be saved in terms of reduced crime. This is four times the annual central budget provided to youth offending teams for crime prevention. Back

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 14 January 2010