6 BLUEPRINT FOR THE FUTURE:
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 custodybut 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."
227. Napo advocated taking a long-term view of crime
reduction to tackle the range of factors which are known to contribute
to crime levelsincluding poor housing, unemployment, drugs
and alcohol dependencies, low levels of literacy and numeracycoupled
with transparency in sentencing and a sentencing framework which
underpins this strategy.
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.
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).
As David Faulkner cautioned, no-one is likely to welcome further
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
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
DEVOLUTION OF FUNDING
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.
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.
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."
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".
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.
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.
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".
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'.
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.
The Howard League for Penal Reform drew our attention to barriers
to justice reinvestment in a report by the International Centre
for Prison Studies.
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.
LOCALISED APPROACHES WHICH BENEFIT
VICTIMS AND COMMUNITIES
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.
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.
Professor Cynthia McDougall agreed that spending more money on
schemes to reduce crime at this level will have most impact on
Localised models are more responsive to local needs.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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".
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".
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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. Others agreed
that there was scope for targeting resources on particular individuals,
in contact with the criminal justice system, in this way.
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.
REGIONAL AND LOCAL STRUCTURES TO
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
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).
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." 
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.
Structures in Wales are not prohibitively different.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
INTEGRATED OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
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).
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
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.
253. Clinks director, Clive Martin, pointed out that
local criminal justice boards (LCJBs) may only facilitate the
reinvestment of resources between criminal justice agencies.
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
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.
BUILDING ON EXISTING INITIATIVES
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.
The Ministry of Justice argued that its thematic work on
addressing the underlying causes of offending was consistent with
the principles of justice reinvestment.
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.
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
- 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.
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 mappingusing 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
- 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
- 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.
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.
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
- the existence of costs data on current service
provision to offenders in a particular locality both within, and
external to, the criminal justice system.
STRENGTHENING THE METHODOLOGY FOR
LOCAL STRATEGIC PLANNING
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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,
which would better support justice mapping and the estimation
of costs. NOMS plans to expand needs assessment to all offenders
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.
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.
THE VALUE OF JUSTICE MAPPING
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 communityi.e.
offenders are concentrated in particular wards and these show
a very strong correlation with indices of deprivation.
This also holds true in rural areas.
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.
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.
He emphasised the distinction between the use of justice mapping
to drive activity and its use simply to record a problem.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
HEALTHCARE EXPERIENCE OF LINKING
POLICY AND 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.
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
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.
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.
The aim of NICE is to reduce expenditure on treatments or therapies
that are not effective.
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.
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.
The Chief Inspector of Probation, Andrew Bridges, believed that
important differences meant that the analogy with health should
not be taken too far.
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.
THE QUALITY OF RESEARCH EVIDENCE
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
295. Several witnesses argued that there is a growing
body of evidence on how best to reduce re-offending.
Mr Faulkner agreed that external research is providing pointers
for policy but is not being brought into the Government's approach.
Professor McGuire explained that there is potential for very large
returns on investment through good interventions based on US evidence.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
She explained that better evidence exists on some interventions;
for example, offending behaviour programmes, drug treatment and
good family ties.
The Government's response to our report Sentencing guidelines
and Parliament: building a bridge sets out the Ministry's
current programme of research.
APPLYING THE EVIDENCE TO REDUCE
THE EXPANSION OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
299. Notwithstanding limitations in international
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.
STRENGTHENING THE EVIDENCE BASE
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
BUILDING CAPACITY FOR POLICY-MAKERS
TO USE EVIDENCE
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,
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.
SHIFTING RESOURCES TO FACILITATE
REINVESTMENT AT NATIONAL 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
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."
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".
We discuss the quality of the evidence for alternative policies
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.
Ms Lyon reminded us that former Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf
recommended that the prison population could be safely capped
at 40,000. 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Alan Campbell MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home
Office, argued that there were already mechanisms to move resources
between central departments where appropriate.
For this reason he did not accept that a 'seismic shift' in resources
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. 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."
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."
He also conceded that it makes sense to build into the system
an acknowledgement that resources are restrained.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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."
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
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.
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.
He conceded that this required more thought on the part of Government
] 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
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.
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
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.
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.
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. 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.
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."
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
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.
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".
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
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'. 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.
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
DEVOLUTION OF FUNDING TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES
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.
The LGA and Clinks agreed that justice reinvestment could
address local concerns by giving local authorities the budget
and management responsibility for criminal justice.
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.
340. The Youth Justice Board expressed interest in
means of exploring financial as well as performance-related rewards
for reducing the use of custody.
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.
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.
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.
Similar disparities exist in relation to the use of custody for
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
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
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.
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.
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.
The pros and cons of such an approach have been the subject of
several recent reports;
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
CREATING FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR
347. Several witnesses, including Nacro argued that
there must be financial as well as performance incentives to reduce
the use of custody.
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.
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".
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.
He proposed establishing pilots of various different
mechanisms for the reallocation of resources.
Jonathan Aitken also proposed testing reinvestment through pilot
schemes and called for a national model which could be rolled
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. 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.
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.
Rushanara Ali, from the Young Foundation, explained this could
empower communities to change their local circumstances.
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.
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.
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 problemswarrants
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
NEW LOCAL STRUCTURES
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
expensivelyand unnecessarilysupervised 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
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%.
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
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
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.
EXISTING PERFORMANCE MEASURES
364. The effectiveness of local partnerships in working
together to deliver priorities in England will be assessed by
the new Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA).
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
MORE SOPHISTICATED MEASURES TO ASSESS
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.
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
According to David Faulkner measures of the effectiveness of the
system currently concentrate on efficiency, public confidence
and public safety, not outcomes.
Napo agreed that existing targets do not concentrate enough
on outcomes. 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.
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.
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.
371. The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health also
observed that effectiveness in rehabilitation means improved health,
housing and employment outcomes.
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.
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. 
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),
which is used for health economics, but focused on public safety
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
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
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.
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 outcomesincluding
the wider social costs of imprisonment to individual offenders
and their families, and costs to communitiesneeds 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.
FINANCING ALTERNATIVE SCHEMES
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."
 Ms Done
suggested that even if only the costs of custody itself could
be released a great deal of money could be reinvested.
Policy Exchange research supports the view that only small reductions
in re-offending would be required to fund many effective schemes.
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
Ev 236 Back
Q 427 Back
Op cit. para 1.5 Back
Ev 153 Back
Ev 183 Back
Ev 184 Back
Q 601 Back
Q 589 Back
Ev 288 Back
Ev 252 Back
Q 518 Back
Q 412 Back
Ev 288 Back
Ev 164 Back
Ev 163ff, 166ff,Ev 178ff [Howard League for Penal Reform, ICPS,
LGA/Clinks]; Q 99, 103, 165[Mr Faulkner, Professor McGuire, Ms
Q 433 Back
Q 140 Back
Justice for All, Cm 5563, July 2002, p 27 Back
Q 10 [Ms Gaul] Back
Q 235 [Ms Casey] Back
Q 182 Back
Engaging Communities in Fighting Crime, Cabinet Office, June 2008,
Q 251 Back
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
Q 460 Back
Q 397 [Mr Gamble] Back
See for example Qq 400, 460 [Mr Stewart, Ms Crook] Back
Clinks press release, New coalition urges politicians to act for
the most vulnerable, 29 September 2009 Back
Q 357 Back
Ev 288 [The Revolving Doors Agency];Q 460 [Mr Martin] Back
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
Ev 243 Back
Q 19 Back
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
Department for Communities and Local Government, Strong and
prosperous communities, vol 2, Cm 6939-II,
October 2006, p 6 Back
Local Government Association, Going straight: reducing re-offending
in local communities, 2005, p.11 Back
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
Q 24 Back
Q 278 Back
Q 203 Back
Q 199 Back
Q 15 Back
Q 580 [Mr Campbell] Back
Qq 432, 544 Back
Q 537 Back
Ev 196-7 Back
See London Criminal Justice Board Neighbourhood Pathways Project:
Review of Data Analysis. www.lcjb.cjsonline.gov.uk/London/home.html Back
Q 549 Back
Q 543 Back
See for example Ev 232ff, 259ff, 288ff, 295ff [NACRO, Prison Reform
Trust, Revolving Doors Agency, Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health]
Ev 193-200 Back
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".
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
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
"Texas seeks to break prison recidivism rates", The
New York Times, 23 November 2007, www.nytimes.com
New Local Government Network, The Local Journey to Work,
February 2008 Back
HM Government, National Community Safety Plan, 2008-2011,
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
Q 283 Back
Q 197 Back
Ev 155 Back
Q 335 Back
Ev 155 Back
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
Qq 3-5 Back
Q 103 Back
Qq 71-2 Back
Q 363 [Mr Porée]. The Offender Assessment System (OASys)
is only completed where offenders are held in custody for longer
than 12 months Back
Ev 307 Back
Q 29 Back
Q 5 Back
Q 216 [Mr Thomas] Back
Ev 154 Back
Ev 155 Back
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. http://www.cscs.ucl.ac.uk Back
Q 11 Back
Ev 276 Back
Ev 155 Back
Ev 169 Back
"Probation 'super centre' review", BBC News online,
14 May 2009 Back
Q 215 Back
Q 416 [Mr Rickard]; Q 275 [Mr Hill]; Ev 173-178 [Leicester City
Q 205 Back
"The YJB and Frances Done one year on", Children
and Young People Now, 29 January 2009. See also Ev 321-322 Back
Ev 161 Back
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
SP OR 20 September 2007, col 2002 Back
Ev 148ff Back
Ev 148 Back
Q 150, 334, 555 [Ms Barrett, Professor Shepherd, Mr Scott] Back
Q 150 Back
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
Qq 95-6 Back
Qq 119-121 Back
Ev 162 Back
Q 335 Back
For example, see Q 466 [Mr Martin]; Ev 269-270 [Rainer] Back
Q 110 Back
Q 107 Back
Q 137 Back
Q 36 Back
Q 134. See also Q 121. Back
Q 465 Back
Qq 66, 69 Back
Q 66 Back
Ministry of Justice, Government response to the Justice Select
Committee's Report: "Sentencing guidelines and Parliament:
building a bridge", Cm 7716, September 2009 Back
Oral evidence taken before the Committee of Public Accounts on
23 April 2008, HC (2007-08) 508-i, Q 7 [Sir Suma Chakrabarti]
Q 102 Back
Qq 65, 76 Back
Q 113 Back
Q 84 Back
Q 602 Back
Q 101 Back
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
Q 446 Back
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
Q 517 Back
Matt K, see Annex 4. Back
Q 36 Back
Q 278; See also Qq 211, 429 [Mr Thomas, Mr Tidball] Back
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
Ev 253 Back
Q 37 Back
Q 210 Back
Q 199, [Ms Done], Ev 288ff [Revolving Doors Agency] Back
Q 517 Back
Qq 587-588 Back
Q 600 Back
Ev 288 Back
Q 34 Back
Q 46 Back
Q 57 Back
Q 516 Back
Q 484 Back
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
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
Department for Communities and Local Government, Strong and
Prosperous Communities, Vol II, Cm 6939-II, 2006 Back
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 http://www.communities.gov.uk
Q 22 Back
Q 454 Back
Q 464 Back
Q 580 Back
Qq 320-321 Back
Q 313 Back
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, section
Ev 164 Back
Qq 357-358 Back
See Q 351 and Ev 300-304 Back
National Offender Management Service, The National Commissioning
and Partnerships Framework 2008-09, February 2008 Back
Ev 263 Back
Q 594 Back
Ev 181 Back
Q 350 Back
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
Q 210 Back
Qq 412, 530 [Mr Gamble, Mr Aitken] Back
Ev 180 Back
Ev 169 Back
Ev 309-310 Back
Q 223 Back
Q 180 Back
Policy Exchange, Less Crime, Lower Costs: : Implementing effective
early crime reduction programmes in England and Wales, May 2009
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
Policy Exchange, Less Crime, Lower Costs: Implementing effective
early crime reduction programmes in England and Wales, May 2009,
p 12 Back
Q 454ff; See also All Party Parliamentary Local Government Group
report Primary Justice: an inquiry into justice in local communities,
July 2009 Back
Q 204 Back
Ev 319 Back
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
Q 465 Back
Q 218 Back
Q 217 Back
Q 49 Back
Q 596 Back
Ev 233; See also Qq 206, 230 [Ms Done, Mr Reitemeir] Back
Q 432 Back
Q 356 Back
Q 277 Back
Q 278 Back
Qq 527-529 [Mr Aitken] Back
Ev 180 Back
Local Government Association, Going Straight, 2006 Back
Young Foundation, Escape from the Titanic, 2007 Back
Q 273 Back
Q 468 Back
Social Finance, Social Impact Bonds: Rethinking finance for social
outcomes, August 2009; Murray, R. et al, Social Venturing, July
Minister confirms new deal for communities funding, Communities
and Neighbourhoods Press Release, 1 July 2008 Back
Qq 409, 410 [Mr Stewart, Mr Gamble] Back
Policy Exchange, Less Crime, Lower Costs: implementing effective
early crime reduction programmes in England and Wales, May 2009 Back
Qq 347-358 [Mr Kramer, Mr Rinaldi, Ms Hennessy]. See also http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/social_exclusion_task_force/adults.aspx Back
Q 353 Back
Q 224 Back
Howard League for Penal Reform, Custody panels: Impact of a pilot
scheme on juvenile sentencing rates, 2009 Back
Q 476 Back
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
Q 266 Back
Q 203 Back
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
Ev 306 Back
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
Ev 246 Back
Q 168 Back
Ev 151 Back
Ev 236-239 Back
Q 388 Back
Qq 172-174 Back
Q 173 Back
Ev 295 Back
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
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
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.
Q 155 Back
Q 148 Back
Q 166 Back
Q 199 Back
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