Memorandum submitted by the Probation
Boards' Association
1. The Probation Boards' Association is
the national employers' organisation for the probation service,
representing the 42 local probation boards who are responsible
for the provision of probation services in their areas. We are
pleased to make a submission to this important inquiry.
2. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
— There is tentative research evidence
to support the view that community sentences are more effective
than custody in reducing reoffending. — Further research
is under way and the Probation Boards' Association would recommend
that no decisions are reached about prison building programmes
until this work is completed.
— Probation Boards face resource pressures
but have the potential to deliver effective outcomes in terms
of reduced reoffending.
— We advocate research which models
the impact on reoffending of shifts in sentencing from custody
to community options and of different levels of investment in
the probation service.
— Probation Trusts will have the potential
to make a significant difference to reoffending patterns if they
are granted the freedoms to be entrepreneurial and innovative.
3. EVIDENCE
The most up-to-date evidence about the effectiveness
of sentencing is to be found in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin
Re-offending of adults: results from the 2004 cohort. This
shows that reoffending rates are falling overall (by 6.9% between
1997 and 2004) and that there is "interesting but not definitive"
evidence that community based supervision is overall as, or more
effective than, imprisonment at reducing reoffending (with variations
related to the type of supervision). However, as the Bulletin
emphasises, establishing a cause and effect relationship between
different court disposals and changes in reoffending rates is
fraught with difficulties because of the complexity of the subject.
The Home Office is undertaking further research on this issue
but it will be some time before the results are available. The
Home Office report on the 2006 cohort appears likely to be available
in mid-2008. Thus, while research limitations will still apply
this report will help refine our knowledge of what works.
4. Some more recent work by NOMS has shown encouraging
results in relation to selected accredited programmes of supervision.
In November 2007 the Probation Boards' Association reported on
the national resource position for the 42 Probation Boards in
England and Wales. The overall picture was of Boards in moderate
to severe financial difficulty with a widening gap between demand
(workload) and resources (money and therefore staff). While some
were still able to bridge the resource gap, others were in difficulties.
36% of Boards reported a substantially increased workload being
managed with a decreasing employee establishment; the need for
redundancies over the next two to three years was forecast by
31%. Most Boards considered 2008-09 and 2009-10 would be very
tough financially. A summary of the report is available on the
Association's website www.probationboards.co.uk
5. Since that report was published additional
funding has been promised. This is welcome but it does not represent
major investment in probation and resources will continue to need
to be very carefully managed. The Probation Boards' Association
would therefore urge caution in committing scarce public funds
to prison building until more definitive research evidence is
available. The tentative indications are of the relative effectiveness
of community supervision in reducing reoffending. While sentencing
obviously has other aims, including punishment and public protection,
we consider that, in making policy decisions, a rounded view should
be taken that encompasses issues of relative cost and the long-term
effects on offending patterns. Sentencing should be set in a policy
context that gives due weight to these issues. We would in particular
advocate research which modelled the impact on reoffending of
shifts in sentencing from custody to community options and of
different levels of investment in the probation service.
6. The implementation of the Offender Management
Act 2007, and in particular the creation of probation Trusts,
will create opportunities for imaginative and entrepreneurial
ways to address offending at local level. Trusts should be given
maximum freedom to develop innovative, cost-effective arrangements
that make best use of scarce resources and maximum use of partnership
and commissioning at local level. The Association advocates freeing
Trusts from all but the most essential regulatory constraints
so that they can focus resources on efficient ways of achieving
outcomes.
Christine Lawrie
Chief Executive
February 2008
| 
