Written evidence from the Criminal Justice
Alliance (PB 40)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Criminal Justice Alliance (CJA) is pleased to
have the opportunity to submit evidence to this Inquiry. This
submission briefly considers those questions posed by the Committee
on which we have a view. In particular, the CJA welcomes the Committee's
recognition of the needs of particular groups within the probation
services' caseload in setting its terms of reference, and this
response looks at what more could be done to meet the needs of
women, young adults, offenders with addictions, and mentally disordered
offenders.
ABOUT THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
ALLIANCE
The CJA is a coalition of 48 organisations - including
campaigning charities, voluntary sector service providers, research
institutions, staff associations and trade unions - involved in
policy and practice across the criminal justice system.[14]
The CJA works to establish a fairer and more effective criminal
justice system.
SUBMISSION OF
EVIDENCE
Background
1. During the last decade, the provision of probation
in England and Wales has undergone three major restructures, with
the creation of a National Probation Service (NPS) in 2001, the
creation of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) in
2004 and the significant restructuring of NOMS in 2008. NOMS has
also been subject to a number of further restructures that have
affected probation services, while the creation of probation trusts
has consumed considerable resources as areas prepared for trust
status. This will clearly have had an impact on the work of the
probation service, and the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies
(CCJS) has concluded that "since the creation of the NPS,
there has been almost constant change, to the point of disruption
at times, in the work of supervising offenders."[15]
2. As a result of these reorganisations, it is
difficult to measure accurately changes in expenditure on the
probation service, but Jack Straw, the then Justice Secretary,
claimed in February 2009 that there had been a 70% real terms
increase in probation budgets in the preceding 12 years[16]
and the CCJS has concluded that "spending in local probation
areas has increased over 60% in real terms over the last ten years.
Were central probation spending to be taken into account (by the
National Probation Directorate and then by NOMS), this increase
would have been considerably more. However, it is important to
note that the pace of this increase has significantly slowed since
2005-06".[17]
3. However, during this time the number of people
under probation supervision has also grown significantly, with
the CCJS adding that, despite an overall increase in expenditure
greater in percentage terms than the population increase, "for
probation, the trend of increased operational and frontline staffing
clearly ended in 2006. As a result, recent years have seen a reduction
in staff working directly with those subject to probation supervision
at a time when the caseload continued to grow."[18]
4. It is important that the structural changes
that the probation service has undergone and its growing caseload
are taken into account when considering the work of the probation
service and in the recommendations of this Inquiry.
Are magistrates and judges able to utilise fully
the requirements that can be attached to community sentences?
How effectively are these requirements being delivered?
5. There are concerns about the operation of
the Community Order (CO) and the Suspended Sentence Order (SSO)
that suggest that they could be doing more to rehabilitate offenders.
6. In particular, some of the potential requirements
of the Orders appear not to be available in some areas and some
sentencers may not know what is available in their area, with
an evaluation of sentencers' views concluding that "there
was a clear lack of knowledge about the availability of requirements;
and all requirements were not available in each area".[19]
A survey of probation staff also discovered concern about the
limited availability of some requirements, in particular the alcohol
and mental health treatment requirements,[20]
while probation officers have also reported that there are issues
related to the monitoring of prohibited activity and exclusion
requirements, which they consider to be unenforceable.[21]
7. Evidence to the Fawcett Society's Commission
on Women and the Criminal Justice System also suggested that magistrates
thought that they were well informed about the range of COs but
that there were limitations in the information about the services
which were actually available in their local area.[22]
One magistrate suggested to Fawcett's Commission that the issue
is resourcing and the availability of programmes, saying: "I
think there is plenty of information regarding COs, it's just
a pity the money doesn't seem to be there in order for them to
be carried out effectively ... Personally I don't feel at present
that many of these orders actually work."
[23]
8. Possibly as a result of these factors, some
requirements are rarely used by sentencers. For example, despite
the fact that at least 40% of offenders on COs are thought to
have a diagnosable mental health problem, only 686 Mental Health
Treatment Requirements (MHTRs) commenced in the year to 30 June
2008 out of a total of 221,700 requirements issued with COs across
the country.[24]
In 2006, only 725 of the 203,323 requirements commenced under
COs were MHTRs and only 164 of the 60,185 requirements commenced
under SSOs were MHTRs.[25]
9. It is essential for effective rehabilitation
that all the requirements for the CO and the SSO are available
in every area, that the probation service has sufficient funding
and support to provide robust community sentences, and that sentencers
are aware of what provision is available in their local area (with
the probation service playing a central role in providing sentencers
with information) and have confidence in it. Evidence suggests
that this is not currently the case, and addressing this should
be a priority. However, while it is essential that the most appropriate
requirements are available, that is not to say that sentencers
should be encouraged to "overload" offenders with multiple
requirements on every order, which would simply make breach more
likely.
Does the probation service have the capacity to
cope with a move away from short custodial sentences?
10. The CJA strongly endorses the use of community
sentences as preferable to custodial sentences where an offender
does not pose a threat to public safety. However, we recognise
the need to ensure that demands placed on the probation service
are matched by appropriate new resources. Given the current financial
climate, this is likely to require savings to be made elsewhere.
11. While reductions in the use of short prison
sentences will not lead to straightforward cashable savings, the
Ministry of Justice must look to fund increased spending on probation
services by making savings in the prison system's costs. This
will require a substantial and sustained reduction in the prison
population, which will in turn require more fundamental reform
of the use of prison than solely reducing the use of short custodial
sentences. A package of reforms to significantly reduce the use
of prison and shorten prison sentences would allow for an end
to the current prison-building programme and, in time, would enable
current prisons to close. This would free up significant resources
to spend on providing sufficient capacity in the community.
12. This model of "justice reinvestment"
was explored extensively in a previous Justice Committee inquiry.[26]
The CJA strongly endorses the recommendations of that inquiry,
and encourages the Committee to continue to urge the Government
to implement its recommendations.
Could probation trusts make more use of restorative
justice?
13. At present the availability of restorative
justice is extremely limited. The CJA supports introducing restorative
justice across the criminal justice system, which would reduce
reoffending and improve the experiences of those victims who choose
to take advantage of this approach. All victims and offenders
should have access to good quality restorative services. In particular,
the Government should prioritise the introduction of widespread
use of pre-sentence restorative justice for adult offenders, which
Ministry of Justice research has demonstrated could reduce the
frequency of reoffending by 27% following serious crimes,[27]
while post-sentence restorative justice should also be offered.
The probation service should play an active role in ensuring that
restorative justice is available wherever the offender and the
victim want it, working closely with the other relevant agencies.
Does the probation service handle different groups
of offenders appropriately, eg women, young adults, black and
minority ethnic people, and high and medium risk offenders?
14. Research by the CJA's members has demonstrated
problems with the use of community sentences for different groups
of offenders.
Women
15. It is widely-recognised that women who offend
have distinct needs and distinct offending behaviour. As research
for the Fawcett Society concluded, "it is clear that women
offenders' needs tend to be complex and interlinked, often encompassing
problems with health, childcare, finances, housing, education,
training and employment and experience of victimisation, and thus
presenting a challenge to existing agency boundaries, both local
and national."[28]
16. Yet the existing evidence does not suggest
that community sentences are sufficiently tailored to meet these
needs, despite the flexibility offered by the 12 "requirements"
available as part of the CO and the SSO. Research by the CCJS
on the use of these sentences for women has suggested that "while
[these] orders offer courts and the Probation Service the opportunity
to make sentences that are more innovative and responsive to the
circumstances of offenders, and so potentially more effective,
there is limited evidence that this is happening in practice".[29]
17. There is also concern that the probation
service's focus on high-risk offenders results in women offenders,
who tend to pose lower levels of risk, receiving limited attention
and support. Where women do pose a higher level of risk, they
may be placed on mixed-sex programmes or on programmes far from
home, both of which discourage compliance.
18. Investment in credible and appropriate alternatives
to custody for women is essential. Programmes need to be developed
in the community which are specifically designed for female offenders
and specifically address their needs, while women-only programmes
should also be provided. As well as reducing reoffending, community
sentences designed specifically for women would also help to reduce
the rate of breach, as they would better fit with women's needs
and responsibilities. The establishment of the Together Women
Programme and the subsequent Ministry of Justice funding for women's
centres were a positive step forward in this regard, and must
be maintained.
19. In addition to developing more women-specific
provision, the Fawcett Society's Commission on Women and the Criminal
Justice System has proposed that the specified activity requirement
could be used to refer women to voluntary sector organisations
for specified programmes or requirements can be used to ensure
women receive drug or mental health treatment.[30]
This should be considered.
Mentally disordered offenders
20. As mentioned previously, there is concern
about the scarce use of the MHTR as part of a CO or SSO. The Centre
for Mental Health has concluded that this requirement has potential
value for offenders with mental health problems, but "that
the MHTR needs substantial reinvigoration and reinvention as a
widely recognised and utilised non-custodial option".[31]
At present there appears to be confusion or reservations among
professionals of all agencies as to its scope and its potential
use. In addressing this, a protocol is needed at a local level
between probation and health services about the management of
people on the MHTR, while Lord Bradley, in his review of people
with mental health problems or learning disabilities in the criminal
justice system, also recommended that local agencies and services,
including the probation service, need to work together to better
meet the needs of offenders with mental health problems, including
in the provision of psychiatric reports and advice to the courts.[32]
The CJA supports the implementation of the Bradley Review in full.
Offenders using drug and alcohol
21. Drug and alcohol use is extremely common
among offenders, and access to evidence-based drug and alcohol
treatment is effective in cutting reoffending. However, while
there is some excellent work going on in some areas, the criminal
justice system is still failing to rehabilitate too many offenders
with addictions to drugs and alcohol. There has been a welcome
and important increase in investment in drug treatment in recent
years but there remains a shortage of appropriate and effective
services. Alcohol treatment within the criminal justice system
is also particularly limited in scope and effectiveness, with
the requirement to attend alcohol treatment rarely given as part
of a community sentence, despite being an available option, and
research by the Institute for Criminal Policy Research for the
Ministry of Justice finding that there are "high levels of
largely unmet alcohol-related need within NPS caseloads".[33]
22. Addressing drug and alcohol use is central
to effective rehabilitation and the probation service must play
its part in ensuring that high quality drug and alcohol treatment
is available across the criminal justice system, as well as working
to develop genuine integrated offender management to facilitate
better links between prison and community services for offenders
with addictions (and for all offenders).
Young adult offenders
23. Young adults aged 18-24, who constitute less
than 10% of the population, make up one-third of the probation
service's caseload. Despite this, the criminal justice system
does little to recognise young adults as a distinct group and
the work of the Transition to Adulthood (T2A) Alliance,[34]
to which the CJA has contributed, has demonstrated the limitations
of the criminal justice system in effectively preventing reoffending
by young adults aged 18-24.
24. This is supported by research by the CCJS
on the use of the CO and the SSO for young adult offenders, which
concluded that "it would appear that the overall pattern
of use of the CO and the SSO tends to work against what is known
about young adults' needs and the factors associated with their
offending. There is therefore a case for reviewing the responsiveness
in sentencing for young adults".[35]
25. The CJA advocates the recognition of young
adults as a distinct group within the criminal justice system
and this should be applied to the work of the probation service.
There has previously been recognition by the probation service
that community sentences for young adults should be tailored to
their specific needs, with the introduction, in 2003, of a community
programme aimed specifically at young adults aged 18-20, the Intensive
Control and Change Programme. This programme was discontinued
following the introduction of the generic CO. More recently, the
Ministry of Justice has funded the Intensive Alternative to Custody
pilots specifically for 18-25 year old men who are at risk of
a prison sentence of up to 12 months. Through this approach, community
provision can be better tailored to the individual needs of offenders,
with mentors provided to help them comply with the order.
26. The provision of these programmes suggests
that the Ministry of Justice and the probation service are aware
of the specific needs of young adults, and community provision
must be developed in every area, taking into account the outcomes
of the Intensive Alternative to Custody pilots, that addresses
the specific needs of young adults and the causes of their offending.
The existing requirements could also be used more creatively.
As the Centre for Crime and Justice has concluded, "there
is clearly scope for more innovation—from probation officers
when making proposals and from courts when passing sentence".[36]
27. Improvements should also be made in the transitional
arrangements and communication between youth offending teams and
the probation service in a way that recognises the significant
culture shift between the youth and adult criminal justice systems.
At present, the level of support that young people receive in
the youth justice system while under the age of 18 is considerably
higher than young people over the age of 18 receive in the adult
justice system and it is essential that steps are taken to manage
the transition between the two systems as effectively as possible.
28. In addition, the probation service should
be enabled to work with the voluntary sector to provide support
for every young adult (aged 18-24) leaving custody, regardless
of the length of sentence of their sentence. This would help to
ensure that young adults leaving prison re-establish links with
their family and community and contribute to preventing reoffending.
Is the provision of training adequate?
29. The training of probation staff should provide
more information on the specific needs of the groups of offenders
set out above. For example, the Centre for Mental Health has recommended
that NOMS should provide detailed information for probation officers
on how to manage the MHTR while probation officers also require
training and information on mental health awareness and sentencing
options, in order to increase their knowledge of mental health
issues.[37]
Lord Bradley's review also argued that "many probation staff
are unsure of how they should manage offenders on their caseloads
with mental health problems",[38]
suggesting that "all probation staff (including those based
within courts and approved premises) should receive mental health
and learning disability awareness training".[39]
Similarly, research for the Fawcett Society has suggested that
probation-wide training on women's needs is required[40]
and research by the Institute for Criminal Policy Research has
suggested that "there is considerable scope for improving
the scale, quality and monitoring of training being offered to
offender managers to better equip them to more effectively deliver
brief interventions to alcohol-misusing offenders".[41]
CONCLUSION
30. The Criminal Justice Alliance welcomes this
Inquiry. The probation service is a key part of the criminal justice
system, yet it is widely perceived that its role and authority
have been eroded in recent years. It is essential that steps are
taken to restore the probation service to a central role within
the criminal justice system and to fund it accordingly. This would
help to reduce reoffending, but the probation service must also
do more to meet the specific needs of offenders and to make sure
that all the 12 "requirements" of the CO and the SSO
are available to, and known to, sentencers in every area.
September 2010
14 Although the CJA works closely with its members,
this submission should not be seen to represent the views or policy
positions of each individual member organisation. For a full list
of the CJA's members, please see
http://www.criminaljusticealliance.org/organisations.htm Back
15
P 40: Oldfield, M and Grimshaw, R with Garside, R and Silberhorn-Armantrading,
F (2010) Probation Resources, Staffing and Workloads, 2001-2008
- available at
http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1756/Probation_Resources._Staffing_and_Workloads_2001-2008_revised_edition.pdf Back
16
http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/sp050209.htm Back
17
P 37: Mills, H, Silvestri, A and Grimshaw, R with Silberhorn-Armantrading,
F (2010) Prison and probation expenditure, 1999-2009 -
available at
http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1793/Prison_and_probation_expenditure_1999-2009.pdf Back
18
P 38-39: Mills, H, Silvestri, A and Grimshaw, R with Silberhorn-Armantrading,
F (2010) Prison and probation expenditure, 1999-2009-available
at
http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1793/Prison_and_probation_expenditure_1999-2009.pdf Back
19
P 39: Mair, G, Cross, N and Taylor, S (2008) The community
order and the suspended sentence order: The views and attitudes
of sentencers-available at
http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sentencersviews.html Back
20
Mair, G and Mills, H (2009) The Community Order and the Suspended
Sentence Order Three Years On: The views and experiences of probation
officers and offenders-available at
http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sentenceshreeyearson.html Back
21
P 46: Mair, G And Mills, H (2009) The Community Order and the
Suspended Sentence Order three years on: The views and experiences
of probation officers and offenders-available at
http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1292/Three_years_on.pdf Back
22
P 28: Commission on Women and the Criminal Justice System (2009)
Engendering Justice-from Policy to Practice: Final report of
the Commission on Women and the Criminal Justice System-available
at
http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/documents/Commission%20report%20May%2009.pdf Back
23
P 28: Commission on Women and the Criminal Justice System (2009)
Engendering Justice-from Policy to Practice: Final report of
the Commission on Women and the Criminal Justice System-available
at
http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/documents/Commission%20report%20May%2009.pdf Back
24
P 5: Khanom, H, Samele, C and Rutherford, M (2009) A Missed
Opportunity? Community sentences and the Mental Health Treatment
Requirement-available at
http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/publications/missed_opportunity.aspx?ID=594 Back
25
P 92: Bradley, K (2009) The Bradley Report: Lord Bradley's
review of people with mental health problems or learning disabilities
in the criminal justice system-available at
http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_098698.pdf Back
26
House of Commons Justice Committee (2009) Cutting crime: the
case for justice reinvestment, First Report of Session 2009-10,
London: The Stationery Office Limited. Back
27
Shapland, J, Atkinson, A, Atkinson, H, Dignan, J, Edwards, L,
Hibbert, J, Howes, M, Johnstone, J, Robinson, G and Sorsby, A
(2008) Restorative Justice: Does Restorative Justice affect
reconviction. The fourth report from the evaluation of three schemes,
Ministry of Justice Research Series 10/08, London: Ministry of
Justice. Back
28
p 51: Gelsthorpe, L, Sharpe, G and Roberts, J (2007) Provision
for women offenders in the community-available at
http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/documents/Provision%20for%20women%20offenders%20in%20the%20community(1).pdf
Back
29
p 37: Patel, S and Stanley, S (2008) The Use of the Community
Order and the Suspended Sentence Order for Women-available
at
http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus629/The__Use_and_Impact_of_the_Community_Order_and_Suspsended_Sentence_Order_for_Women.pdf
Back
30
p 28-29: Commission on Women and the Criminal Justice System (2009)
Engendering Justice-from Policy to Practice: Final report of
the Commission on Women and the Criminal Justice System-available
at
http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/documents/Commission%20report%20May%2009.pdf Back
31
p 37: Khanom, H, Samele, C and Rutherford, M (2009) A Missed
Opportunity? Community sentences and the Mental Health Treatment
Requirement-available at
http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/pdfs/Missed_Opportunity.pdf Back
32
Bradley, K (2009) The Bradley Report: Lord Bradley's review
of people with mental health problems or learning disabilities
in the criminal justice system-available at
http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_098698.pdf Back
33
p 30: McSweeney, T, Webster, R, Turnbull, P and Duffy, M (2009)
Evidence-based practice? The National Probation Service's work
with alcohol-misusing offenders, Ministry of Justice Research
Series 13/09-available at
http://www.justice.gov.uk/research-paper-alcohol-misusing.pdf Back
34
For more information on the T2A Alliance, see
http://www.t2a.org.uk/alliance Back
35
p 27: Stanley, S (2007) The Use of the Community Order and
the Suspended Sentence Order for Young Adult Offenders-available
at
http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus255/community-order-2007.pdf Back
36
p 27: Stanley, S (2007) The Use of the Community Order and
the Suspended Sentence Order for Young Adult Offenders-available
at
http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus255/community-order-2007.pdf Back
37
p 40-41: Khanom, H, Samele, C and Rutherford, M (2009) A Missed
Opportunity? Community sentences and the Mental Health Treatment
Requirement-available at
http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/pdfs/Missed_Opportunity.pdf Back
38
p 66: Bradley, K (2009) The Bradley Report: Lord Bradley's
review of people with mental health problems or learning disabilities
in the criminal justice system-available at
http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_098698.pdf Back
39
p 69: Bradley, K (2009) The Bradley Report: Lord Bradley's
review of people with mental health problems or learning disabilities
in the criminal justice system-available at
http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_098698.pdf Back
40
p 51: Gelsthorpe, L, Sharpe, G and Roberts, J (2007) Provision
for women offenders in the community-available at
http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/documents/Provision%20for%20women%20offenders%20in%20the%20community(1).pdf Back
41
p 30: McSweeney, T, Webster, R, Turnbull, P and Duffy, M (2009)
Evidence-based practice? The National Probation Service's work
with alcohol-misusing offenders, Ministry of Justice Research
Series 13/09-available at
http://www.justice.gov.uk/research-paper-alcohol-misusing.pdf Back
| 
