Written evidence from the Howard League
for Penal Reform (PB 56)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Howard League for Penal Reform is the oldest
penal reform charity in the world. It was established in 1866,
is independent of government and is funded by donations. The core
objective of the Howard League for Penal Reform is to work for
less crime, safer communities and fewer people in prison.
This submission is intended for use by the justice
affairs select committee in its investigation of the role of the
probation service. This briefing is only meant to give an outline
of the Howard League approach to this complex issue. We would
welcome the opportunity to present the committee with further
oral evidence on this issue.
This submission underscores the fact that the introduction
of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) has led to
major changes and a large-scale restructuring in the way criminal
justice is administered. The changes exacted by NOMS on the probation
service have led to the systematic fragmentation and demoralisation
of a probation service, whose purpose has been altered beyond
all recognition. Instead of being allowed to engage with vulnerable
men and women in the community, the probation service and its
functions have been warped by NOMS' framework of mechanistic targets.
A bureaucratic managerial model averse to risk and devoid of ambition
has replaced the frontline services probation formerly provided
to the multi-faceted problems faced by individuals in the community.
This paper calls for a radical overhaul of the probation
service. It calls for a shift away from offender management and
a shift towards a localised "resolution service" that
the public can both see and understand. It also calls for probation
service that works based on a desistance model (McNeill and Weaver
2010), whereby local probation/resolution officers serve as an
individualised gateway to offer individuals access to support
on problems such as housing and health care. These are key indicators
that lead to crime and it is the view of the Howard League that
the probation service, which is located in almost every community
in England and Wales, should be the body to coordinate services
and deliver them alongside the private and voluntary sectors.
It is only with a re-energised resolution service, whose goal
is to support and not to detain individuals at risk of offending
that the government's rehabilitation revolution can become a reality.
The Howard League wants to see the new resolution
service filling the justice gap that currently exists in society.
The new service must individualise those they work with, engage
with the wider population to create dialogue and diversify their
attempts to make the service a truly national one.
As well as challenging the mission of the probation
service, we have also expressed the view that the probation service
and the community sentence have been damaged by years of neglect
and misrepresentation. It is for this reason that we propose the
rebranding of probation and the community sentence. For probation
to work in the future it needs the support of the wider community.
We have made suggestions as to how resolution can go beyond probation
and reach out to facilitate dialogue across society.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Howard League for Penal Reform welcomes this
review into the functioning of the probation service. We believe
probation plays an essential role in the modern criminal justice
system. This is particularly the case in a system with a renewed
objective of cutting crime in the long-term through the rehabilitation
revolution.
1.2 In July 2010 prisons minister Crispin Blunt MP
stated that the current prison and probation arrangement, which
has been managed by NOMS and dominated by the prison service,
had failed. He stated:
1.3 "85,000 offenders in prison and the prediction
of 96,000 places required by 2014 represent failure. A failure
to deal with crime and a failure to tackle re-offending. It is
a national embarrassment that we have failed so dramatically that
we have been reduced simply to locking people up in prison, and
doing so proportionately more than almost any country in Western
Europe. We need a fundamental change to the focus of our system
towards rehabilitation" (Ministry of Justice 2010).
1.4 A new approach to criminal justice requires a
renewed commitment to probation. The past 20 years of government
failure have resulted in the probation service being neglected
and prevented from working with individuals to cut crime and make
communities safer. McNeill and Weaver describe complaints of probation
officers who state that "a combination of rising workloads
and increasing paperwork (often linked to performance targets)
militates against spending "quality time" with offenders
working for change" (Weaver and McNeill 2010, p 12). Their
desistance model focuses on the idea that "spending time
with offenders (and where appropriate significant others in offenders'
lives) is seen by workers as being key to developing engaging
relationships that support change". This technique is the
true nature of probation, local and individualised support, and
it is this approach that a modern resolution service should target.
Probation has been treated like the Cinderella of the criminal
justice system; it has been repeatedly mistreated and neglected
despite having a great deal to recommend it to the outside world,
while other arms of the system have been promoted ahead of it.
The context at time of writing
1.5 This submission is written within a very specific
criminal justice context, a prison system in crisis. With the
prison system at 85,000 the English and Welsh criminal justice
system is overcrowded. It costs over £45,000 to incarcerate
a prisoner for a year and the ministry of justice must cut its
budget to meet the current efforts in deficit reduction (Hansard
2010b).
1.6 There is also mounting evidence that prison,
while overused is underachieving. 53,333 people were jailed in
2008 for six months or less, of this number 74% were re-convicted
within a short time of release. The National Audit Office estimates
that reoffending by all recent ex-prisoners costs the taxpayer
up to £13 billion a year (National Audit Office 2010). Prison
is being overused and failing with deleterious side effects for
individuals in the system, victims outside the system and society
in general.
1.7 Before the general election the Howard League
launched its Take Action 2010 campaign readying politicians of
all parties for the future in which the goal for criminal justice
must be less crime, safer communities and fewer people in prison.
We need alternatives to costly and ineffective prison bars and
we need better community options for those at risk of committing
crime. The probation service will play a role in this regard.
1.8 In terms of public perception, local communities
are the core arena in which to fight a public perceptions battle.
When people are polled nationally about crime their fears tend
to be raised beyond the likely threat of crime. However when people
consider their local area in relation to crime their fears of
gang crime, knife crime and violent crime drop to match the actual
fall in crime that has occurred over the past 15 years. (Ipsos
MORI 2009) If the government is interested in emphasising to people
the reality of the criminal justice system in England and Wales
it must happen on a local level and probation will be a core agent
in this regard.
2. THE CURRENT
PRISON/PROBATION
CORRELATION
2.1 In 2004 the government created the National Offender
Management Service, NOMS. This was an amalgamation of prisons
and probation. Along with this, the government carried out a programme
of reform, converting probation boards into probation trusts,
which are contracted to deliver local probation services. This
was followed by the introduction of competition for some aspects
of delivery. In addition, the former government pushed the notion
of "offender management" which has evolved considerably
since the Offender Management Act 2007 was passed.
2.2 It is no secret that the current arrangement
has placed predominance on the use of prison and a culture of
risk aversion. Not only is the probation service not represented
at the top level of NOMS but probation itself has become laced
with the language of control and monitoring. Probation's former
slogan of "assist, advise and befriend" has been turned
into the terminology of "risk of reoffending" and "offender
management". Probation has in effect been divorced from its
roots in working alongside individuals and has become punitive
rather than supportive in nature.
2.3 In a recent survey by Channel 4 news probation
managers underscored the problems faced by the current system
(Channel 4 2010):
— 50%
of probation chiefs describe their current capacity to manage
offenders effectively in the community as either "average"
or "poor".
— Asked
whether their services were being commissioned in the most appropriate
way, all 20 respondents said no.
— 65%
say their caseloads of offenders has increased in the last five
years.
— 80%
state resources for community-based interventions are now spread
too thinly and nearly half of all those surveyed (45%) admit that
they aren not able to offer the full 12 requirements of community
sentences.
— Only
three out of 20 probation chiefs believe the service currently
has the capacity to cope effectively with a move away from short
custodial sentences to more community-based sentences (a key goal
of the coalition government).
— Just
15% of respondents say they are currently able to offer the required
levels of public protection "all of the time" (the rest
say they can do so "most of the time").
— All
20 probation heads who responded to the survey expect budgets
to be cut in the next two years.
2.4 While many dedicated probation officers still
value the social work element of the job and comprehend that lasting
solutions to crime require offering support to those at risk of
further offending; government policy has required them to approach
people in need more as a set of statistics rather than individuals.
2.5 The government's view has been short-sighted.
To reallocate the role of the probation officer from assistance
with rehabilitation to assessment of risk is to suggest that a
former prisoner should have been rehabilitated within prison or
at some stage in the court process. However, statistics show this
is not the case.
2.6 Prison does not rehabilitate and it does not
cut the chances of future offending. This must be done in the
community by probation and will require a good deal more than
simply monitoring requirements and assessing risk.
2.7 Prison is not the community and the community
is not prison. Prisons are closed institutions which are managed
in a top down, rigid manner. By contrast, working in the community
requires a localised and flexible approach which the probation
service has long specialised in. Therefore, it is worrying that
NOMS has seen a what the probation union Napo has characterised
as a "hostile takeover" of the probation service, with
senior prison managers with no experience of working in the community
now leading the service. Prison and probation provide distinct
services and while both are important we suggest that probation
should be the majority partner, with a focus on community welfare,
support for the individual and the prevention of crime in the
long-term.
2.8 The coalition government has announced that it
wishes to introduce a "rehabilitation revolution". Prison
cannot deliver this agenda. The reoffending rate for a short prison
sentence is 61% (Ministry of Justice 2010b); in contrast community
sentences have been shown to cut reoffending rates by up to 20%
(Hansard 2010a). If any revolution is going to take place, it
will take place in the community where the pressures which lead
to offending occur. It therefore follows that probation will be
an important agent of change.
3. EXAMPLES OF
THE CONFLICTED
ROLE OF
PROBATION
3.1 The Howard League for Penal Reform's legal team
works with children and young adults in custody. The legal team
has been working with vulnerable prisoners since 2002 and has
seen the transition of probation to the NOMS governed notion of
offender management. Below are a few limited examples of the damaging
effect this decision has had in practice. It demonstrates the
impossible situation in which probation officers find themselves
and the need for probation officers to err on the side of caution
rather than supporting an individual who is often in need.
(a) J was a 19 year old woman who had been
raped at 14. Her index offence occurred when another girl
was spreading rumours about her rape and she was convicted of
using violence against her to stop her talking about her trauma
She was a model prisoner, released on parole in order
to attend college and had support of local authority leaving care
team. She was 100% compliant in every way and was doing well at
college, working towards her ambition of attending London School
of Fashion.
One day she was abducted by a group of young men
in a car and did not return to her accommodation that night. She
reported having been driven around all night and that the men
had taken her bag and phone so she could not call for help or
contact anyone. In the morning she managed to escape and went
straight to her accommodation and explained what happened to her
careworker. The information was passed to probation, who immediately
recalled her into custody.
The senior probation officer's report for recall
stated that she considered our client was lying about what had
happened and made a comment to the effect that given the background
to her index offence (ie she was raped as a child) she was likely
to be "up to no good with boys". We made strong representations
setting out how unfair these comments were. They were not based
on evidence and these comments were especially shocking from a
senior probation officer dealing with a young woman who had been
raped.
In the parole board's decision to release her immediately
following recall, it was stated that the probation officer's comments
were to be dismissed and that it was not their job nor the job
of probation to draw inferences of any kind which were no more
than opinion, without any factual basis.
(b) Another young man, B, came from a supportive
family where both parents lived together and worked in professional
jobs. B was refused permission to return home to the support
of his family on release because the senior probation officer
stated that he was "too dangerous" and wanted him in
a hostel on the other side of London
The parents had moved out of the area of the offence,
and he had had a good custodial record with no reported violent
incidents. The Howard League was refused any disclosure from probation
and was simply told that this decision was due to security information
received from the prison. No explanation was offered to the young
man as to why he couldn't return home.
The client was released to a hostel but luckily for
him had only a very short time left to serve on licence so did
not wish to pursue this further. He could then return home after
a long sentence.
(c) F was a young girl recalled to adult prison
on a whim. She was recalled because the police had
asked probation if they knew of a young woman who might have committed
a knife-based offence and she fitted the bill based on an offence
committed two years earlier. By the time she was recalled to adult
jail the police had CCTV evidence of her eating fish and chips
with her mum on the other side of town at the time she was supposed
to be committing the crime
3.2 All three of these examples illustrate a probation
service gone wrong. They paint a picture of a probation officer
prejudiced against the interests of the individual with whom they
are working and such a relationship makes garnering an ethos of
trust and honesty almost impossible. The shift to offender management
has resulted in probation officers being unable to support their
client because their largest responsibility has been reassigned
to law enforcement and not to the interests of their vulnerable
individual. While probation officers will always have to assume
responsibility for public protection the punitive regime of risk
assessment created by the legacy of the last government is not
effective. It involves too many immediate recalls and too little
support to prevent long-term reoffending. To spark a rehabilitation
revolution probation officers have to offer support to their client
for reintegration into the community. NOMS has created the notion
that probation is an extension of a punitive prison system but
this shift undermines the purpose of probation.
3.3 Many dedicated probation officers we have worked
with have expressed a desire to return to a more supportive role
but have been constrained by the culture of total risk management.
However, to make probation entirely about the management of individuals
as offenders is to lose sight of probation's greatest asset, their
ability to work with individuals in the community. To improve
in the future more needs to be done to allow the true nature of
the probation service to express itself. This new government should
let probation be probation.
4. WHAT
SHOULD THE
ROLE OF
PROBATION BE?
As stated above the Howard League supports the idea
of probation being transformed into a modern and effective "resolution
service". Any future remodeling of the probation service
must focus on preventing crime in the long-term. However treating
all those at risk of offending as criminal statistics has been
proven to be the wrong approach. NOMS former approach exhibited
too much haste to control crime and often lead to "neglect
of questions of justice, due process and legitimacy; ultimately
it can compromise the pursuit of justice - social as well as criminal"
(McNeil and Weaver 2010).
Rehabilitation revolution
4.1 A resolution service, like all other elements
of the criminal justice system, must meet the requirements of
the government. The current government's objective, of cutting
the prison population and cutting long-term costs suggests a probation
service focused upon rehabilitation. This suggests a need for
a resolution service that focuses on the needs of the individual
within the community.
4.2 At the current time the probation service is
not built for this purpose. Instead it is focused on risk assessment,
security and containment of vulnerable adults. The Howard League
believes that the emphasis needs to be shifted from a risk assessment
to an individualised needs assessment, with a more proactive model
of resolution addressing those needs.
A new values model
4.3 We believe that a criminal justice system that
aspires to cut crime long-term must rely on probation not prison
as its frontline. We believe that for a new resolution service
to be effective the supportive element of the job must be incorporated.
People at risk of committing crime must feel they can turn to
their probation/resolution officer for support and the probation
officer should feel able to help the individual without being
pressured to comply with meaningless targets or without risk of
censure and vilification in the media.
4.4 The values shift prescribed by the Howard League
is demonstrated below:
4.5 Neither of these models has got the balance right
for a modern resolution service. The Howard League is not prescribing
a shift back to the old model of probation. However lessons can
be learned from what probation was supposed to be before its inception.
For such a service that meets the needs of preventing crime long-term,
a values chart should borrow from both of these models:
4.6 The resolution service prescribed above will
endeavour to work with at risk individuals and those serving community
sentences. The probation/resolution officer will be a point of
contact for the former prisoner or person serving a community
sentence, but they will serve as a gateway to encourage the individual
to use services within the local community that will assist them
in the local community and a person that can be turned to in a
time of difficulty. Consequently, the public protection of the
old model has now been transferred to the idea of neighbourhood
safety. Probation/resolution officers will offer assistance to
those at risk in the community, their aim will be a dual objective,
firstly in the event the resolution service realises an individual
poses a high risk of reoffending they will be compelled to work
with law enforcement. However, such a scenario should be rare
and should not encompass situations akin to the situation for
F described above. The main element of neighbourhood protection
will come by working fully with troubled individuals who constantly
commit low level crime; only through individualised local support
can crime be prevented in the long-term.
4.7 The idea of the new resolution service as a gateway
for local services is an essential element of this proposal. The
Howard League believes the proliferation of "offender services"
has only served to separate and isolate the most vulnerable in
society. Probation/resolution officers should spend time with
the individual to understand their needs and should then refer
this individual to local services. This will work to better integrate
the individual back into the community but also work to make the
role of the new resolution service visible to the public in a
way that probation failed to be.
The Big Society
4.8 Last year's report from the justice select committee
on justice reinvestment, a process whereby funds are switched
from prisons to local communities, advocated that a localised
approach based in communities would be more effective in tackling
crime than a centralised and prison-based approach (House of Commons
2010).
4.9 The Howard League believes that the probation/resolution
service is well placed to deliver a system of localised justice.
Probation trusts are located in almost every local community and
they have strong links with local programmes and schemes that
work. The probation service has its roots in the voluntary sector
and, despite the distortions of recent years, retains a bedrock
of good practice. If appropriately incentivised, probation trusts
could play a key role in commissioning services from the voluntary
and private sectors, close to the point of delivery.
4.10 Probation/resolution officers must work with
local individuals themselves and build up a personal rapport with
them but they must also work to collate data on schemes within
the local areas that work. Resolution can work as a filter and
quality assurance mechanism recommending individuals to successful
schemes and monitoring what works. They should accurately assess
the needs of the individual and recommend appropriate support
within the community.
4.11 The Howard League is currently considering the
implications of the Big Society agenda on criminal justice, and
the impact of payment by results and other reforms on the interface
between the public, private and voluntary sectors. Once the Ministry
of Justice green paper is published in November we would be well
placed to respond to this in detail and would welcome the opportunity
to give further oral evidence to the select committee.
4.12 However the Howard League for Penal Reform does
believe that a modern resolution service would be in a better
position to engage with all members of the public and serve as
an ambassador for the Big Society. For example, an instance of
minor neighbourly dispute that currently involves the police and
the civil courts could better be handled by a proliferation of
the future resolution service, working in conjunction with local
authorities. They would work to refer individuals to any relevant
local services and help engage the individuals in conflict resolution.
The Howard League believes that if the new resolution service
was used correctly there could be scope for it to fulfill the
role of all community conflict resolution, creating a dialogue
not just between "offender" and "community"
but between all people in the community. This would involve many
more people in the idea of resolution and consequently would serve
to better mainstream the idea of, what is currently seen as, probation,
in mainstream society.
4.13 The Howard League envisages a model where the
new resolution service will encompass the current role of probation,
looking after those at risk in the community. It will work to
individualise people and help them access their diverse needs
on a local basis. The resolution service, with support from rerolled
local authority and police budgets would also tackle other community
discord. The services' roles and staff resources would consequently
need expansion through volunteerism. However this process would
involve engaging many more people in the concept of resolution.
This would function to cut crime by strengthening community cohesion
and local ties.
Modifying behaviour
4.14 In recent months the idea of "nudging"
within public policy has become increasingly prevalent among political
thinkers. The philosophy has been utilised by the Obama administration
and its rhetoric is implicit within the Prime Minister's Big Society.
The theory encompasses the notion of paternalistic liberalism
as an appropriate role for the state that optimises choice while
at the same time helping individuals to make better choices.
4.15 Given the importance of this theory in modern
political thought the Howard League for Penal Reform believes
it is important to attempt to contextualise the criminal justice
debate in terms of nudging. According to the academics Thaler
and Sunstein, there are three accepted models of modifying behaviour;
disincentives, incentives and nudges (Thaler and Sunstein 2008).
This model can be easily be applied to the criminal justice system.
The past decade has demonstrated that disincentives do not work
within the criminal justice sphere. The increased use of prison
under the past government has proved an expensive way of securing
minimal to non-existent reductions in reoffending. Such a model
should be discontinued.
4.16 Incentivising good behaviour can work; this
has been demonstrated through schemes such as the incentives and
earned privileges scheme (IEPS) within prisons themselves. However
incentives tend to be short-term, inconsistent and expensive.
4.17 Nudges, an idea developed by Thaler and Sunstein,
are a method of modifying behaviour within a liberal framework.
Their theory involves making small changes to encourage positive
outcomes. One of the most well established ideas with regard to
nudges is acceptance of an occurrence as the status quo. Nudges
are positive as changes made through nudges can be cheap but effective.
Nudges also maximise personal choice while modifying behaviour.
4.18 It is possible to put nudge theory into the
language of criminal justice. Resolution is the element of the
criminal justice system best placed to effect a nudge as changes
implemented through a probationary regime can become part of someone's
everyday life, for example regular drug rehabilitation meetings.
Unlike prison, where a vulnerable individual is separated from
society and placed in an alien environment, before being reintroduced
with a loud crash, the use of community programmes to improve
the life of an individual is subtle but their effect is likely
to be much greater as they will be implemented within the daily
life of the individual in question.
4.19 To use a parallel from Thaler and Sunstein,
a shop keeper is unable to forcibly persuade a customer to buy
apples from their store based on their belief that the customer
will be healthier if they buy an apple rather than a chocolate
bar. In a liberal society such constraint is illegal and does
not fit with our individual conception of liberty that urges the
individual to strain against a force of compulsion. If the customer
wants to buy chocolate they will do so anyway. However placing
the apples in a prime location within the store can trigger the
automatic part of the mind to choose the healthy food option assuming
the individual is at least partially open to the notion in the
first place. In the same way a localised resolution service that
offers drug and alcohol recovery programmes within the community
are more likely to be successful than prison as the individual
is more likely to subconsciously accept the help on offer and
to benefit from it.
Probation and health
4.20 One element that the Howard League would like
to see improved in the modern probation service is health support.
Health is an essential issue for allowing probation officers to
build trust and establish a supportive relationship with individuals.
Further, resolving health issues in the community will also hold
the key to solving further reoffending.
4.21 83% of people in prison are smokers compared
to just 22% of the general population. 44% of former offenders
are at risk of alcohol abuse and 39% are at risk of substance
abuse. 12 to 15% of the prison population have four or five co-existing
mental disorders (Brooker, Fox and Callinan 2009). These poor
health conditions are not currently being handled properly in
the community.
4.22 For example, a recent study found that probation
caseloads have high levels of alcohol-related need but 40% of
alcohol-related interventions had not commenced four to six months
after supervision had begun (Brooker and Mitchell 2010). During
2007-08 only 8% of dependent drinkers received an alcohol treatment
requirement and only one in four alcohol treatment requirements
was delivered in line with existing guidance.
4.23 Health needs to play a more integral role in
the day to day functioning of a modern resolution service. Many
at risk individuals access local GP services of their own accord
but few of their problems are properly identified due to their
overwhelming need. The Howard League supports the idea, put forward
by academics from the University of Lincoln, that health assessments
would work best within the context of a resolution meeting (Lincoln
2010). If these assessments were conducted face-to-face with the
individual concerned, their success rate would improve and they
would potentially work to garner a greater atmosphere of trust
between the individual and resolution officer. The resolution
service should still utilise local medical professionals and services
in order to achieve this shift.
4.24 The Howard League believes that a modern and
more supportive resolution service must put a greater premium
on health support of people in the community. A rehabilitation
revolution will rely upon probation and the probation service
must be given the tools to succeed. To paraphrase a famous NFL
coach, "If they want you to cook the dinner, at least they
ought to let you shop for some of the groceries." At present,
probation is being asked to cook and they should be allowed to
bring the right ingredients to the table.
4.25 The Howard League believes that one of the core
ingredients is better training regarding health issues. The Bradley
Review highlighted that probation officers need better training
as regards mental health awareness (Bradley 2009). This will help
them to make better recommendations and deal more fully with a
problem within the community. The University of Lincoln, in association
with the national probation service have conducted pilot probation
training and have concluded that such training could be relatively
simple and cost-effective while providing an invaluable service.
Example of successful probation
4.26 The Howard League for Penal Reform runs a community
programmes award in England and Wales and in the course of running
this programme we have come across many strong examples of how
to prevent reoffending through individualised support. These programmes
provide some of the individualised support that is encouraged
by McNeil and Weaver (McNeil and Weaver 2010). Some of our current
award winners already involve current probation services getting
it right. We see these programmes when probation is being true
to itself and its own true nature; providing individualised assistance
in the community in the aim of cutting offending and the social
indicators of criminal behaviour. Below is just one example of
what the Howard League considers to be good practice consistent
with the principles enumerated above:
4.27 Kent probation area's Northfleet Lunch Club
helps to combat social exclusion of elderly people and reduce
re-offending in Kent. Established 18 years ago, Kent Probation
approached Northfleet Age Concern with a proposal to run a lunch
club that would reach out to elderly users and help change offenders'
lives. Approximately 3,325 hours of unpaid work were performed
at the lunch club last year. Those on the programme learn new
skills, gain qualifications and a certificate in food hygiene
and 15 offenders have achieved the Certificate in Skills at Work
(CeSAW)—a pre-NVQ entry level qualification which can help
them gain employment - through their work at the club.
4.28 Annexed to this report is a list of community
schemes from this year's Howard League community programmes awards.
It details the name of the scheme and its location; we believe
these each exhibit examples of good practice that through a modern
resolution service could be used more widely.
5. COMMUNITY
SENTENCES
5.1 Community sentences are now an integral part
of the criminal justice system; they are more than just an alternative
to custody. Between 1998 and 2008 the number of people receiving
a custodial sentence increased by 2% from 131,000 to 134,000.
The use of community sentences has also gone up; the total number
of community sentences at all courts was 196,400 in 2007, 2.9%
higher than in 2006, and 40.3% higher than 1997 (Ministry of Justice
2010a).
5.2 The Criminal Justice Act 2003 brought into force
the "generic community sentence", also known as the
community order. This allows judges and magistrates to combine
what previously would have been different orders and tailor the
sentence to fit the needs of an individual. The requirements that
can be placed on an individual are:
(a) Supervision - by the probation service.
(b) Compulsory unpaid work - up to a maximum
of 300 hours (increased from 240). This would involve constructive
community work, such as conservation or cleaning up graffiti.
(c) Participation in specified activities - this
may include improving basic skills (such as literacy) or making
reparation to the people affected by the crime.
(d) Prohibition from undertaking specific activities.
(e) Undertaking accredited programmes—aim
to change the individual's behaviour.
(f) Curfew—where an individual can be ordered
to stay at a particular location for certain hours of the day.
(g) Exclusion—where an individual can be
excluded from specified areas.
(h) Residence requirement—where an individual
may be required to live in a specified place, such as an approved
hostel.
(i) Mental health treatment—which can only
be required with the consent of the individual.
(j) Drug rehabilitation—which includes
both testing and treatment, and can last for between six months
and three years; again this can only be imposed with the consent
of the individual.
(k) Alcohol treatment—the individual must
agree to this treatment and it must last for at least six months.
(l) Attendance centre—individuals under
the age of 25 may be required to attend a particular centre at
a specified time for between 12 and 36 hours, over the course
of their sentence.
5.3 Sentencers can select up to 12 different requirements
on community orders, and advice to them suggests that there should
be more requirements for individuals who committed more serious
offences, and that individuals who committed minor offences should
only have one or two requirements.
5.4 85% of community orders comprise one or two of
the above requirements. The two most frequently used are supervision
(37%) and unpaid work (31%) (Seymour and Rutherford 2008).
5.5 Community sentences also seem to work more effectively
than prison in terms of rehabilitation. The one year reoffending
rate for community orders was 37% in December 2007. This compares
to a rate of 47% for adults released from prison and 75% for children
(Howard League 2008). The reoffending rate for those who commenced
a community order with an unpaid work requirement between 1 January
and 31 March 2008 was 25.3%, while the reoffending rate for those
who commenced a suspended sentence order with an unpaid work requirement
over the same period was 17.5% (Hansard 2010).
5.6 Community sentences are also more cost effective
than prison. Probation boards and trusts spent £614 million
in 2007-08 supervising around 244,000 individuals. The ministry
of justice has stated it is not possible to separate out these
costs for individual forms of community sentence. In March 2005-06
the average annual cost per case for a community sentence was
been estimated as £3,265. This gives a simple average figure
of £9 per day (Howard League 2005).
5.7 In a female context, a report by the New Economics
Foundation (NEF) stated the cost of a prisoner place in female
local prisons for 2006-2007 was £41,084 (NEF 2008). This
compares with community sentence cost that ranges from £3,000
to £10,000 depending on type eg whether the facility is residential.
There are many segments of society for which community sentencing
represents a better investment than prison (Howard League 2006).
5.8 While community sentences work, they do face
a problem in the public eye in terms of their immediacy. The Howard
League would stress that in the future use of community sentences
must be immediate—where possible a community programme should
commence in the week after sentencing. For more specialist programmes,
we believe there should be no more than four weeks between appearing
in court and beginning the sentence. Delays do not help people
complete their sentence and damage public confidence in community
sentencing.
6. REBRANDING PROBATION
AND THE
COMMUNITY SENTENCE
6.1 Both probation and the community sentence have
received a great deal of negative press coverage over recent years.
Indeed the media seem to have targeted both as weak links in the
justice armory. Below are just two examples, presented by an academic,
of headlines aimed at the probation service (Maruna 2007):
"Probation service "failed" over murdered
taxi driver" (Independent)
"Community sentences are a national joke. They
are in place only to keep yobs out of the jails that Labour filled
up without thinking to build any more." (The Sun)
6.2 If a new effective resolution service is to work
on the frontline of crime prevention, then it must have the confidence
of the public. Dr Shadd Maruna has come up with a cogent explanation
as to why probation seems to have been so frequently attacked
in the media and he suggests that probation requires a new underlying
ethos or narrative.
6.3 In this regard the offender management model
of probation was partially responsible for digging its own grave.
The narrative of this probation system was simply to protect the
public from imminent risk. The problem with such a narrative is
the inevitability of failure and the certainty that such failures
will be high-profile. As Dr Maruna aptly puts it "…all
it takes…was a scandal or two to blow the lid off the narrative.
If your job is to end risk and to assure safety, you've set yourself
up to fail" (Maruna 2007, p 117). The offender management
approach set itself an impossible task of eliminating risk from
an inherently risky process, working with vulnerable individuals
and former prisoners.
6.4 A resolution service with the renewed objective
of working with high risk individuals in the community for neighbourhood
safety would by its nature have more pluralistic objectives. While
it would strive to keep the public safe it would also strive to
treat or assist those at high risk of reoffending as individuals.
Within this dual message of social work and public safety is a
patent acceptance of the complexity of the task at hand and the
implicit comprehension that with the task comes the risk of failure.
6.5 While changing the narrative is now essential,
this alone will not be enough, under NOMS the probation service
and the notion of community sentences has been allowed to atrophy
to such a great extent in the public consciousness that neither
command the respect and public support they deserve. The Howard
League has previously recommended that the probation service requires
a change of name. In the past we have recommended redubbing the
service a "resolution service". This is a recommendation
we continue to support as it would better fit the changed objectives
and ethos of the revitalised probation service outlined above.
A resolution service implies that it is a service for all the
community, working in the local area. It implies that that it
is working with individuals as prescribed by McNeill and Weaver's
notion of desistance and that in the future there will be scope
to get public volunteers to take part in the provision of its
services. Local people need to feel as though they are a part
of a resolution service, this knowledge and familiarity with the
service will breed confidence that will mainstream rehabilitation
of individuals back into society.
6.6 The Howard League also reiterates that probation
is suffering from the lack of a high profile representative, a
face that would be equated with the complex argument that it is
not always prudent to just lock an individual in prison. If a
re-energised resolution service is to emerge, it must include
a champion who will be the public face of community sentences
- something that has never been achieved. What is required is
a wholesale shift around the confused and failing message of previous
years; this is both a policy and a PR exercise. The role of both
of these elements cannot be overstated as for probation to succeed
two boxes require ticking; resolution must be effective and the
public must have confidence in it. These two do not always necessarily
go together (Howard League 2007).
7. CONCLUSIONS
7.1 The Howard League for Penal Reform believes in
the probation service. The last government tested the notion that
prison works to destruction and it is a theory that has been repeatedly
disproved. For the many people in this country who commit repeated
but minor crimes, effective probation is more likely to present
a cost and outcome effective solution.
7.2 However the legacy of NOMS has been to pollute
the role of the probation service and turn it into something it
was never designed to be, a persecuting and monitoring force on
those people the state would rather lock up. This notion of probation
is unambitious and ineffective. Instead it is our submission that
this new government should let probation be probation.
7.3 As well as being overly prison-centric the past
government also focussed too much on the virtues of new public
management. While the benefits of NPM are evident in the holistic
approach in the offender management pathway, which is fundamentally
correct in looking at the entire route of a prisoner through the
system, the principles of risk that have become synonymous with
frontline probation services are principles that would have been
better reserved for management itself and not the individual probation
officers. The effect of the removal of the social welfare element
from the probation service is to undermine the very nature of
probation; it is an element that must be restored if a rehabilitation
revolution is to become a reality.
7.4 The Howard League supports the rebranding and
restructuring of probation to a modern resolution service. A modern
resolution service must carefully balance the needs of the individual
concerned with some element of risk management. They must aim
to cut crime through engagement with the individual. Resolution
officers must be allowed to work freely with individuals and with
the local community. They should be capable of working with at
risk individuals but also capable of pulling together all the
supportive strands of the local community to make the most of
the big society in which we live. A new resolution service would
create the scope to undertake a much bigger social project engaging
with multiple matters of local and community injustice, within
a context of personal responsibility and community service.
7.5 Saving probation is not an easy battle. Following
years of neglect there is no certainty that the system can be
saved. However it is a locally-based agency that when it is true
to itself works to assist vulnerable individuals. If probation
is to survive, its best chance of survival is for it to be allowed
to be true to the founding ideals of probation once again.
8. REFERENCES
The following sources and materials were used in
the compilation of this report:
Bradley (2009) Lord Bradley's review of people with
mental health problems or learning disabilities in the criminal
justice system.
Brooker and Mitchell (2010) Assessment of alcohol
strategies in prisons extracted in All not equal in the eyes of
the law, University of Lincoln.
Brooker,C Fox,C Barrett,P and Syson-Nibbs,L (2009)
A health needs assessment of prisoners on probation: report
of a pilot study Journal of Probation, Vol 56, March, No 1,
London.
Channel 4 (2010)
Probation chiefs' public protection warning
(http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/law_order/)
Hansard (2010a) Citation: HC Deb, 13 September 2010,
c863W.
Hansard (2010b) Citation: HC Deb, 3 March 2010, c1251W.
Howard League for Penal Reform (2005) Briefing paper
on community sentences, London.
Howard League for Penal Reform (2006) Women and Girls
in the penal system, London.
Howard League for Penal Reform (2007) Adults and
community sentences, London.
Howard League for Penal Reform (2008) Community programmes
handbook, London.
House of Commons (2010) Justice Affairs Select Committee,
Cutting crime: the case for justice reinvestment, HC 94-I.
Ipsos MORI poll (2009) September 2009 British Adult
Survey 16-64, London.
Maruna S (2007) The Probation Story: One Hundred
Years of Probation in the Media. Vista: Perspectives on Probation,
London.
McNeill and Weaver (2010) Changing Lives? Desistance
research and offender management, London.
Ministry of Justice (2010) Churchill speech by prisons
minister, Crispin Blunt MP, to NACRO.
Ministry of Justice (2010a) Offender caseload management
statistics, London.
Ministry of Justice (2010b), Reoffending of adults:
results from the 2008 cohort, London.
National Audit Office (2010) Managing offenders on
short custodial sentences, HC 431.
New Economics Foundation (2008) Unlocking Value,
London.
Seymour, L. and Rutherford, M. (2008) The Community
Order and the Mental Health Treatment Requirement, London: Sainsbury
Centre for Mental Health, London.
Thaler and Sunstein (2008) Nudge: Improving Decisions
about Health, Wealth and Happiness, Yale University Press.
University of Lincoln (2010) All not equal in the
eyes of the law, University of Lincoln.
16 September 2010
Annex A
COMMUNITY PROGRAMMES RECOMMENDED BY THE HOWARD
LEAGUE FOR PENAL REFORM
Below is a description of the winners of the Howard
League for Penal Reform's community programmes awards 2010. For
each winner of each category there is a description of the work
the project undertakes. The categories demonstrate the plurality
of options for engaging with at risk individuals in the community,
as individuals. Following the descriptions of this year's winners
there is a list of the other outstanding projects that were shortlisted
by the Howard League in this year's competition.
UNPAID WORK
CATEGORY
The Rugmer Project—Kent Probation
Winner 2010
Set up in 2009, the project provides a facility for
service users on Community Payback to gain qualifications whilst
undertaking their sentence. Service users work to keep a collection
of war machines in top condition in exchange for basic skills
qualifications. The exhibits restored contribute to the Heritage
collections displayed in museums in the UK and abroad. Visibility
of Community Payback is achieved through the display and labelling
of the work done on each artefact.
Offenders have the opportunity to spend 20% of their
Community Payback hours gaining engineering skills, level 2 qualifications
in numeracy and literacy and NVQ in Engineering Operations. 80%
of service user hours are spent providing the labour to clean
and maintain exhibits, which include a number of rare military
tanks.
ADULT CATEGORY
Restorative Justice Service—Thames Valley
Probation
Winner 2010
The programme involves restorative justice being
delivered as a Specified Activity Requirement of Community or
Suspended Sentence Order of the CJ Act 2003. Eligible and suitable
offenders are required to undertake up to four days of activity.
The programme works with adults "on the cusp" of custody
who are being sentenced for violent offences, offences of household
burglary, or other offences where direct personal harm is caused,
including offences of causing death by careless driving.
The four days/sessions are Introduction, Preparation
(for RJ Conference), RJ Conference and Review. An RJ Conference
involves the victim and offender, their families, friends and
supporters, meeting together to talk about:
— what
happened (in relation to a violent offence, an offence of household
burglary, or an offence where direct personal harm has been caused);
— who
was affected by the incident of harm and how; and
— what
can be done to repair the harm (which leads to the preparation
of an outcome agreement signed by all parties).
Where the victim does not wish to take part in a
face-to-face meeting, other restorative activities take place.
These may include the preparation of a letter of apology.
Intensive Supervision & Control project (ISAC)—Wales
Probation Trust
Runner Up 2010
ISAC project is part of the national Intensive Alternatives
to Custody project (IAC). The project has been working in selected
courts and probation offices across South Wales and Dyfed Powys
since September 2008. Primary aim of the project is to provide
sentencers a robust alternative community sentence in order to
divert adult offenders away from short term custody of less than
12 months. This is provided through an Intensive Supervision Control
Community Order (ISACC) which provides a combination of punishment
and control in addition to rehabilitation in a community setting.
A common example of an ISAC Community Order would include intensive
supervision, an electronically monitored curfew, unpaid work hours
and an Alcohol Activity Requirement. A priority service is also
provided for female offenders as there is no female prison in
Wales and in recognition of the diverse needs of women a partnership
between the project and the Women's Turnaround Project has been
set up.
EDUCATION, TRAINING
& EMPLOYMENT CATEGORY
New Skills, New Lives Project—Kent Probation
Winner 2010
New Skills, New Lives is the result of a creative
partnership between criminal justice agencies; further education
colleges; training providers; and employers.
The scheme improves the skills and employment prospects
of offenders on community sentences, through a comprehensive package
of education, training, employment and support for offenders.
Delivered in three parts, the project focuses on
employability and training; personal development; literacy and
numeracy skills. Skills for Life education is provided by a team
of dedicated tutors all of whom are ex-offenders employed by Just
One Step and recruited from Kent's resettlement prisons and probation
offices.
The initiative works with private and public sector
employers to provide work placements for offenders. Each of these
placements is attached to a fully funded vocational qualification
delivered by a Kent based training provider. Topics include money
management, retailing, IT, book keeping and food hygiene.
Support for offenders is provided by mentoring and
peer advisors from St Giles Trust. Participating employers also
receive on-going guidance and support, with account management
from an education provider and relevant criminal justice agency.
CHILDREN & YOUNG
PEOPLE CATEGORY
Programmes Team—Leeds Youth Offending Service
(YOS)
Winner 2010
In late 2009 the Council's Comprehensive Area Assessment
identified burglary as a Red Flag Offence in Leeds due to the
high rates of burglary offences in the city compared to other
areas of the country.
Leeds YOS took on the task of creating a substantial
community intervention, to work with young people convicted of
burglary offences, which would work on preventing re-offending
and be available as a sentencing option to the courts providing
an alternative to a custodial sentence.
3 burglary programmes have been developed which are
available as sentencing option at court, with awareness training
having been delivered to court magistrates, case workers and pre
sentence report writers. Packages to reduce offending behaviour
in relation to burglary are:
— Impact—six
session individual programme, helping young people aged 10-13
to reduce their offending by developing victim empathy, addressing
peer pressure and sign posting positive routes forward.
— Breakin'
Out—Eight session individual programme to help young people
aged 14+ address decision making and understanding victim empathy.
— Short
Break—a programme two 1½ hour group work sessions to
help young people aged 14+ to understand their thought process,
developing victim empathy and planning for the future.
Pre-Reprimand Disposal (PRD) - County Durham Children
& Young People's Services
Runner Up 2010
With commitment of colleagues in County Durham Youth
Offending Service and Durham Constabulary, a creative solution
to improve outcomes for young people and reduce the number of
first time entrants to the youth justice system has been developed
and implemented—PRD. Young people who enter the criminal
justice system for low level offences risk limiting their employment
opportunities due to a criminal record. PRD was developed to improve
young people's chances by ensuring their needs are identified
and met and thus avoid being criminalised. The programme is voluntary
and offered to young people who commit their first offence and
who otherwise would receive a police reprimand. PRD ensures interventions
are based on assessment via the Common Assessment Framework (CAF)
and Onset, are effectively aimed at preventing further offences
being committed by providing early intervention to address identified
needs. Interventions include; offending behaviour, welfare need;
family support; and restorative justice.
The unique elements of PRD include; the use of CAF
to asses needs; the use of police bail until PRD is completed;
the integrated approach of assessment and delivery of intervention
with partners; restorative justice; and robust leadership and
monitoring arrangements.
WOMEN'S
CATEGORY
West Yorkshire Probation and Together Women Programme
Plus - Together Women Project (TWP) Yorkshire and Humberside
Winner 2010
TWP supports female offenders and women at risk of
offending. Previously a successful government demonstration project,
TWP is now an independent charity with centres in Leeds, Bradford,
Doncaster, and an outreach centre in Keighley and New Hall prisons.
TWP centres are gender specific "one-stop-shop" which
supports vulnerable hard to reach women to tackle multiple and
complex issues which trigger offending. TWP Plus is a gender specific
offender management model—using NOMS offender management
model principles and is the first area to invest in a women's
centre to deliver offender management to women at a one-stop-shop
centre.
The scheme aims to deliver intensive interventions
to high risk offenders and those women with the highest levels
of criminogenic needs. TWP key workers and offender managers work
together to provide holistic end to end offender management. They
work together with the woman to identify what community support
needs, services from one stop centres and one to one support from
both key workers and offender managers are required. Specialist
offender managers are able to learn from best practice from TWP
and TWP is able to learn from West Yorkshire Probation how to
manage women offenders on a statutory basis.
TWP plus provides:
— fully
integrated support to women on probation caseloads;
— reduce
re-offending;
— divert
women from custody;
— develop
strong partnerships with other providers; and
— access
to services to address criminogenic needs.
Adelaide House Women's Approved Premise &
Outreach Project - Liverpool Diocesan Council for Social Aid
Runner Up 2010
Liverpool Diocesan Council for Social Aid Adelaide
House has a long history of working with disadvantaged, socially
excluded women who often have a range of complex needs including
but not exclusively, historic/current substance misuse; victim
of sexual and/or physical violence, mental/physical health issues;
family and/or relation problems; offending behaviour; street working.
A key element of the programme includes assisting women to build
confidence and self esteem. A personal development programme is
put in place to help individuals to develop interpersonal, analytical
and organisational skills.
The Community Order which is supervised by an offender
manger will contain a Condition of Residence to reside at Adelaide
House Approved Premises for a period of between six months to
two years. Prior to the court making the order Adelaide House
requests a three to four week Bail Assessment period to assess
the women's situation and put in place a support and risk assessment
measures which will give the court confidence in making the order.
Adelaide House works in partnership with the Lucy
Faithful Foundation in respect of working with women who have
sexually offended against children. It also works with Merseyside
Probation Trust to deliver The North West Achieve Women's ETE
Project—women undertake basic skills assessment and subsequent
tutoring, working towards level 1 and 2 literacy and numeracy.
ALL SHORTLISTED
PROJECTS - 2010
Education, training & employment category
— New
Skills, New Lives Project—Kent Probation—Winner.
— The
Rugmer Project—Kent Probation.
Children & young people category
— Programmes
Team—Leeds YOS—Winner.
— Pre-Reprimand
Disposal—County Durham Children & Young People's Services—Runner
Up.
— Dance
United, London.
Women's category
— Together
Women Plus Programme—West Yorkshire Probation and Together
Women Project—Winner.
— Adelaide
House Women's Approved Premise & Outreach Project—Liverpool
Diocesan Council for Social Aid—Runner Up.
— Women
Outside Walls (WoW!) Project—Cyrenians Women's Services.
— Dawn
Project—Peterborough Women's Centre.
Unpaid Work category
— The
Rugmer Project—Kent Probation—Winner.
— Community
Service Reparation Service, Sacro.
— Community
Justice Interventions Wales.
Adult category
— Thames
Valley Probation RJ Service—Winner.
— Intensive
Supervision & Control project—Wales Probation Trust—Runner
Up.
— Intensive
Alternative to Custody Project—Humberside Probation Trust.
— Integrated
Offender Management project—Humberside Probation Trust.
— Community
Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme (CDAP)—St Giles Trust.
— Developing
Initiatives Supporting Communities (DISC)—Co Durham.
— Intensive
Alternative to Custody Project (IAC)—West Yorkshire Probation
Trust.
— Intensive
Alternative to Custody—Derbyshire Probation Trust.
| 
