House of Commons - Crime reduction policies: a co-ordinated approach?

Crime reduction policies: a co-ordinated approach? - Justice Committee Contents

4 The coherence of crime reduction policies

52. Reflecting the broad terms of our inquiry we sought our witnesses' views on the overall coherence of crime reduction policies. The National Audit Office has summarised the implications of the fact that there was no single governance mechanism for the criminal justice system as follows:

We discuss here the benefits and limitations of there being no single owner at national and local level in developing co-ordinated approaches to crime reduction.

Crime as a cross-departmental issue

53. The clear focus of both the Home Office and Ministry of Justice on cutting crime was viewed positively by our witnesses.[98]On the other hand, there is a risk that activity on crime reduction is seen primarily as the domain of these two Departments and their corresponding local agencies.[99] The Howard League stated that "[c]rime reduction focuses on reducing reoffending and the harm caused by those already in the criminal justice system. […] If we are to continue to see crime levels fall, a wider approach must be taken that also looks to crime prevention and seeks to tackle the underlying causes of crime and make communities safer."[100] Others agreed that current arrangements might neglect the benefits of a wider approach. For example, Nacro noted that community sentences such as unpaid work are not sufficiently rooted in local communities:

101

Martyn Underhill, PCC for Dorset took a similar view:

102

The Magistrates' Association itself was stronger in its assertion that Government policy on crime reduction can be simplistic and unrealistic:

103

This is evident to some extent in the Government's depiction in its strategic priorities of the 'drivers of crime'—alcohol, drugs, anti-social behaviour, violence and organised crime—which primarily relate to symptoms rather than causes.

54. The perpetual change that the criminal justice system undergoes can also hinder a coherent approach, both in terms of piecemeal structural reforms to particular components of the system, and the disruptive process of implementing waves of new legislation relating to its functioning. The Coalition Agreement expressed a desire to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.[104] This Government has continued in the vein of its predecessors in bringing forward eight major pieces of crime and criminal justice legislation in quick succession, making ongoing changes to the sentencing framework and the structures, powers and responsibilities of related agencies. The Magistrates' Association made the following observation of the impact of this:

105

55. One example of legislation criticised by London Councils as potentially counter-productive was the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, which has now received Royal Assent. They said that while the proposed changes would potentially simplify approaches to tackling anti-social behaviour, the relevant provisions focused on enforcement and policing, rather than early intervention and preventative measures and might serve to dilute local government's role in facilitating such activity.[106] Changes in policy can also have a disruptive impact on existing activities that are still embedding. In our report Women offenders: after the Corston report we highlighted the funding of women's community centres for offenders and those with particular vulnerabilities that put them at risk of offending, as a particular example of the limitations of the existing siloed approach to funding, despite evidence of the benefits of the centres' work.[107]

The breadth and depth of cross-Government activity

56. The Local Government Association spoke of the value of the cross-Whitehall work that has been undertaken to reduce crime, though regretted that it tends to be restricted to thematic approaches, for example, to violence against women and girls, gangs, or so-called troubled families.[108] Additionally, in the LGA's experience, the Department of Health is not as a matter of course involved in crime reduction, even though health services and health spending can have a considerable impact on crime.[109] Dr Alison Frater of NHS England and Dr O' Moore of Public Health England were optimistic that there would be better integration between health and crime agendas following the structural reforms described in chapter three. For example, Public Health England have been engaged in developing a greater understanding of some of the health-related drivers of criminogenic behaviour that can inform policies and programmes both across Government and for local directors of public health within local authorities.[110] Community-based drug treatment for offenders is an example of what can be achieved.

57. Jeremy Wright acknowledged that change of Government tends to result in policy change but noted that there was a political consensus about the need to intervene early to interrupt the "conveyor belt to crime" and that this was likely to lead to better results downstream.[111] Nevertheless, he felt that the efforts of the Ministry of Justice and, to a lesser extent, the Home Office, were inevitably focused at the end of the criminal justice process and that wider cross-Government work was essential to "get to grips" with crime, and re-offending. He and Norman Baker agreed that close work with the Department of Health, Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Education was of particular importance.[112] One example of this was work by the Home Office and Department of Education to address the Deputy Children Commissioner's findings about the misogyny experienced by girls in gangs.[113]

58. The Home Office and the Ministry of Justice have been strong in their focus on cutting crime. We note the intention expressed in the Coalition Agreement to limit the proliferation of new criminal offences, but observe that this has not stemmed the flow of legislative initiatives affecting the criminal justice system. This, alongside administrative changes and the pressure for both central and local government to achieve financial savings can obscure the clarity of Government messages on crime reduction and diminish the propensity for them to translate into the desired action.

EARLY INTERVENTION

59. The NAO concluded in its landscape review of the criminal justice system that by intervening early and at the right time, reactive public spending can be reduced while improving outcomes. In youth justice, there is evidence that the earlier the successful intervention, the higher the return. For example, in 2010, the NAO estimated that the cost of youth crime in 2009 may have been between £8.5 billion and £11 billion. Between them the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice spent around £200 million on specific early action programmes in 2011-12: about 1 per cent of their total combined spending.[114] Despite the clear financial imperative to do so, the NAO acknowledged that there were considerable political and practical challenges to implementing early action.

60. There are some signs that the Government has begun to acknowledge the benefits of early intervention in practice, rather than simply in principle. Part of the Government's motivation for developing the Troubled Families programme is that an estimated £9 billion is spent annually on those it targets, an average of £75,000 per family each year. Of this, just £1 billion is spent on efforts to solve and prevent the problems experienced by these families in the long-term, with the remainder being spent on reacting to the problems experienced and caused by them. Nevertheless, despite having helped 40,000 families to "turn their lives around", and the cross-departmental financial contribution to the scheme, the Public Accounts Committee considered that it was insufficiently integrated with the Department for Work and Pensions' Families with Multiple Problems programme.[115] We heard several examples of the Troubled Families initiative stimulating wider discussion among local partnerships about the value of intervening early to prevent the inter-generational aspects of offending.[116] Martyn Underhill's observations illustrate this:

117

One area of potential prevention activity that appears to be neglected relates to children whose parents are involved in the criminal justice system, which is not a criterion for inclusion in the Troubled Families programme. Recent research by children's charity Barnardo's estimates that 200,000 children are affected by parental imprisonment each year across England and Wales, yet no official record exists of them.[118]

61. There is some indication that cross-Government approaches are not backed up by sufficient resources. The annual budget for prisons and probation amounts to £4 billion, while that for the Troubled Families programme is £448 million. When it comes to preventive investment further upstream, the amounts of funding involved are relatively small. For example, only £17.5 million has been dedicated to extending Family Nurse Partnerships, £10 million was given to enhance support to local authorities to tackle gang violence, and extension of the liaison and diversion scheme is costing £25 million.[119] Research by the Centre for Mental Health indicates that parenting programmes that help parents to manage children's behaviour can reduce the risk of a child getting involved in offending later in life; they also improve the mental health of parents and children alike. The total cost of crime attributable to people who had conduct problems in childhood is estimated at about £60 billion a year in England and Wales, equivalent to about £225,000 per person.[120] Evidence-based parenting programmes, by contrast, cost about £1,200 per child.

62. Official explanations of drivers of crime, which underpin the national crime action plan, for example, can at times be overly simplistic. For example, while the misuse of both alcohol and drugs can be causes of crime, their manifestations typically have other root causes. The Government's approach, which remains focused largely on the activity of the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, can also overemphasise the significance in attempting to reduce crime of measures taken entirely within the criminal justice system.

63. The Government has developed several cross-departmental programmes which are expected to bear down on crime rates over the medium and longer-term, and this is welcome. However, these programmes have tended to concentrate on crisis management where there might be faster financial gains. As a result, only a minor proportion of funding is attached to very early intervention programmes, which could lead to longer term benefits, like Family Nurse Partnerships. The staggering costs to both the criminal justice system and wider society associated with the failure to intervene sufficiently early to address known risks in childhood, for example related to parenting and mental health, highlight the need for a greater proportion of resources to be devoted to reducing these risks. Parental involvement in the criminal justice system, and parents serving custodial sentences in particular, should be recognised more explicitly as an avenue for early intervention.

Governance at national level

64. We found that people with key roles in the system were unaware of the existence and role of the National Criminal Justice Board. The President of the Prison Governors Association and the Chief Inspector of Prisons had not heard of it, and neither had anyone in the Prison Service to whom the latter had made enquiries.[121] Knowledge of the Board amongst Police and Crime Commissioners was mixed, although there was evidence that the themes outlined in the strategy had permeated into their policing and crime plans.[122] Jeremy Wright, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, spoke of the value of the Board in co-ordinating collective ownership of the system by the various parties that run it, and was disappointed that there was not more awareness of it.[123]

65. This Board is comprised of Ministers and operational leaders across the criminal justice system only.[124] Some witnesses were of the view that cross-departmental governance should be strengthened. In the absence of an obvious framework for centrally driving activity on crime reduction, Joanna Spicer of the Local Government Association called for a ministerial level crime reduction board which she felt would provide a "proper challenge" to new proposals and on-going work, and seek to ensure better co-ordination between departments.[125] Alison Frater agreed.[126] Alternatively, Councillor Spicer noted that it is a statutory requirement on local government (under section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1988) to consider the effect of any policy at all on crime reduction.[127] This policy could be applied to all Government departments.[128] None of our witnesses mentioned the role of the Minister for Crime Prevention, established in September 2012. Sarah Salmon of the Criminal Justice Alliance proposed that in order to reflect the fact that the answers to crime do not lie exclusively in the criminal justice system, there should be an inter-departmental Government strategy on crime reduction.[129] Norman Baker MP, the Minister for Crime Prevention, believed that the combination of his role, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice with a foot in both the Ministry and the Home Office, the various inter-ministerial groups and cross-government accords, provided both recognition of the need for different departments "with different levers to pull" and sufficient co-ordination.[130] The National Criminal Justice Board does not appear to have entered the consciousness of many key actors in the system, which concerns us. Nevertheless, we are not persuaded of the need for a broader National Crime Reduction Board. We consider rather that there is a need for a higher profile for the Minister for Crime Prevention, whose wide-ranging portfolio should be pivotal in providing strong cross-departmental oversight of crime reduction policies, and other policies that might influence crime. The Transforming the Criminal Justice System action plan commendably includes cross-government initiatives to reduce crime, but in our opinion what is really needed is a much broader approach, extending beyond the confines of the criminal justice system, and distinguishing clearly these activities from those that are properly owned by the criminal justice system.

Governance at local level

66. The three PCCs, Alun Michael (South Wales), Katy Bourne (Sussex) and Sue Mountstevens (Avon and Somerset) who gave oral evidence to us all thought the essential ingredient of successful crime reduction was to operate at local rather than national level.[131]

THE ROLE OF POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONERS

67. Perhaps not surprisingly, all three spoke positively about the potential of their role and the value of their local police and crime plans in galvanising local partnerships.[132] Policing and crime plans provide a common focus for agreeing activities that should take precedence at local level, including how best to implement national priorities. Their plans each set out objectives related to crime reduction and shared several similarities in their approach. For example, the focus was commonly on drugs, alcohol, mental health and other shared priorities such as integrated offender management, youth offending, and restorative justice; as well as anti-social behaviour and violence against women and girls, replicating national priorities at local level. There was also a common desire to afford victims' needs a higher priority in the criminal justice system. Alun Michael had explicitly called his plan a police and crime reduction plan. The plans also highlight the range of partnerships and agencies that PCCs sought to be engaged with and the approach they wished to take in so doing. These included health and well-being boards; NHS; community safety partnerships; local authorities; local criminal justice boards; drug and alcohol action teams; and youth offending services.

68. PCCs saw themselves as co-ordinators or facilitators, exercising leadership to bring people together to identify a common purpose.[133] For example, in Sussex, the plan had been used to agree shared frameworks for determining successful crime reduction activities and budget-setting, and a joint commitment to these activities being driven by evidence-based practice.[134] This had been challenging in terms of varying political priorities and geographical boundaries, but in most instances means have been found to overcome these.[135]

69. This was echoed by our witnesses, who were generally impressed by the 'and crime' mantle PCCs had taken on in relation to courts and community safety partnerships.[136] Those PCCs that we heard from, and about, appear to have provided additional co-ordination to the array of local crime responsibilities and activities, and have worked to address some structural barriers.For example, Rob Allen noted examples of police and crime commissioners setting up boards of local stakeholders from the health service, probation and all the other agencies and saying, "Look, we have some people here who are coming to the abshe attention of the police over and over again. What can we do to tackle their alcohol problem, their drug problem or whatever?"[137] Nevertheless, we were reminded by Councillor Spicer that it was early days to be confident about the results of their introduction.[138]

INTEGRATION BETWEEN PUBLIC HEALTH AND CRIME AGENDAS

70. Our witnesses were hopeful that health system reorganisation presented an opportunity for health, local authority and criminal justice partners to work together more effectively.[139] It was thought that the preventive approach to the promotion of good health taken by health and well-being boards could intersect well with crime prevention, for example, preventing childhood obesity, which can lead to mental health and drug and alcohol problems, and potentially, in turn, to crime.[140] Nevertheless, the involvement of criminal justice agencies is wholly discretionary on the part of Boards.[141] Witnesses pointed to good examples of co-ordination, such as the inclusion of a health strategy in the Mayor of London's police and crime plan, work undertaken by health bodies together with probation trusts to enable provision of better support to young offenders in developing mental health liaison and diversion schemes, and multi-agency work with troubled families undertaken by health and wellbeing boards which was able to look holistically at the issues experienced by such families, such as mental health, general health, reoffending, and truancy.[142] There is a risk that these changes in infrastructure might have confused organisational responsibility for reducing crime and re-offending. For example, Rob Allen suggested that health and education reforms have reduced the incentives for involvement by those agencies in crime reduction activities.[143]

71. There have been significant changes to the local partnership landscape for crime reduction since 2010 reflecting the ongoing broader shift of power in this field from Whitehall to local communities. While this has resulted in an assortment of local accountability structures, our evidence highlights the clear benefits of collective ownership, pooled funding and joint priorities for crime reduction that have been facilitated by this approach. The introduction of police and crime commissioners may have had a consolidating rather than destabilising effect, galvanising and sharpening the shared endeavours of local stakeholders to seek to make ongoing savings in dealing with residual local crime problems.

72. The new health commissioning structures provide an opportunity to address the need for stronger links between health promotion and crime reduction which has long been lacking. Nevertheless, there remains a considerable way to go before health can be considered a fully integral part of the crime reduction picture. It would be short-sighted of health and well-being boards not to facilitate access to criminal justice agencies, including police and crime commissioners (PCCs) and providers of probation services. These partnerships are still embedding and will undoubtedly have to undergo further adjustment following the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms. We recommend that the Government reviews whether PCCs and providers of probation services ought to be statutory partners on health and well-being boards.

Tensions between national and local priorities

73. Our witnesses identified some areas in which it was felt there should be greater national direction, and others where greater local discretion was required. The key example highlighted was the apparently divergent approaches of the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice: the former is making the transition from centrally-funded programmes to reduce crime to a system where funding is determined locally by elected PCCs, who are seen as "best placed" to understand the needs of their communities and hold to account community safety partnerships; the latter is nationalising probation services for higher risk offenders and developing centralised commissioning arrangements for medium and low risk offenders across contract areas which do not align well with existing criminal justice geographical boundaries.[144] The MoJ's approach appears also to be against the grain of other departments' public service reforms. We discuss the implications of this more fully later in this chapter.

74. The three Police and Crime Commissioners had differing views on the role that national strategies should play in shaping this activity.[145] Mr Michael said: "…I think, by and large, what happens at a national level is something that is in the background. The important work is very much local among the police, the Police and Crime Commissioner, local authorities and other organisations, including the agencies of central Government, like the prisons that are operating on your patch".[146] In Sue Mountsteven's experience, national initiatives had informed the priorities of her local criminal justice board.[147] On the other hand, Martyn Underhill, PCC for Dorset, cited the examples of mental health and education as areas where there was a disconnection between Departmental priorities and the localism agenda, and where stronger national direction was required. In relation to mental health he said:

148

We consider mental health provision later in this chapter.

THE IMPACT OF TRANSFORMING REHABILITATION REFORMS

75. We discuss here some opportunities and challenges related to partnership working following the probation reforms, and the possible post-election climate for PCCs. The Prison Reform Trust, London Councils and the Local Government Association amongst other respondents expressed concerns that the national commissioning function applied to the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms could militate against an effective cross-government approach and the efficient pooling of resources at local level.[149] NAPO explained more fully its fears:

150

76. As we note above, the focus of resources is predominantly on more serious offenders, who are sentenced to prisons and probation, and there is a risk that the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms will further reinforce this. Mr Richard Monkhouse, Chair of the Magistrates' Association, highlighted that the concentration of activity to reduce reoffending is on what he referred to as the 'top end' i.e. the 4% and 25% of offenders in the magistrates' courts that are sentenced to prison and probation respectively. He said "…the rest of them, many of whom have significant problems, are dealt with purely by fine and discharge, which on its own does very little to change offending behaviour [...] concentration at the top end has always almost ignored those who are next year's offenders."[151] Mr Monkhouse and Clinks foresaw a narrowing of voluntary and community sector provision at the lower end of the system as a result of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms.[152]

77. In recognition of the complexity and value of local partnerships in reducing crime, in our interim report we made the following recommendation:

153

As we note also in that report, the Ministry has been conscious of the need to integrate new providers with existing local structures and has published guidance in its Target Operating Model on how it intends this to be achieved, both through the use of contractual obligations and monitoring of engagement.[154]

78. We received further evidence during the course of this broader inquiry on the potential implications of bringing in new providers for the stability and effectiveness of different partnerships. Joanna Spicer explained the impact from local authorities' perspective: "[Local authorities] have been commissioning jointly with partners in all sorts of areas. The trouble is, when partners change their names, and sometimes the faces at the table, we have occasionally to take a few steps back and start again."[155] PCCs will be required to re-align their partnership boundaries to accommodate the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms which is creating several contract packages covering multiple criminal justice areas and hence PCCs' patches; some had begun to do so in preparation for implementation.[156] Alison Frater acknowledged that the range of actors that have a role to play in crime reduction can represent a challenge: "…it is tricky at the moment, is it not? There are a lot more players on the pitch in terms of who has the money…but there is a willingness to work together."[157] Frances Crook, Director of the Howard League, was concerned that the promising work of PCCs could be lost because it is embedded in individuals rather than systems:

158

79. The bulk of Government policy on the reduction of crime acknowledges that a multi-agency, largely locally determined, approach is essential to enable local priorities to be addressed effectively at local level. Nationally-commissioned rehabilitative services seemed to some of our witnesses to be out of kilter with the Government's stated commitment to local, responsive services, and could disrupt the progress that has been made in developing these.

80. The current situation where all local agencies are accountable but there is no single statutory leader risks confusion and abdication of responsibility but seems broadly to work through the goodwill of all involved. The collective ownership approach is continuing to develop in strength as police and crime commissioners find their feet, and local authorities and health commissioners get to grips with their new priorities. The new probation providers introduced by the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, and the new National Probation Service, need to support this approach and to avoid undermining it. There is scope for truly integrated localised approaches, but there is a danger that their development will be inhibited by the extent to which national management remains a feature of the criminal justice system.

81. New providers will need to build relationships with a complex range of partners. Their priorities will impact considerably on the work of prison governors, police and crime commissioners, and local authorities, yet will have accountability to none of them. We are encouraged that we encountered a willingness on behalf of police and crime commissioners (PCCs), local authorities and health commissioners, to work with the new probation providers to continue to pursue local crime reduction initiatives. The successful integration of these new players will be determined by them seeking to ensure there is sufficient flexibility and funding in their model to enable them to build on the strengths of local partnerships and seek to further develop them, rather than simply recognising their existence. This should be a crucial component of the Ministry's scrutiny of prospective providers.

Progress on key crime reduction initiatives

82. Our predecessor Committee identified key points where contact with the criminal justice system should be used as an opportunity to direct people into appropriate services or initiatives ensuring greater social justice outcomes that were unrealised. These included: expanding liaison and diversion schemes for people with mental health problems and learning disabilities; greater use of some rehabilitative requirements that could be attached to a community order, including alcohol treatment and mental health treatment, which appeared to be under-utilised by the courts in relation to need; the wider availability of restorative justice schemes. It also highlighted three groups on which immediate priority should be placed to achieve swift progress: young adults aged 18-25; women; and short-sentenced prisoners.

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

83. Witnesses welcomed the Government's efforts to integrate better restorative justice into the criminal justice system.[159] For example, the Prison Reform Trust referred to the creation of a legislative framework for restorative justice in the Crime and Courts Act 2013 as a "significant development".[160] Although it has received greater prominence, Adam Pemberton, Victim Support, emphasised the importance of ensuring that whilst victims should be offered restorative justice in all circumstances, it works best for victims when it is centred upon them and their interests are treated equally in the process as those of the offender, which has not been the case in the past.[161]

ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT

84. The absence of mental health support for the "large proportion" of offenders with mental health issues that come before the courts is a particular frustration for the Magistrates' Association: "magistrates often have no option but to deal with [this group] in the same way as other offenders. This helps no one."[162] PCCs Sue Mountstevens and Martyn Underhill, and the President of the Prison Governors' Association made similar observations of the police and prisons.[163] The former said: "If we could find better co-ordination with the NHS…then that would free up a lot of police time to do more crime prevention. At the moment, it is estimated that over 20% of their work is involved in working with people that are mentally ill.[164] A Crisis Care Concordat has since been agreed to improve the treatment of people who need immediate mental health support at times of emergency.[165]

85. Dr O'Moore stated that health is a key part of any consideration of the coherence of approaches to crime reduction because it is "part of the problem and part of the solution."[166] For example, he felt that the "health potential" of a person's contact with probation services is "underexploited".[167] Public Health England is working with NOMS to ensure that probation services undertake effective health needs assessments, which Dr O'Moore saw as the start of the journey of ensuring that those on probation are appropriately referred.[168] One option that has proven effective is the use of mental health treatment requirements which allow sentencers to deal with the situation where individuals have committed offences that do not require a prison sentence, but who need mental health treatment as part of their rehabilitation. The Centre for Mental Health believed that there is unfulfilled potential in the use of such requirements: just 1% of community sentences include one, despite estimates that at least 39% of offenders supervised by probation services have mental health problems. While this might be addressed partially by the recent introduction of greater flexibility in their operation, knowledge and confidence about them is low among sentencers, probation services, and health and social care services.[169]

86. In April 2009, Lord Bradley made 82 recommendations to tackle the over-representation of people with mental health problems in the criminal justice system in England, nearly all of which the Government accepted in full or in principle.[170] This Committee has repeatedly criticised both the former and the current Governments for slow progress in implementing them, in particular in relation to the promised network of liaison and diversion schemes to identify mental health problems at police stations and in courts, which was due to be in place by this year. The Prison Reform Trust (PRT), which has been involved in the Care not Custody Coalition to promote this, called on us to "satisfy [ourselves] that the government commitment to establish liaison and diversion services across England by 2014, funded by the Department of Health, will be honoured."[171] The Government has subsequently announced £25m funding to extend the liaison and diversion trial sites. These services will be evaluated and if successful, extended to the rest of the country by 2017. Whilst the PRT welcomes this, they note that this represents less substantive funding, and a much later deadline, than was previously promised by the Department of Health.

87. In assuming responsibility for commissioning offender health in police custody suites and courts the NHS Commissioning Board will be accountable for adhering to the Government's commitment. When we asked her why there had been such a delay Dr Alison Frater explained that there were multiple explanations for the poor capacity of mental health services to address the needs of those who commit crime, including lack of understanding about effective models of care and the necessity of focusing limited resources on crisis intervention for those with severe and enduring mental illness.[172]

88. It is a paradox that the criminal justice system continues to be used so often as a gateway to mental health, drug, or alcohol treatment—which must be regarded as a chronic failure of mainstream treatment services—and yet there is evidently much more that could be done to support those people who are in the system to address health problems that are associated with their offending. It is not clear to us quite why such slow progress has been made in building the nationwide network of liaison and diversion schemes as advocated by Lord Bradley in 2009. Addressing the funding of mental health services, the inadequacy of which costs the police, courts, probation, and prisons and victims of crime greatly, should be an urgent cross-departmental priority of the Government as part of its national crime action plan. The Ministry of Justice and Department of Health should encourage greater and more effective use of mental health treatment as part of probation orders. Bids to operate Community Rehabilitation Companies should be evaluated for the extent to which they provide for access to mental health treatment.

ACCESS TO DRUG AND ALCOHOL MISUSE TREATMENT

89. Robust evidence points to the significant role of drug and alcohol treatment in cutting crime, in particular, acquisitive crimes like shoplifting and other forms of theft.[173] It is estimated that drug treatment prevented 4.9 million offences in 2010-11, saving approximately £960 million, against an annual cost of drug-related crime of £13.9 billion.[174] Levels of drug use are also falling.[175] The criminal justice system is a chief gateway for substance-misuse treatment: a third of all treatment referrals were by this route in 2011-12.[176] The Magistrates' Association did not view this in a positive light. They observed: "[i]t has always been an issue that an offender who wishes to rid themselves of a substance abuse habit (which often leads to offending) views the CJS as their best way to a course of treatment."[177]

90. Drugscope described the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) which has been running since 2003, the funding for which has now been pooled into the community safety fund, as "the principal policy vehicle bringing together criminal justice and drug treatment services". Through the programme offenders were offered treatment and support, delivered in partnership using integrated teams, from the point of arrest, throughout their sentence and beyond. Drugscope questioned the likely survival of such interventions under the new commissioning arrangements, particularly following the removal of ring-fenced funding for the DIP. Drug and alcohol services are one of 17 areas of commissioning responsibility for Directors of Public Health in local authorities and Police and Crime Commissioners are able to use the community safety fund, into which DIP funding has been subsumed, as they wish.

91. We raised this question with the PCC and local authority representatives that we spoke to. The PCC for Avon and Somerset, Ms Mountstevens, gave us an example of pooled commissioning to develop a single service for arrest referral in Avon and Somerset, through the PCC and local drug and alcohol action teams.[178] Councillor Joanna Spicer believed that bringing some responsibility for mainstream drug and alcohol services into public health would bring efficiencies.[179] Dr Alison Frater used the example of integrating substance misuse workers with mental health liaison and diversion schemes as a promising joint venture.[180]

92. Improvements have also been made in prison-based drug services, which have led to a reduction in drug-related deaths, but these have not translated necessarily into a reduction in drug-related crime.[181] NOMS' Surveying Prisoners Crime Reduction Survey (a longitudinal cohort study of prisoners sentenced in England and Wales to between one month and four years in 2005 and 2006) was unable to identify significant associations between drug and alcohol interventions in prison and reoffending on release. However, Class A drug use after release from prison was directly linked to increased chances of re-offending, confirming the need for effective community based strategies to tackle drug use amongst offenders.[182] The Department of Health and Ministry of Justice have recognised this in their aspiration to create "through the gate" drug and alcohol treatment as part of their Transforming Rehabilitation agenda.

93. The picture is not quite so rosy for alcohol treatment. Charity Addaction's Alcohol and Crime Commission, which recently surveyed serving prisoners, found that 70% admitted they had been drinking when they committed the crime for which they were jailed. Despite this, only half of those who made the admission recognised their drinking as a problem, and only 40% had been informed about support available to help them on their release. Professor John Podmore, the Commission's chair, described alcohol treatment as the 'Cinderella' service to drug treatment and suggested that alcohol use as an underlying factor in offending needs to be better understood, and a proper evidence base established, if existing resources are to be targeted more effectively. He wished to see alcohol-related crime being placed higher up the national and local government agenda.[183] Professor Laycock cited alcohol policy as an area in which the Government had "totally ignored" research literature on how to create an environment in which crime related to its misuse would be less likely.[184]

94. Norman Baker accepted that the problems of alcohol misuse are underestimated and should be viewed as seriously as problems with drugs, if not more so, though he noted that alcohol problems are, for the most part, decreasing.[185] The Home Office has estimated that the costs of abuse amount to £21 billion a year, including £11 billion in anti-social behaviour and £3.5 billion to the health service, whereas the costs from drugs are about half that. The Government's alcohol strategy, which relates primarily to controlling the sale and supply of alcohol, estimates that almost a million (44%) violent crimes are alcohol-related.[186] Broader Government initiatives include payment by results pilots for drug and alcohol dependent offenders, encouraging all hospitals to share information on alcohol-related injuries with the police, providing valuable intelligence on policing priorities, and urging the alcohol industry to take greater responsibility for better regulating the sale of its products.[187] The effective use of data in the context of crime reduction activity is discussed in chapter five.

95. There is much to commend in the progress that has been made in bringing agencies together in collective efforts to prevent offending and reoffending, but there remain substantial fault-lines in the coherence of cross-Government activity, in particular in relation to mental health and alcohol policy. The joint work to tackle drug misuse between the various actors in the criminal justice system and health services is an example of the savings that can be achieved when a cross-departmental commitment is made to tackle crime as a public health problem.

Courts and prisons: missing links?

96. According to our witnesses there are two major elements missing from local partnership approaches to crime reduction: courts and prisons.

THE ROLE OF COURTS IN CRIME REDUCTION

97. The Magistrates' Association called for better relationships between their members and others within the local and national criminal justice system. They observe that there is no magistrate on the Board of HMCTS, despite the fact that magistrates are prime users of the courts system.[188] The Senior Presiding Judge does however sit as an observer on the National Criminal Justice Board.[189] Alun Michael was of the view that one of the missing links in the system for ensuring a coherent approach to crime reduction is the need to ensure that the courts have a duty to pay full attention to "what works" in reducing the likelihood and the seriousness of re-offending.[190] There is a view that judges have regard to the reduction of crime through their consideration of the statutory purposes of sentencing including by deterrence, reform and rehabilitation, protection of the public, and reparation to those affected. On the other hand, crime prevention as such is not a direct part of the judges' function. Penelope Gibbs, who has herself been a magistrate, suggested that some basic reforms are required, for example, to magistrates' training. This should cover how people desist from crime and the effectiveness of sentences. Magistrates should receive more systematic feedback about their cases.[191] We discuss the latter point, and the potential for a greater role for problem-solving courts, later in this chapter.

THE ROLE OF PRISONS IN CRIME REDUCTION

98. Nick Hardwick, Chief Inspector of Prisons, believed that prisons are a particular example of the "silo" operation of the various parts of the system:

192

99. The Government is seeking to address this and other weaknesses through the creation of resettlement prisons, the idea of which several our witnesses embraced in principle.[193] Mr Hardwick welcomed this notion, but exercised caution about how it could work, in terms of placing people in the establishment closest to their home, when the system is almost full to capacity. He considered that if this is not addressed, "there is a real danger that in the resettlement and rehabilitation services, which are organised geographically through contracts that governors will not be able to control, there will be a mismatch between service provision and where the prisoners who need those services are."[194] NACRO was concerned that targeted interventions cannot be left to the last three months of the sentence because it may not leave enough time to stabilise the offender to the requisite level and stop them reoffending on release.[195] Mr McLennan Murray and Mr Hardwick explained the difficulties faced by prison governors in not having direct control of the budgets, rendering them powerless to change things that impact on the prisoners for which they are responsible.[196] Similarly, CRCs, paid by their ability to reduce reoffending, will need to work with education and training providers, commissioned under contract through BIS, to ensure the learning in prison is preparing prisoners towards desistance. However these providers currently have no incentive to consider whether the learning and curriculum they provide contributes to desistance.[197] Resettlement prisons offer the potential for well-integrated connections with outside agencies through Community Rehabilitation Companies, which would help to achieve an objective we set in our 2011 report on the probation service. Nevertheless in order for these reforms to work in practice, insofar as they relate to prisons, the Government should specify how it plans to tackle the high level of overcrowding in the prison estate so that prisoners can be held in the establishment closest to their homes. In a nutshell, the impact of Transforming Rehabilitation on improving outcomes will depend crucially on how the changes are implemented and the relationships between the new and existing structures. Uncoordinated or poorly thought-through implementation would risk deterioration in outcomes. For example, it will be important to clarify how prison governors relate to Community Rehabilitation Companies, over whose contracts they do not have control.

The impact of spending reductions on local partnerships

100. The Magistrates Association observed that reductions in spending, both from the government directly and through local authorities, were placing locally driven initiatives which provide valuable support to those likely to offend or reoffend under enormous pressure. Cuts had also led to a weakening of systems for co-ordination between different parts of the criminal justice system.[198]

101. Mr Michael observed that the fiscal climate had not undermined partnership work in Wales. In his view quite the opposite had occurred:

199

Councillor Kober agreed that partnerships were being maintained, and in London, being strengthened, in recognition of the scale of the budget reductions required and in the face of increases in demand.[200] Nevertheless, both the Local Government Association and London Councils point to a longer-term reduction in the resources that are available to drive down crime. London Councils estimated that existing cuts, along with further predicted reductions, and an increase in demand, will create an overall funding gap of up to 24% by 2020. The LGA suggested that the need for austerity creates a greater incentive to invest in preventative measures in an effort to reduce demand for services but acknowledges that partners will not necessarily benefit equally from any resulting reductions in crime and disorder. Our evidence suggests that local partnerships, and their component agencies, recognise the mutual advantage of collective endeavours to reduce crime and are conscious of the risks of retreating to their own priorities in the face of financial constraints.

Prison safety and rehabilitative effectiveness

102. There was less confidence about the impact of spending cuts on prisons. In relation to safety, the Chief Inspector of Prisons had some concerns that there were fewer prison staff in contact with prisoners, and that recent increases in self-inflicted deaths and assaults were symptomatic of "a system under real strain"; at this time the prison system was operating at 10.2% over capacity.[201] Mr McLennan Murray suggested that the combination of larger prisons and fewer resources risked prisoners feeling anonymous, which in turn had a psychological impact that could change the culture of the prisons, and make them inherently more risky.[202]

103. The potential impact on rehabilitative outcomes was also raised. The Prisons Inspectorate drew the following conclusions in relation to levels of purposeful activity in the establishments they visited in 2012-13: activity outcomes were poor and falling; too many prisoners spent too long locked in their cells, and evening association was increasingly curtailed'; there were too few activity places, and low take-up of what was available, often disrupted by poor attendance and punctuality, prison routines and other activities.[203] The Prisoner Learning Alliance's discussions with prison governors led them to conclude that budget cuts were making it harder to achieve rehabilitation outcomes in custody. They observed: "although the MoJ may be making initial savings in the prison estate, if this makes it harder to achieve rehabilitation and desistance outcomes, then the predicted savings as a result of reduced reoffending will not be achieved.[204] The Alliance also noted the rapidity of policy change in prisons whilst cumulative cost savings are being made, drawing our attention to the introduction of new Offender Learning and Skills contracts which are still bedding in, closely followed by announcements of the creation of resettlement prisons, Community Rehabilitation Companies, and secure colleges. It was Martyn Underhill's perception that decisions about the designation of resettlement prisons and the prison closures programme were disconnected from each other.[205]

104. A recent joint Inspectorate report about the quality of offender management of prisoners found that there are too few structured programmes available within prisons designed to challenge offending behaviour and promote rehabilitation. Some prisons offered a reasonable range of accredited and non-accredited programmes for their population; others offered no programmes at or were in the process of running down their provision. According to the Inspectorates, the lack of programmes was not sufficiently compensated for by prisoners being transferred to prisons where such programmes could be accessed.[206] Mr Wright submitted that it was not possible to generalise in terms of the impact of savings in the prison estate on access to offender behaviour programme and too soon for any impact to have been made on reoffending rates, but acknowledged that there was a particular issue with serious assaults on staff.[207] Nonetheless, he said "I do not believe that anything is being done, in terms of any economic rationalisation, which is putting at risk the rehabilitation of prisoners, much less public safety."[208] We plan to consider these matters more fully in our new inquiry on Prisons: planning and policies.

105. When resources are scarce, it does not make sense to over-use the prison system without providing effective rehabilitation, because the result is likely to be higher re-offending. A prison system which effectively rehabilitates a smaller number of offenders, while other offenders are rehabilitated through robust community sentences, has the potential to bring about a bigger reduction in crime.

Innovation in courts: a casualty of the cuts?

106. The Magistrates' Association suggested that decision-making in relation to court efficiencies had been similarly disjointed. They said: "In one breath a comprehensive review of the court estate is being announced in order to develop a planned approach to the provision of justice (and not before time). Days later a consultation is launched to close another eighty courts in the interests of saving money." [209]

107. The Centre for Court Innovation was of the view that the Government's court reform programme had been geared toward court efficiency rather than recognising the contribution that courts could make to reducing crime more effectively, for example, through the adoption of procedural justice and problem-solving approaches.[210] The extension of community courts was a priority for the previous Government, which had established pilots of specialist drug courts, mental health courts and domestic violence courts, and planned to extend problem-solving approaches to all magistrates' courts.[211] We saw examples of these in operation at the Star Court in Houston, Texas and Stockport Magistrates' Court, Greater Manchester.

Success through addiction recovery (Star) Court, Houston, Texas
Drug users, known as clients, spend between one and two years on the programme, which is followed by a period of after-care. The court contracts directly with inpatient and outpatient treatment providers and transitional housing providers enabling clients to access secure accommodation for 60-90 days. Clients are also obliged to comply with other directions made by the judge at each weekly hearing. Clients are subject to random drug testing at least twice a week. Members observed the "staffing" meeting during which decisions were made about the approach that would be taken with respect to each client when the court is in session based on intelligence from treatment providers about developments over the previous week. Each client is then called before the judge, in the presence of all the other clients, and discusses their progress or otherwise. Clients can request a hearing if they disagree with the judge's decision. Consistency across the four drug courts is important as attendees of all courts are in treatment together. The central co-ordinator has oversight of all cases. Additionally sanctions, which are applied for various issues including missing treatment, negative tests, and lack of compliance with housing provider rules, are taken from a grid, including 8 hours community service for example. Positive reinforcement for good progress includes monthly sobriety chips and a weekly "shining star" award. The programme has a very low reoffending rate (less than 8% three years after completion).
Stockport Problem-Solving Court
In 2010 the Clerk to the Justices' steering group discussed the possibility of a problem-solving court in Greater Manchester and visited Sefton Magistrates Court in Merseyside court (which had different criteria and framework to the court that was subsequently established in Stockport). Problem-solving courts fit into Greater Manchester's demand management agenda as they take a preventative partnership approach to managing offenders sentenced in the court (and their victims), rather than focusing on crisis management. Sentence planning meetings are attended by all relevant agencies, chaired by probation. Cases are diverted to the court at pre-sentence stage if plead guilty, or found guilty and magistrates identify multiple or complex needs, for example, homelessness, mental health, drugs and/or alcohol misuse. The Court has a dedicated Bench and dedicated legal advisers. There is a focus on continuity of the Bench for each case, including following breach. Cases are sentenced within mainstream sentencing provisions, which can include custodial sentences. The offender is tracked through the sentence by both the probation officer and the sentencing bench; the latter provide 5-weekly reviews. Partners include employment, housing, DWP and social services.
The post-pilot evaluation, which is currently in its second year, identified a cost of £63,000 to the community safety partnership, GMPT and other partners and calculated a £3.49 return for each £1 spent. It was estimated that £219,000 were accrued in savings to the prison service over 13 months for those cases that met the threshold for a custodial sentenced. There were also savings to health services: for example, 47 of those offenders sentenced in the court had attempted suicide in the year before, and only 1 did so after. Despite the fact that the sentencer reviews are voluntary, unless there is a drug treatment requirement, there is a compliance rate of 78%. The court has been mainstreamed since 2012 and the approach is now being rolled-out across Greater Manchester.

108. The Centre for Justice Innovation and Criminal Justice Alliance pointed to a growing evidence base about the value of problem-solving courts, particularly from the US.[212] This does not appear to have amounted to anything in England and Wales, despite the success of some of the pilots and the support of magistrates.[213] The Magistrates' Association attributed this to funding. Mr Monkhouse explained that this is the case even in drug treatment cases where the principle is long-established: "[Drug case reviews] are not used as much as they used to be. It is an efficiency problem. "Is this going to mean another hearing? Is this going to mean another sitting? Well, let's not do it, because it is going to cost money." Justice is more important than that. Again, you have to strike that balance between economy and justice."[214] Penelope Gibbs concluded that the centralisation of the administration of magistrates' courts had hampered court innovation:

215

109. Phillip Bowen, Director of the Centre for Justice Innovation, which was set up in the UK by the US Centre for Court Innovation, believed that these approaches could be adopted relatively simply, and within existing resources. For example, the use of systematic sentencer reviews, which—in addition to improving the effectiveness of individual sentences due to the greater responsibilities placed on the offender to progress and the sentencers direct oversight of this—can help sentencers to recognise gaps in service provision.[216] In the US, this has enabled them to become proponents of system reform; indeed some problem-solving courts grew out of a desire on the part of the judiciary to do just that.[217] In England and Wales, despite support for this in principle, the thorny question of how far the judiciary can, within the confines of its independence, work with executive agencies in the interests of crime reduction, appears to have thwarted the widespread adoption of such efforts.[218]

110. At a recent public "Conversation with the Lord Chief Justice" event, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, was asked about his views on judge-led initiatives like problem-solving courts. His response did not appear to preclude such activity. He said that he was keen to encourage new initiatives provided this did not result in there being localised differences in the system of justice. If this were to happen he wished there to be "complete agreement on it being taken forward by those who (a) hold the purse strings and, b) who are going to be providing information to the court and c) those who are going to be carrying out what the court does. A judge acting on his own will really get nowhere, but he can play an important part in leadership."[219] Nevertheless, Jeremy Wright confirmed that while the Government had not closed the door on the idea, it had no current plans to give sentencers the powers to review cases, explaining that recent changes to the sentencing framework gave greater flexibility to the delivery of sentences, and that he was not convinced that these reviews had any meaningful purpose.[220]

111. Another means of applying a problem-solving approach more widely, which would also address the Magistrates' Association's observations about the balance of priorities, would be the extension of neighbourhood justice panels, volunteer-led community resolution panels that hear low level crime and anti-social behaviour cases.[221] The Centre for Justice Innovation said:

222

Mr Bowen explained that while the panels have high rates of satisfaction for victims, they hear only a relatively small volume of cases, in relation to the numbers receiving fines and discharges in magistrates' courts to which they could be an alternative. Jeremy Wright indicated that there were plans to give magistrates responsibility for monitoring youth diversionary programmes.[223] The absence of court representation on local community safety partnerships (in part because of sensitivities about judicial independence) and the centralisation of the courts service, have together resulted in a situation where there are few champions for court innovation at local level. HMCTS has prioritised efficiency savings, seeing courts as purely instrumental institutions involved solely in processing and resolving cases. As a result an opportunity has been missed for encouraging greater innovation, which could have the potential to make broader systemic savings by improving the effectiveness of the whole criminal justice system to reduce crime. If as our evidence suggests, efficiency savings have shelved the wider adoption of problem-solving approaches in courts, this is greatly to be regretted. However, there is much that can be achieved within the confines of the existing sentencing framework which need not require additional resources. We consider that the judiciary and HM Courts and Tribunals Service should see crime reduction as an intrinsic part of their role.

The evidence-base for crime reduction policy-making

112. As resources are increasingly devolved to local decision-makers, the Government has an important role in encouraging and publicising best practice. Some initiatives are piloted carefully to develop a robust business case, while others are implemented before completion and robust evaluation, the delays in implementing mental health liaison and diversion schemes and the early decision regarding the direction of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms being prime examples.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESEARCH AND POLICY-MAKING

113. We took evidence from a number of eminent academics about the relationship between academia and Government in relation to the development of crime reduction policy. Professor Gloria Laycock explained: "research is only one of umpteen things that influence policy. I don't blame the Prime Minister for wanting to be re-elected for example. That is what politicians seem to want. It is perfectly rational. I don't say it critically, but research, precedent, cost, politics, the media—all those things—influence policy."[224] She further observed that every time there is a change of Government there seems to be a change of criminal justice policy, unlike a matter like terrorism, on which there is more consistent policy across administrations.[225]

114. All these witnesses wished to see research higher on the Government agenda, but acknowledged that just as Ministers and civil servants need to engage better with researchers, academics have a role to play in presenting their research more clearly and accessibly.[226] The latter is also complicated by the multiplicity of approaches that could contribute to more enlightened crime reduction policy-making. Professor McDougall said:

227

There was some disagreement among our academic witnesses about the meaning of academic rigour, reflecting divisions in the wider academic criminology community. There was greater accord on the need for better funding by the Government of primary research. Professor McDougall was positive about the research that NOMS had conducted, but considered it limited in scope, and concluded that new policies were being implemented all the time and were not evaluated. We received evidence of two areas of research in particular that should have a greater bearing on approaches to reducing crime: procedural justice and trust which suggests that the way people are treated by the system is as important as the outcome, and the processes by which people desist from crime.[228] Jeremy Wright believed that there were good links between Government and the academic community, though this was not necessarily through MoJ or Home Office funded research.[229]

115. An open information culture will be important in the development of payment by results. The Criminal Justice Alliance argued that "[d]ata must be openly available, and not retained by individual providers, and research and assessment on what works must also be openly available to allow providers to learn from each other."[230] This is all the more crucial as the monitoring expectations required of new providers to provide evidence of their outcomes should provide a wealth of data to inform the collective understanding of effective practice in reducing reoffending. The Ministry needs to make clear how the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms will be evaluated, and how the evidence of success or failure of differing approaches will be used to inform policy.

116. In this context, some witnesses suggested that our predecessor Committee's proposals for an independent equivalent to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for criminal justice should be re-examined. Professor McDougall proposed that this would have the benefit that decisions about the evidence base are taken unbiased by political opinion, but believed that this prospect was a "long way off". She argued rather that research in criminal justice is a "disposable commodity".[231] Professor Jonathan Shepherd, Cardiff University, felt that there was insufficient integration between academic research and criminal justice services and practitioners. He cited the greater integration of practitioners and academics in fields such as medicine as an example that could be followed in criminal justice.[232]

WASHINGTON STATE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY

117. One example of what could be achieved if such an approach were taken is another promising US initiative cited in our predecessor Committee's report: Washington State Institute for Public Policy's work with the State Legislature to identify on the basis of cost-benefit analyses, how best to invest money to save crime.[233] There has since been a decline in both crime and imprisonment.[234] The Youth Justice Board is now seeking to adopt such an approach: Dartington Social Research Unit has been contracted to work with the Institute to assess the costs and benefits of youth justice programmes and apply to them to the direction of youth justice spending.[235] Professor Farrington advocated wider adoption of such an approach to carefully calculate the costs and benefits of all sorts of different ways of reducing crime, and to "make recommendations about where to get the best bang for the buck."[236] None of the various developments in improving the relationship between evidence and practice described in chapter three fulfil this function. The What Works Centre for Crime Reduction, as promising as it sounds, is currently centred predominantly on policing. The Probation Institute is in its infancy, and has a focus on probation practice.

118. We agree with our witnesses that there should be an independent and authoritative body to evaluate evidence on the effectiveness of crime reduction policies. Ultimate decisions on those policies would of course rest with elected politicians. Whilst there have been some positive developments, including the creation of the What Works Centre for Policing and the Probation Institute, we do not have the right structures in place to provide a collective memory of research evidence, its relative weight, and its implications for policy-making, including the capacity to make decisions about the best direction of resources. The Government should also consider how it can promote better integration between criminal justice practitioners and academic research. The large scale reforms to rehabilitative services provide an opportunity to collate and spread knowledge about effective practice in reducing re-offending that must be capitalised on by the Government. This will require clear ownership of the data, consistency in monitoring systems, and robust evaluation, matters on which the Department has been quiet. We expect the Ministry to explain how it will seek to achieve this in its response.

The potential of technology in targeting crime reduction activity

119. The Cutting Crime report highlighted the potential of taking a more epidemiological approach to the reduction of crime, both at national and local level.[237] Witnesses agreed that this continued to be the case, and that limited progress had been made, despite the plethora of information now recorded electronically by various agencies, and the potential of technology to join that up and make it more accessible. Several examples illustrates the difficulties experienced by our witnesses. The LGA cited the length of time it has taken to implement the Government's commitment to the sharing of data from accident and emergency departments for the purposes of reducing alcohol-related violence—which was advocated by our predecessor—as an example of the difficulties faced in cross-departmental co-ordination of cross-cutting issues.[238] A recent audit found that only one third of A&E departments had shared this information.[239] Dr Eamonn O'Moore explained that Public Health England now has a wealth of data, for example, about those accessing drug services, and violence indicators, to enable local authorities and clinical commissioning groups to better understand the needs of their local population. Dr Alison Frater had been frustrated in efforts to share information by data protection obligations, for example, it has only recently become possible to track people accessing NHS services on the prison estate, post-release.[240] Similarly, London Councils found that lack of access to personalised data undermined their ability to judge the effectiveness of locally delivered crime reduction projects and raised concerns that structural changes within the Metropolitan police service, may jeopardise the ability of local authorities to intelligently direct resources in the future.[241]

120. Martyn Underhill saw potential in cloud-based software being used by all agencies in relation to the management of risk and harm.[242] Unilink expounded various means of utilising biometric technology in developing efficiencies in the prison system and through-the-gate case management.[243] On the other hand, Big Brother Watch, a civil liberties and privacy campaign group, urged attention to be given to protecting privacy in the use of personal data gathered through digital surveillance, for example CCTV.[244] The Government does not appear to have taken a data-driven approach to the cost-effective application of resources in the face of the requirement to make cost savings. Knowledge of levels of victimisation and repeat victimisation amongst certain geographical areas, communities or sectors of the population does not adequately inform policy on crime reduction.

97 National Audit Office, The criminal justice system: landscape review, HC 1098, March 2014 Back

98 See for example PPC0017; Q59 [Ms Bourne]; Q414 [Ms Crook]; , Back

99 Local Government Association (PPC0011) Back

100 The Howard League for Penal Reform (PPC0016) Back

101 Nacro (PPC0038) Back

102 Martyn Underhill (PPC0023) Back

103 Magistrates' Association (PPC0017) Back

104 HM Government The Coalition Agreement: our programme for government, p.11 Back

105 Magistrates' Association (PPC0017) Back

106 London Councils (PPC0005) Back

107 Justice Committee, Second Report of Session 2013-14, Women offenders: after the Corston Report, HC 92 Back

108 Local Government Association (PPC0011). See also Q454 [Mr Bowen] Back