Conclusions and recommendations
Background
1.We welcome the Government’s commitment to social justice and the establishment of the Reducing Reoffending Taskforce in recognition of the importance of a cross-government approach to those involved in the criminal justice system. We also commend the commitment to address racial inequality, which David Lammy found to be particularly acute in parts of the criminal justice system. (Paragraph 9)
The Government’s approach to young adults in the criminal justice system
2.We are sympathetic to HMPPS’ existing priorities and appreciate that action to address the Committee’s recommendations has taken place in the context of both budget cuts and significant challenges in the prison estate, alongside concerted activity both to improve safety and reform prisons. Nevertheless, it remains important to reflect on the effectiveness of their current approach and the potential benefits of targeting scarce resources at those prisoners for whom there may be greatest impact. We have seen no evidence that the argument made by our predecessor about the potential for savings to be made by investing in more developmentally appropriate practices has been considered, which may be short-sighted. The restructuring of the Ministry and reconfiguration of HMPPS represented opportunities to re-think the strategic approach to young adults and to develop dedicated funding and governance arrangements which have the potential for significant improvement in outcomes that are urgently needed. (Paragraph 26)
3.We welcome the Secretary of State’s recognition of the need for a cross-departmental approach to reducing reoffending. The Ministry should draw to the attention of the Reducing Reoffending Taskforce research demonstrating that young adulthood is a distinctive period of development and how this relates to desistance from crime. Having reviewed this, the Taskforce should, by 31 December 2018, develop a cross-departmental programme of action for those up to the age of 25 as a priority group. This should include commissioning work on the potential cross-departmental cost-benefits of adopting a coherent approach which explicitly reflects young adults’ developmental status and extends statutory support, provided to under-18s by a range of agencies, to people up to the age of 25. (Paragraph 30)
The Government’s progress
4.We are encouraged to see much greater weight being given to maturity in the treatment of young adults. Nevertheless, neither the Ministry nor HMPPS appeared to have a defined approach for what should happen once maturity screening has been done. The focus has been on identifying needs when there is also a need for unrelenting attention to improving outcomes. It is unfortunate that there have been delays in implementing the screening tool and resource pack, and in assessing their impact. It is also not clear to us whether, where screening for low maturity is positive, it is followed by in-depth assessment. Accordingly, there is not yet any evidence which can convince us of the efficacy of the Government’s approach. We expect the Government in response to our report to explain whether in-depth assessments are provided for individuals ‘screened’ as having maturity needs. We also wish to see a definitive timetable for when the screening tool, maturity pack, and in-depth assessments will be available across the estate, when Government expects to see evidence of their impact, and the specific measures by which they intend to monitor improvement in outcomes for young adults in custody and in the community. We also wish to be informed at the end of the piloting of what proportion of young adults aged 18 to 25 screened were identified as having low maturity. (Paragraph 36)
5.The Ministry aims to be a data-driven department. We are keen to be convinced of the efficacy of its approach to young adults, so it is disappointing not to see indicative evidence of improvement in outcomes some 18 months after its response to our predecessor’s report. In order to incentivise improvements and to enable us to scrutinise effectively their commitment to be data-driven with respect to young adults, we shall review on an annual basis HMPPS’ outcomes against the performance measures we call on the Ministry to set out. These should include reconviction, compliance with community orders, levels of offending in custody, the use of adjudications and indicators of well-being. The Ministry must also assure us that existing quarterly safety and offender management data will be published in a form that allows the data therein to be assessed for 18 to 20-year olds and 21 to 24-year olds by ethnicity. In order to incentivise improvements and to enable us to scrutinise effectively their commitment to be data-driven with respect to young adults, we shall review on an annual basis HMPPS’ outcomes against the performance measures we call on the Ministry to set out. These should include reconviction, compliance with community orders, levels of offending in custody, the use of adjudications and indicators of well-being. The Ministry must also assure us that existing quarterly safety and offender management data will be published in a form that allows the data therein to be assessed for 18 to 20-year olds and 21 to 24-year olds by ethnicity (Paragraph 39)
6.The creation of the National Probation Service Board provides a welcome driver for action for young adults. We would like clarification of how progress against its workstreams will be measured and ask that the Board keep us informed of its outcomes on an annual basis. We recommended to HM Chief Inspector of Probation in our response to her consultation on work priorities that they conduct research on effective practices with young adults aged 18 to 25. The Board should consider adopting a further workstream to examine gaps in the evidence base and how best to fill them. (Paragraph 40)
7.We welcome HM Inspector of Prisons’ introduction of a new expectation for prisons to ensure that the specific needs of young adults 18–25 are met which should provide the impetus for prison governors and directors to develop dedicated strategies for young adults. To ensure this leads in practice to a coordinated approach being taken by HMPPS to driving improvements in outcomes for young adults across the prison estate, which we consider necessary in the absence of a central lead, we recommend the creation of a young adults Board for prisons, akin to that established by NPS. The Board should comprise all executive governors holding young adults up to the age of 25 in their establishments and should oversee the implementation of an action plan designed to understand, address and reduce poor outcomes for young adults. (Paragraph 41)
8.We note the complexity of determining the relative effectiveness of custodial placements for young men and welcome the Ministry’s indication that research will be conducted, which is long overdue. Nevertheless, we share our predecessor’s grave concerns that in the absence of such research existing approaches to holding young adults in custody may be doing more harm than good. Nevertheless, we share our predecessor’s grave concerns that in the absence of such research existing approaches to holding young adults in custody may be doing more harm than good. We do not think the Ministry’s plans to gather evidence amounts to the robust research our predecessor concluded was required. The Ministry must set out in its response how it intends to demonstrate definitively that HMPPS’s operational practices are appropriate to young adults’ development needs and report within the next year. (Paragraph 51)
9.While we welcome the Ministry’s commitment to implement as far as possible the recommendations of the Lammy Review, the strikingly slow progress that has been made on improving outcomes for young black and Muslim men in the four years since the Young Review which the Government were also committed to implementing, illustrates the scale of the problem and resulting action required. The MoJ’s Race and Ethnicity Board should therefore develop, as a priority, a meaningful programme to address disproportionalities for young BAME adults aged 18 to 25. As disproportionalities are likely to originate outside the criminal justice system addressing them must also be a high priority for the Reducing Reoffending Taskforce. The NPS young offenders Board should also extend its workstream to reduce disproportionalities to young adults up to the age of 25. (Paragraph 56)
10.We welcome the Crown Prosecution Service’s progress on training and guidance for prosecutors and its intention to keep this under review. The Sentencing Council’s intention to strengthen its guidance to sentencers on consideration of age and maturity is also welcome. We remain of the view that research on sentencers and prosecutors understanding of maturity, as well as on the impact on young adults of assessments of maturity made during prosecution, pre-sentence and sentencing, is necessary. We urge the Ministry, in its endeavour to be data-driven, to conduct this research using data from the National Probation Service, Sentencing Council and Crown Prosecution Service. We ask that the Crown Prosecution Service keeps us informed on its decision regarding possible amendments to the Code related to consideration of age and maturity. The CPS should consider piloting the use of youth prosecutors who are specifically trained in understanding maturity for decisions involving young adults up to the age of 25. (Paragraph 61)
11.It is regrettable that young adult court pilots have not yet materialised; this seems inexplicable, given that they had local support and funding and potential to positively impact on adherence to court decisions. We would like to see the Lord Chief Justice’s recent observations about young adults’ maturity and MOPAC’s commitment to establish such a court in London give fresh impetus to the Minister and HMCTS to endorse such pilots. We welcome training in brain injury awareness in Welsh courts. This should be extended to English courts. (Paragraph 63)
12.We are encouraged by the Ministry’s approach to the disclosure of criminal convictions on job applications under the Ban the Box scheme. We see no reason why the judgment of the Supreme Court should delay the Ministry of Justice and Home Office’s preparation for a substantive response to our report on the disclosure of youth criminal records. We urge them to revisit with urgency our recommendations on new statutory frameworks for disclosure for children and young adults, on which they are yet to respond. We expect to see this response within a month of the Supreme Court judgment. (Paragraph 66)
13.HMPPS must evaluate the effectiveness of the Offender Management in Custody model in a sample of establishments one year after its implementation. This should include a review of i) the extent to which young adults identified as lacking maturity benefit from enhanced case management and ii) the potential benefits of including lack of maturity in the criteria for enhanced case management. (Paragraph 70)
Conclusion
14.The Ministry has adopted a narrow approach to reform due to cuts to its wider budget and the need for practicality. In the absence of evidence that it has had any positive impact on outcomes for young adults in the 18 months since the Government responded to our predecessor’s carefully considered, evidence-based, and well-received Report, we are not persuaded of the efficacy of this approach. (Paragraph 71)
15.The remarkable improvements in outcomes for under 18s in custody strengthens our conviction that our criminal justice system is failing their young adult counterparts. The waste of young adults’ talents and energies is one of the great social challenges of our time. The lack of decisive action is also failing society at large as citizens continue to experience crimes which should be preventable and which would gain from these young adults’ contributions should they be given the right opportunities. The Ministry must commit to more fundamental reform in its Justice 2030 project. By 2030 we expect prison and probation services to have developed cultures which recognise young adults’ strengths, address the trauma many of them have experienced, and support them effectively to develop non-criminal identities and for this to be reflected in improvements in outcomes. (Paragraph 72)
Published: 20 June 2018