1.Community sentences can be particularly flexible. When passing a community order, judges and magistrates can select from a range of requirements. This allows them to tailor the sentence to the individual case, setting out how to punish and rehabilitate the offender. This meets the objectives of sentencers, helps the offender, and protects society. (Paragraph 21)
2.While we were conducting our inquiry, prisons reached their operational capacity. The Government is building new prisons, originally driven by the need to replace old prisons whose condition is extremely poor and which incur considerable running costs. The focus now is on expanding the number of prison places rather than replacing old prisons. (Paragraph 42)
3.Custody is sometimes necessary, but it is expensive and fuels reoffending. Community orders are a sound alternative in many cases. They can take various forms, giving judges and magistrates the ability to tailor sentences to individual circumstances. They are demanding on the offender and help them stop committing crime, thereby protecting the public. Breach mechanisms mean that offenders are being held to account. (Paragraph 43)
4.Being homeless makes it difficult to comply with the requirements of a community order. For those sent to prison, perhaps after the breach of a community order, custody can make their situation worse. They are likely to lose their accommodation—having stable housing is crucial to being in employment, and to access support networks. Without these, it is more likely that an offender will reoffend. Community sentences do not cut offenders from their support network or employment, which may enable maintaining suitable accommodation. (Paragraph 44)
5.The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities should recognise the importance of housing to the success of community orders. It should be careful not to undermine the efforts of the Ministry of Justice to rehabilitate people serving community orders. (Paragraph 45)
6.Increasing the use of community orders is likely to result in a decline of reoffending, which would result in long-term savings. While the most intensive types of community orders are expensive to deliver, they typically cost less than custody. (Paragraph 46)
7.We welcome problem-solving courts, including specialised pilot ‘intensive supervision courts’. By taking a holistic approach and tailoring sentences to individual circumstances, and by holding offenders accountable for their progress through regular court hearings, we believe that problem-solving approaches can be effective solutions against repeat offending. (Paragraph 47)
8.Despite all the advantages of community orders, their use has been declining in recent years. Various explanations were brought forward. The negative impact of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms persists—sentencers lost confidence in the ability of Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs, to whom the management of low-risk offenders was outsourced) to enforce community orders. Trust in community sentences is progressively being restored after the Probation Service unified in 2021, putting an end to the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms. (Paragraph 66)
9.Community orders should be used more frequently. While it is the responsibility of the independent Judiciary to decide what sentence is appropriate in each case brought before Courts, it is the role of the Government to make sentences available to the Judiciary. (Paragraph 67)
10.The Government should invest in the services that underpin community orders to satisfy sentencers of their efficiency and availability. The emphasis should be put on intensive treatment, the effectiveness of which is established. (Paragraph 68)
11.Pre-Sentence Reports produced by the Probation Service should include relevant information about the content, effectiveness, and availability of community sentences in the local area (see further conclusions and recommendations on Pre-Sentence Reports starting at paragraph 255 in Chapter 5). Such information should be updated regularly to keep sentencers informed. (Paragraph 69)
12.Many people on probation suffer from mental health issues and from addiction to alcohol or drugs, which fuels their offending behaviour. Few of them are referred to a Community Sentence Treatment Requirement (CSTR). And yet, referrals exceed the availability of treatment, which may in itself deter sentencers from making referrals. (Paragraph 89)
13.A greater proportion of people on probation should be served one or more treatment requirement(s). This could be achieved by implementing our recommendations on Pre-Sentence Reports (see paragraphs 255—259) and on ‘integrated’ sentences (see paragraphs 123—127), and through a greater emphasis on treatment requirements in sentencing guidelines. (Paragraph 90)
14.Current efforts to improve treatment services and increase their availability should be sustained. Further investment in Community Sentence Treatment Requirements is required and should be a priority. CSTRs are key to reducing reoffending, putting offenders on a path away from crime and protecting the public. (Paragraph 91)
15.Women entering the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales are often the victims of abuse and discrimination, or suffering from trauma, addiction, and mental health issues. Many of them have caring responsibilities. These issues, acknowledged by the Government in its Female Offenders Strategy, have been explored in depth by others, notably by Baroness Corston and recently by the National Audit Office. (Paragraph 102)
16.We note that the Ministry of Justice shares these concerns and has commissioned some specialised women’s services. This model, in which offenders receive tailored, wraparound rehabilitative support from a single provider in a single location, is proving effective—it is dignified, drives down reoffending, and costs less than custody. (Paragraph 103)
17.The Government should provide additional funding for the various rehabilitative services provided by women’s centres and explore options for wraparound support to be made available to all people who would benefit from it, giving them the best opportunity to stop committing crimes. This could include the expansion of one-stop-shops and co-located services. (Paragraph 104)
18.The rehabilitative needs of low-level, repeat offenders are not being met. Increasing the tariff of their punishment, be it in an individual case or through a revision of sentencing guidelines, is not the solution—it would set people up to fail, further criminalising them rather than encouraging their path to rehabilitation. The solution is to increase the intensity of the rehabilitative support offered to them. (Paragraph 123)
19.The better approach is to incentivise offenders. Deferred sentencing can be used to encourage offenders to engage with probation, rewarding positive behaviour in the deferred sentence. Various initiatives have been or are being piloted to create incentives for low-level, repeat offenders to engage with more intensive rehabilitative activities. (Paragraph 124)
20.These pilots should be properly monitored and evaluated to determine whether any of them should be made more widely available. A plan for evaluation is essential to the launch of any new pilots. Best practices should be shared and scaled up. (Paragraph 125)
21.An interesting approach is being tested in Ireland. While their efficacy remains to be confirmed, the mechanisms of the ‘Integrated’ Community Service Orders are intended to create incentives for people on probation to engage with rehabilitation and in a range of activities that is meaningful to them. They also save time before courts. (Paragraph 126)
22.The Government should create incentives for low-level, ‘prolific’ offenders to engage with rehabilitation. It could find inspiration in the principles underpinning ‘Integrated’ Community Service Order from Ireland, also addressing upfront the operational challenges identified in Ireland. Offenders should be given the opportunity to select an intensive rehabilitative activity of their choice, such as residential treatment. The Probation Service should guide them in their choice. If they complete the activity they have opted for, the length of their sentence should be reduced by up to one third, without the individual having to reappear before a court. (Paragraph 127)
23.Initiatives for mentoring should be scaled up. Mentors can be people who have previously been on probation themselves or volunteers from the community. The Government should launch a national campaign to recruit mentors from the community. Charitable organisations should be commissioned to train and manage large numbers of mentors. Offenders should be offered the opportunity to be matched with a mentor, who would guide them through their sentence. (Paragraph 128)
24.There is a ‘cliff edge’ in the response to offending when a young person transitions from Youth Justice Services to the adult Probation Service. Moving the age at which an offender undergoes this transition is unlikely, in itself, to bear positive results. (Paragraph 146)
25.However, lessons can be learnt from Youth Offending Services about the management of the probation population in general, and of young adults in particular. YOSs do not only work with smaller caseloads and with more experienced staff, but are also embedded in local communities and more effective at communicating with offenders. (Paragraph 147)
26.The Probation Service should learn best practices from Youth Offending Services, especially about how to communicate with offenders to ensure they understand the sentences that are imposed on them. It should also encourage the local delivery of rehabilitative services and multiagency cooperation. (Paragraph 148)
27.Age-appropriate solutions should be found to smooth the transition of those moving from Youth Offending Services to the adult Probation Service. These solutions should be made available to all young adults on probation. (Paragraph 149)
28.Community sentences are more effective when the Probation Service is a fully engaged member of local partnerships, be it through the co-location of services or through cooperation forums, allowing information to circulate. This benefits offenders and there is also a public interest, for instance in making unpaid work placements more punitive and reparative. (Paragraph 164)
29.We encourage the Probation Service to empower regional directors further, ensuring that a greater proportion of rehabilitative services are commissioned locally. They should be granted further autonomy to develop partnerships with local organisations and public agencies. Co-commissioning should be encouraged. (Paragraph 165)
30.Commissioned rehabilitative services are a key component of community sentences. The delivery partners of the Probation Service provide valuable services. The most recent commissioning wave, while imperfect, is considered by all parties as a step in the right direction. (Paragraph 192)
31.Partnerships with a range of local organisations, outside formal commissioning processes for rehabilitative services, are also key to securing meaningful unpaid work placements that foster public support for community sentences. (Paragraph 193)
32.The Probation Service, however, is not making the most out of these partnerships. Referrals do not always contain sufficient information, risk assessments are not always produced and shared in a timely manner, and commissioned partners find it difficult to feed back information to the Probation Service. (Paragraph 194)
33.The Ministry of Justice should seize the upcoming wave of commissioning as an opportunity to apply lessons from the past two years. More funding should be allocated, especially to women’s centres and for housing. Contracts should be longer to protect the Probation Service’s partners, but subject to termination clauses to protect the taxpayer. More flexibility should be built in, perhaps through regular reviews, to allow partners to innovate. (Paragraph 195)
34.The Ministry of Justice should ensure that smaller organisations are enabled to bid for contracts. Smaller organisations should be offered administrative support. They should be permitted to apply jointly, or in partnership with larger organisations. Requirements should be adapted to the size of the contract. (Paragraph 196)
35.The Probation Service should improve communications with its partners. This could include guidance on what can, or cannot, be shared under data protection legislation. It should consider granting them direct access to its databases, as used to be the case prior to unification. (Paragraph 197)
36.The Probation Service found itself understaffed when it unified in 2021. This results in unmanageable caseloads and the profession being unattractive. Despite impressive recruitment campaigns in recent years, vacancy rates remain high. New recruits are inexperienced. (Paragraph 213)
37.An offender’s relationship with their probation officer can be instrumental to their path away from criminal activity. It is recognised as one of the most important factors, and people who have previously been on probation told us about the influence that good probation officers have had on their lives. Probation staff can only build constructive relationships with offenders if they are appropriately trained and have manageable caseloads; this in turn requires adequate staffing levels and minimal vacancy rates. (Paragraph 214)
38.Recent recruitment and training waves should be sustained until vacancies are filled and the service effective. Efforts should be targeted at those areas where recent recruitment waves have been least successful. (Paragraph 215)
39.The Probation Service is going through an identity crisis. The role of a probation officer has changed in recent years—the increased focus on public protection distracts the attention of probation staff away from least-serious offenders. Moreover, the expectation that they refer offenders to services provided by others, and the quantity of administrative tasks they are expected to perform, often on flawed IT systems, transforms their mission into an unfulfilling job and means that they have reduced capacity to support low-level offenders on community sentences. (Paragraph 234)
40.The Probation Service’s court teams are highly regarded by sentencers, but there are concerns about how their role is perceived by offenders. Due in part to the regularity with which sentencers accept the recommendations in the PSR, court teams themselves are sometimes seen by offenders as sentencing or even as prosecuting, which can undermine the trust of offenders in the Probation Service and lead to proceedings being perceived as unfair. Sentencers might consider being more explicit in the way they take ownership of their sentencing decisions when it aligns with a recommendation made by the Probation Service. Demonstrating that sentences are determined by the judiciary alone could reduce misconceptions. (Paragraph 235)
41.Our impression throughout our inquiry was that Government and senior management seems to have lost sight of low-level offenders and to be preoccupied with the size of the prison population and post-release supervision, perhaps because of recent institutional reorganisations. Supervising low-level offenders on community sentences is central to the mission of the Probation Service. (Paragraph 236)
42.The Probation Service should not undergo any further large-scale restructuring in the coming few years, to allow time for recent reorganisations to settle down, for more staff to be recruited, and for new recruits to gain experience, enabling them to supervise further recruits. (Paragraph 237)
43.HMPPS should continue investing in its IT systems, such that Probation staff can dedicate more time to people on probation (see also section starting at paragraph 166 on “making the most out of partnerships” on the partners of the Probation Service being able to access IT systems). (Paragraph 238)
44.Pre-Sentence Reports (PSRs) are an essential part of the sentencing process. They allow courts to tailor sentences to individual circumstances and give sentencers confidence that specific requirements are suitable and available in their area (see paragraph 67). (Paragraph 255)
45.The number of PSRs prepared by the Probation Service, and the quality of these PSRs, have been declining dramatically in recent years. This is the outcome of an effort to save court time but comes at the expense of the quality of sentencing. It also means that offenders are unable to give consent in an informed and systematic way to treatment requirements for which consent is necessary. (Paragraph 256)
46.We support ongoing efforts that should result in more PSRs being prepared, of a higher standard, avoiding wasting court time. New PSR templates should include a prompt for probation officers to consider whether a treatment requirement would be appropriate, to encourage increased use of such requirements. (Paragraph 257)
47.The Probation Service, offenders, and their representatives should be given more opportunity to request Pre-Sentence Reports. Pre-Sentence Reports should be conducted in a way that makes offenders feel that they are being heard. (Paragraph 258)
48.The imposition of rehabilitative requirements should be guided by the individual circumstances of the case so as to ensure maximum efficiency of sentences. PSRs should provide the opportunity for rehabilitative needs to be assessed and for consent to be sought, in an informed and systematic way. (Paragraph 259)