70.Of all the reasons why community orders are a key sentencing option, one stands out: they can be tailored to the circumstances of individual offenders. In this chapter, we reflect on how best community orders can fit the individual. We consider the fact that many people on probation need help with mental health issues or addictions and the corresponding need for treatment services. We also explore best practices arising from the wraparound support delivered by women’s centres and discuss how to create incentives for low-level, ‘prolific’ offenders to engage voluntarily with rehabilitation.
71.We heard that “many offenders experience mental health and substance misuse problems”.113 His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) estimated that, in 2021, “about 75,000 people being supervised in the community by Probation had a drugs problem linked to their offending”.114 In “about 38%” of the cases inspected by HMIP (which cuts across the entire probation population), “someone has a mental health issue”.115 Given that the Probation Service was supervising around 240,000 people in December 2022, this would mean that around 91,000 people on probation suffer from mental health issues.116 Writing about a different cohort, Revolving Doors pointed out that “one in three people in prison have issues with problematic substance use, 38% of people in prison believe that their drinking is ‘a big problem’ and more than half (52%) of people in prison report having mental health problems”.117 The Probation Board of Northern Ireland (PBNI) told us that: “The complexity of people PBNI is supervising on community orders is increasing with more people presenting with poor mental health, addictions and trauma.”118
72.The Government acknowledges that helping people on probation face their addictions or mental health issues helps reduce crime. Damian Hinds MP told us that: “Drug addiction is the fuel, the driver, behind acquisitive crime and all manner of other crimes that come off the back of it and which drag young people and children into criminality”.119 Dr Abramovaite concurred that “there is very strong evidence that substance misuse and mental health issues are big drivers for crime overall”.120 She also told us about her evaluation of the New Chance scheme operating in the West Midlands: she found that, “after treatment, people who had mental health issues had a 37% lower reoffending rate than the control group”. She added that “among those who had substance misuse … the results were 55% lower”.121 As Damian Hinds MP put it: “If you can resolve some of those issues, so much else follows in its wake.”122
73.Three “Community Sentence Treatment Requirements” (CSTRs) exist to support offenders on their path away from crime: “the Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR), the Mental Health Treatment Requirement (MHTR), and the Alcohol Treatment Requirement (ATR)”.123 Speaking about DRRs specifically, Damian Hinds MP told us that “tackling drugs is a multi-faceted, multi-stage thing, but this opportunity at the point of sentencing to get people into a rehabilitation requirement is crucial”.124 The delivery of CSTRs is “co-worked between probation and specialist treatment providers”.125
74.For instance, we were told that Alcohol Treatment Requirements “are aimed at those with alcohol dependence, who are thought to require an alternative approach comprising (residential or non-residential) rehabilitative treatment”, and that “in such cases, treatment is thought to tackle offenders’ drinking problems where these underlie reasons for their criminal behaviour”.126
75.Similarly, NHS England’s MHTR Service told us that they provide “treatment and interventions for individuals who present with a range of low/medium level mental health issues, neurodiversity, personality disorders, trauma, and abuse” through primary care, and that Integrated Care Boards can commission secondary care “for those who require specialist care”.127 For instance, our witness, Caroline, was sentenced to mental health treatment which “involved 12 sessions of emotional regulation treatment” followed by the “Thinking Skills Programme”.128 Academics from the University of Northampton told us: “80% of individuals who complete the Primary Care MHTR intervention experience a statistically significant benefit in terms of mental distress, anxiety and/or depression.”129
76.Witnesses told us about “the importance of dual diagnosis”.130 Niki Scordi, the then CEO of Advance, spelled out the problem: “mental health professionals will use the fact that you have a drug or alcohol addiction as a barrier to prevent you from accessing services and support, but you are abusing substances because you are trying to cope, so your mental health needs to be supported.” She explained that, as a result, some people “fall between the cracks and both services will deny support”.131 Professor Brooker (Royal Holloway, University of London) and Dr Sirdifield (University of Lincoln) agreed that “it is very difficult for the general population to access ‘dual diagnosis’ services let alone those with the added complication of personality disorder.”132
77.In the presence of a dual diagnosis, Niki Scordi argued that “services being available for mental health, rather than addiction, is particularly important”.133 Talking in generic terms about a woman on probation, she explained that “she may know that she is using alcohol to cope, but telling her to stop and taking her to a treatment will not take away the reason why she is self-medicating”. This led her to conclude that “you have to address the underlying issues”.134
78.Pavan Dhaliwal, Chief Executive of Revolving Doors, alluded to “combined orders”, involving more than one treatment requirement.135 Caroline told us that she “had the mental health treatment” and “just needed that Alcohol Treatment Requirement (ATR) as well”, emphasising the value of “the combination of both”.136
79.Justin Russell argued that treatment requirements “are not used as widely as they could be”.137 Speaking specifically about drug treatment, Justin Russell told us that there is a “huge gap” between the “need for specialist treatment” and the number of offenders served a treatment requirement.138 Revolving Doors wrote that “the use of treatment requirements is far too low” across the board.139 NHS England agreed that “the use of treatment requirements as part of a Community Order (CO) or Suspended Sentence Order (SSO) remains low”.140 Kim Thornden-Edwards told us that CSTRs “have been around for some time, but they seem to have fallen out of regular volume use”.141 Phil Bowen also told us that “the use of drug rehabilitation requirements has collapsed over the past 10 years”.142 Caroline regretted that she had not been served a MHTR earlier: “I wish I had had the MHTR a lot sooner in my life”.143 For comparison with another jurisdiction, “all offenders subject to ECO [an Enhanced Combination Order] were offered assessments by the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI) psychology staff”.144
Box 5: Statistics on the imposition of Community Sentence Treatment Requirements (CSTRs) in 2012 and 2022
|
Over the course of a decade, the number of Alcohol Treatment Requirements and Drug Treatment Requirements imposed by courts decreased. The number of Mental Health Treatment Requirements imposed, however, grew more than twofold. More specifically:
|
Source: Ministry of Justice, ‘Offender Management Statistics quarterly: October to December 2022—Probation: 2022, Table A4_8’ (April 2023): https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-october-to-december-2022
80.Witnesses told us that referrals exceed availability and that increasing availability “would save lives”, especially in respect of mental health.145 Tom Franklin told us that “local services may not be available” to deliver treatment requirements, such that the Probation Service would not recommend them in Pre-Sentence Reports in the first place, adding that “this is particularly the case with mental health treatment requirements”.146 Niki Scordi also told us that “mental health services are not sufficient anywhere”, as she explained that there are “waiting lists and insufficient services” across all six Probation regions in which her charity operates.147 Damian Hinds MP told us that “over the years, there has been much more provision of mental health services, but there has also been a huge growth in demand, which has been a strain”.148 He nevertheless assured us that “secondary care mental health treatment requirements already exist throughout the system”.149
81.Referrals exceed availability for drug treatment, too. Justin Russell told us waiting lists “are not huge” for community-based drug treatment services commissioned by local authorities.150 He added that there had been “a big drop” in the availability of such services, “partly because it is very expensive and they can only be commissioned on a consortium basis” if service providers are to be viable (see Chapter 4 for further information on the co-commissioning of services).151 He also pointed out that “there is a lack of residential services” for drug treatment, in addition to issues related to services in the community.152 We were told that “residential substance misuse rehabilitation services are sparse and it is very much a ‘post code lottery’.”153
82.Even when treatment is available, witnesses told us about delays before it starts. Justin Russell said that “as with services for others living in the community, there are huge waiting lists at the moment for things like mental health treatment, and people on probation are joining a very long queue.”154 The Criminal Justice Alliance added that “the way we deliver community sentences is often too slow” and that “a common frustration for judges is hearing that … ordered rehabilitative services have been delayed”.155 Revolving Doors confirmed that “needing to wait for treatment to start when given a community sentence that involves mental health, drug and/or alcohol treatment” is a “key issue” identified by people on probation involved with the charity. They argued that “this waiting period can jeopardise a person’s chances, potentially leading to relapse and/or reoffending”.156 Caroline told us: “I relapsed back to my old behaviour in that time that I had to wait”.157
83.And when treatment is nominally available, it is not always completed. Justin Russell said that HMIP had “followed an entire quarterly cohort of people” who had been given a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement. They found that “only half of them had actually completed the DRR” and that “there had been very little drug testing”. Justin Russell also flagged that “in nine out of 10 orders, there had been no court oversight”, arguing that it “is a crucial part of the order; you go back to court to report on your progress”.158 The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners explained that they “were told through the judiciary that review appointments for Drug Rehabilitation Requirements (DRRs) had stopped because people weren’t attending, there were no sanctions for this, and it simply tied up court time which could be better used”.159 Dr Carly Lightowlers, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, University of Liverpool, shared similar findings about Alcohol Treatment Requirements, citing a study by the Ministry of Justice and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities: “fewer than half (46%) of those sentenced to an ATR engage with any treatment and just under half of those who do go on to complete it ‘successfully’ (48%), with most continuing to use alcohol”.160
84.In the face of such challenges regarding the availability of treatment, Damian Hinds MP told us that “the Government made a commitment in the 10-year drugs strategy paper From Harm to Hope to making sure that there is a treatment place for every offender with an addiction and that there is money behind that”. He told us that he “would like to see considerably more drug rehabilitation requirements”.161 Justin Russell noted that “after the Government published their drug strategy at the end of 2021, there was a significant increase in treatment funding”, but that “it was not in the control of the Probation Service, so it still has to join the queue with everybody else”.162
85.Chris Jennings also told us he was determined to see an increase in the availability of treatment services:
“The Community Sentence Treatment Requirements are the area where I want to see most progress. If we cannot address people’s mental health and drug and alcohol issues, we will not be able to get them to keep on the right path and move their life to a more positive stage. Solving those root-cause issues is the key focus as pertains to community sentences.”163
86.To enact such changes, witnesses told us about the “Community Sentence Treatment Requirement (CSTR) protocol” between the Ministry of Justice and HMPPS, on the one hand, and NHS England and Public Health England, on the other hand.164 The protocol aimed to increase the use of CSTRs and to introduce new primary Mental Health Treatment Requirements (MHTRs). NHS England told us that the new approach was launched in Milton Keynes in 2014 and later extended to four more areas in 2017 and 2018. They added that it involves £12 million of funding per year and was covering 65% of criminal courts as of May 2023.165 We heard that “this pilot programme recognises that mental health and substance use are prevalent issues among offenders” and that “suitable community requirements have been significantly underused”.166 HMPPS told us that the protocol “focused on strengthening local arrangements to improve joint work across substance misuse and mental health services” and “worked to promote the use of CSTRs with probation staff and sentencers”. They told us that “the roll out of new MHTRs is on track to achieve coverage in 100% of English courts by 2024” and that “one site has been established in Wales”.167 Since 2018, “about 2,500 people” have already received mental health treatment thanks to the new approach, Justin Russell told us.168
87.Chief Probation Officer Kim Thornden-Edwards told us about “a new national partnership agreement on health and social care”, agreed in February 2023. This new partnership, between the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health and Social Care, “funds some dedicated criminal justice-focused staff, who will work across police custody, courts, probation and prison to improve those treatment pathways” and “creates over 54,000 new substance misuse treatment places”.169 This corresponds to a commitment, in the 10-year drug strategy, that 54,000 more people will receive treatment in the three years between April 2022 and April 2025 than would otherwise have been the case, a 19% increase from previous capacity.170 This new partnership also involves “NHS England rolling out primary care mental health treatment requirements for offenders who are at a lower level of mental health needs.”171
88.Damian Hinds MP assured us of his “commitment to high-quality community sentences and non-custodial alternatives and to ensuring that … both are available”.172 He told us that sentencers “must have the range of options to be able to choose what is right” in an individual case.173 He argued that availability is “the first thing” that matters for sentencers to have “the confidence to know that what you think will happen … will happen”.174
89.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.
90.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.
91.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.
92.The Ministry of Justice recognises that “women in the CJS [Criminal Justice System] are amongst the most vulnerable in society”. The Department referred to the 2023 “Female Offender Strategy Delivery Plan”, thanks to which “bespoke pathways for women have been developed”.175 The National Audit Office added that “as part of its 2021 probation reforms the Ministry let contracts worth £46 million for services ‘tailored to female offenders’”, through women’s centres (see section starting at paragraph 166 on “making the most out of partnerships”).176
93.Representatives from two such women’s centres told us about the specific needs of women in the criminal justice system. Niki Scordi, the then CEO of Advance, told us about high rates of “self-harm, depression and suicide”. She added that some “have experienced some of the highest levels of disadvantage”, and “the community has left them behind”.177
94.Rebecca Robson, from Women’s Community Matters, explained that “a lot of the mental health difficulties we see are the result of experiences of domestic and sexual abuse in childhood, and then ongoing domestic abuse”. She went on to explain that “frequently that is mixed in with addiction, which is often a coping technique for experiences of abuse” and that “there is a lot of suicidal ideation, self-harm, anxiety, and fear of crowds” among female offenders.178
95.Nikki Scordi added that “women in particular worry about their children, whether they are with them or not”. She explained that “often, they are separated because of prison and cannot have them back, and that is a real concern for them”.179 The Prison Reform Trust told us that “some pregnant women experienced difficulties in adhering to community sentence requirements, whilst also attending hospital appointments”.180 The charity Birth Companions told us about “significant issues with a lack [of] recognition of, and responsiveness to, pregnancy and motherhood in policing, community sentence requirements and probation supervision.”181
96.We heard about female offenders “facing multiple disadvantage who may have different competing and intersecting needs”.182 Women in Prison also argued that “Black, Asian, minoritised and migrant women experience ‘double disadvantage’ as a result of the combined impact of sexism and racism that manifests at both a structural and interpersonal level, including when coming into contact with the justice system”.183 Together Women told us that many women in the Criminal Justice System “have experienced trauma, abuse, and discrimination throughout their lives” and that “by considering factors such as personal circumstances, history of trauma, substance abuse, and mental health conditions, the requirements of a community sentence can be designed to address a woman’s specific challenges and needs”.184
97.We heard about the best practices arising from the work of women’s centres. Women in Prison told us that “approaches based around prevention, early intervention and community-based support, are evidenced to be effective at reducing reoffending and support women in rebuilding their lives”, arguing that “research found Women’s Centres can cut reoffending to 5% against a national average of 23%”.185 The Prison Reform Trust added that “women’s centres can play a vital role in reducing reoffending, providing safe, non-stigmatising settings for women to address issues surrounding their offending behaviour such as access to support with abusive relationships”.186
98.Rebecca Robson, for instance, told us about Women’s Community Matters
in Cumbria and the wide range of services the organisation offers:
“We run an eight-week group course called Women’s First, which each week responds to a different pathway to reoffending, or a different vulnerability or issue … We have confidence-building courses … which are available to all women, including women who are accessing the service on this contract. We have a range of one-to-one support from lots of different skilled practitioners, including independent domestic violence advisers and mental health workers. We have courses that are specific to domestic abuse and the effects on the woman and her family; different peer support groups; social activities that help with reintegration back into the community and with making meaningful and purposeful friendships that perhaps help them to make better life choices; activities that support mental health improvement; different coping strategies such as mindfulness and grounding; and a range of practical support like a clothes bank, access to free toiletries, baby supplies and a crisis fund. We have warm hub spaces, particular drop-in and craft sessions, employment and education and training support, volunteer opportunities, a range of training, access to specialist support, survivor network groups, social enterprise opportunities, lots of one-off events and activities, and access to specialists to support and unpaid work placements.”187
99.HMIP receives “good feedback on women’s services”, including from people on probation: “the feedback for women is broadly more positive than it is for men.”188 The Probation Institute also pointed out that an intervention by a women’s centre costs between £1,223 to £4,125 (depending on the needs of the benefitting woman), whilst a place in prison “costs £52,121” per woman per year.189
100.The question was raised of how male offenders could benefit from this practice. Carrie Peters, Director of Justice Services at Ingeus, told us that “we need men’s services to be commissioned in a holistic way by region in the same way that women’s services are” because “men also have multiple and complex needs”. She explained that “women’s services have been commissioned in a holistic way” but “men’s services have been commissioned according to all the separate needs”. As a result, she said, “for someone who finds it difficult to engage, we are setting up all sorts of hurdles for them, because they have to go to all these different places, and nothing facilitates all those different providers talking to each other and working together”. She added that “at the moment, every contract is managed separately, and there is a lot of waste in the system for all those individual contracts”.190
101.In the same spirit, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority told us that after a 12-month pilot, “we have recently commissioned Well-being services which are predominantly focused on supporting the needs of men, adapting many of the principles and learning from the Greater Manchester Whole System Approach for Women with unmet need”.191
102.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.
103.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.
104.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.
105.Witnesses told us about the “multiple and complex needs” of ‘prolific’ offenders.193 For instance, Rebecca Robson told us that “mental health problems are very common in what we call prolific offenders, together with poor experiences of the education system and the care system”; she also spoke of “poverty” and of ‘prolific’ offenders having no “safety net” among their relatives to turn to.194 Carrie Peters told us that “substance misuse is also very common” and that “there is a big link between shoplifting and homelessness, as well as lack of family, lack of support and, of course, debt and poverty”.195
106.The then Chief Inspector of Probation told us about a “gap in the market for people with very profound needs who commit very prolific low-level offending but are probably not being reached by community sentences at the moment”.196 He argued that “the link in our sentencing framework between the seriousness of the offence, the tariff and the intensity of the intervention that can be offered … leaves a lacuna around the group of low-level offenders with very serious needs”.197 He explained:
“One of the interesting things in the way sentencing works is that the intensity of the sentence, particularly the intensity of the interventions associated with it, tends to be associated with the seriousness of the offence that is before the court. It has to be a fairly high-tariff offence before the most intensive interventions, such as drug rehabilitation requirements or mental health requirements, can be attached. That is slightly unfortunate, because quite often the people with the most profound needs are stuck in cycles of very low-level but extremely persistent offending. Typically, a street heroin user who is constantly shoplifting or committing minor, petty offences will not get a long community order; they will get a fine or a short prison sentence. That does nothing to tackle the underlying needs that drive the offending.”198
107.Lord Justice William Davis explained that, according to sentencing guidelines: “The seriousness of the offence should be the initial factor in determining which requirements to include in a community order.” He added, “if, in the individual case, there is a clear requirement for some fairly intensive drug intervention for a low-level shoplifter, that is what should happen”.199 The Magistrates’ Association also proposed that magistrates are granted the power “to add rehabilitative provisions to sentences that currently do not cross the community penalty threshold”, such as “a small number of unpaid work hours, or one or two rehabilitation activity requirement (RAR) appointments” as a substitute for fines that an offender would otherwise be unable to pay.200
108.On the other hand, witnesses warned against the temptation of “up-tariffing people into more supervision”.201 While he acknowledged that “a legal decision has already been made that repetition aggravates an offence”, Gavin Dingwall told us that this should not be “a given, by any stretch of the imagination”. He argued that “somebody who is shoplifting and continually stealing £20 worth of goods has a problem but is a minor offender”.202
109.Witnesses were particularly concerned about “putting people into situations where they have multiple appointments that they need to keep which they fail to do so”: it can result in them being found in breach of their sentence and recalled before a Court, where they face an additional sentence.203 We were told that “research indicates that over-programming (e.g. too many or too onerous rehabilitative requirements) individuals who are assessed as low risk of reoffending sets them up to fail”.204 Tom Franklin agreed:
“there could be low-level but prolific offenders who live very chaotic lifestyles, find it very difficult to turn up regularly to things and really struggle with that. That would nullify their involvement in particular schemes. Sometimes it is almost like, if they did them, they would be set up to fail because they would find themselves in breach, have to come back and end up in that cycle back into court.”205
110.Justin Russell said that to reduce the criminal activity of low-level, ‘prolific’ offenders, their rehabilitation “would need to involve a residential element” and “treatment for mental health and/or drug and alcohol problems”, which “would probably need to involve someone consenting” to such interventions.206 At the moment, however, “the danger is that they would say, ‘I’d rather have the six-week prison sentence than spend six months in a rehab, thank you very much’”.207 Therefore, Justin Russell argued that “the way you set up the incentives to take the alternative to prison would need to be carefully thought through”.208
111.We heard that “there is a plethora of pilot schemes all over the place”, some of which are designed to create such incentives.209 Dr Abramovaite explained that, sometimes, police forces “do not know themselves what they are running” because they are running “hundreds” of schemes.210 Tom Franklin told us that “there is a feeling that these schemes never really go anywhere”. He regretted the “very large amount of wasted effort” as these schemes “are rarely scaled up”.211 Transform Justice expressed concerns that programmes, whether accredited by the Probation Service or not, are rarely evaluated.212 These issues could be explained by the perception that schemes “are often set up because of the initiative of an individual”, whose goodwill may be insufficient for the scheme to gain scale.213 Examples of schemes we heard about included:
112.Dr Eoin Guilfoyle, Lecturer in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Brunel University London, drew our attention to the ‘integrated Community Service Order’ (CSO) in Ireland, which creates incentives for people on probation to engage with rehabilitative activities. He explained the integrated CSO to us:
“In recent years, Ireland has introduced an integrated element into the Community Service Order. A person can, in discussion with a Probation Officer, agree to participate in an education, treatment or training programme. If successfully completed, they will get a reduction of up to one-third of their community service hours.”
113.“The concept of an integrated Community Service Order aligns better with principles of desistance”, Dr Guilfoyle argued.219 He explained that “giving a person the option to opt in and the ability to choose the type of personal development activity they undertake, is likely to result in better outcomes than an approach that requires participation in a specific programme that the person had no part in choosing.”220 He added that “there is a much greater likelihood of the person benefiting from it and succeeding in those programmes” thanks to the choice and the incentive structure.221
114.Integrated CSOs are rewarding. Dr Guilfoyle pointed out that “it also means that the Probation Service is encouraging the person to participate, and rewarding them if they do so” whereas, “by comparison, the approach here in England and Wales is that a judge will impose the requirement and a person who does not succeed is punished and could be returned to court and imprisoned”.222 Other witnesses told us about reward mechanisms for offenders. Dr Hannah Graham explained that, in Scotland, “it is possible for a justice social worker and the court to consider the early completion or termination of an order, or its variation, in recognition of good progress being made towards the requirements of a Community Payback Order”.223 Talking about drug testing requirements in England and Wales, Justin Russell explained that when offenders “were tested and came back clean it was a very validating thing for them”.224
115.‘Integrated’ sentences also save time before courts. Dr Guilfoyle explained that if offenders do not successfully complete their integrated CSO, “it does not result in a revocation of the order; they just go back to doing the normal community service hours.”225 This means that the Probation Service can mark the breach of the ‘integrated’ element of the order without the offender being brought back before a court.
116.However, Dr Guilfoyle cautioned that the integrated CSO, first piloted in 2016, “has not been hugely effective”. He told us that it may be because “when it first became operational the individuals themselves had to source the training or treatment programme” which “was a barrier to a person opting in”. He said this might change and “ideally, it would operate where the Probation Officer encouraged the person, and if they do want to opt in they would work with them to identify and source an education or treatment programme”.226 A committee has been set up to consider how the integrated CSO could be improved.227
117.Inspiration could be found in that model. Chief Probation Officer Kim Thornden-Edwards told us that she has “not looked at the Ireland model”, but said that “the idea of being able to reduce the sentence by up to one-third is definitely very interesting, and we should probably consider that”. She pointed out that “people on unpaid work can use 30% of their unpaid work hours specifically on employment training and education”, recognising that “it is not quite the same thing”.228 Damian Hinds MP also referenced the “ability to bring employability and job training into unpaid work” in England and Wales.229
118.We heard that mentors could encourage offenders engage with rehabilitation, whether they have been on probation themselves or are lay members of the public. Damian Hinds MP told us that “there definitely is a role” for mentors.230 He defined a mentor as “an ‘expert by experience’ who can help others by using relationship-based support to address rehabilitative needs”. He told us that “peer mentoring schemes” are available in seven of the 12 Probation regions “with an estimated 200 volunteer mentors”. Volunteers “are generally individuals with lived experience of prison and/or probation services” but “some probation regions also provide opportunities for volunteers without lived experience (e.g students studying relevant degrees)”. Mentors are expected to “complete a comprehensive training course (a minimum of 22 hours)” and they “receive regular supervision and support”.231 He added that “there can definitely be more, both directly with the Probation Service but also indirectly, and probably at a much bigger volume, through charities, church organisations, community groups and so on.”232
119.When someone is sentenced to a community order, it is “vital” that they are assigned a peer mentor, we heard from Pavan Dhaliwal. She explained that someone who has previously been on probation can help an offender make the most out of what is offered to them.233 Revolving Doors shared the conclusions of an inquiry of its own, through which they found that “many people on probation supervision felt that peer support would have likely helped them to engage with probation more, and more honestly, from an earlier stage, which would have supported earlier desistance from crime”.234
120.We also heard about deferred sentences. Dr Graham told us that Scottish sheriff courts can decide to “defer sentence for approximately six months” during which the offender is supported and supervised, and to “sentence at the end of that”, giving courts a greater opportunity to monitor progress.235 The Probation Board of Northern Ireland told us about the “Substance Misuse Court (SMC) which was introduced in Belfast Magistrates’ Court at Laganside in April 2018”: “it places people on intensive treatment programmes in the community to specifically target drug and alcohol linked offending behaviour, with final sentencing reflecting their participation.” They explained that “evaluations have indicated that those successfully completing the programme exhibited lower longer-term re-offending rates than those who did not”.236
121.We also heard that “the greater use of appropriate and well-supervised out of court disposals is an option in that area”.237 Phil Bowen told us about a service in Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court provided by the Centre for Justice Innovation, primarily targeted at people “who are constantly getting fines but cannot pay them”.238 The service provides “advice, support and referral” to other services in a way that the Probation Service would only provide to someone on a community order. Courtney Bryan, Executive Director, US Center for Justice Innovation, told us about “early diversion” mechanisms in New York State: people who committed “low-level misdemeanours” are referred by the police to the US Center for Justice Innovation, where they “complete a brief service” before “their case is dismissed”, without appearing before a court.239 She told us that they witnessed “tremendous compliance”.240
122.Some witnesses, however, expressed reservations about the current use of out-of-court disposals (where the police deal with a low-level, often first-time offender without prosecution) in the UK. Tom Franklin referred to “an unregulated increase over the past few years”, and a lack of clarity as to any assessment of offenders’ needs. He called for out-of-court disposals “to be properly regulated”.241 Gavin Dingwall also told us that “we have to be slightly careful, because the nature of out of court disposals has changed greatly”, adding that “the police now have far too much power”.242 Issues related to the use of out-of-court disposals, while important, fall outside the scope of our inquiry. They merit further consideration.
123.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.
124.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.
125.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.
126.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.
127.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.
128.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.
116 Ministry of Justice, ‘Offender Management Statistics quarterly: October to December 2022 and annual 2022—Probation: 2022, Table A4_13’ (27 April 2023): https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-october-to-december-2022 [accessed 19 September 2023]
123 Q 67 (Kim Thornden-Edwards). See the Sentencing Act 2020, Chapter 2 as well as Parts 9, 10, and 11 of Schedule 9 to the Act.
127 Written evidence from NHS England’s Mental Health Treatment Requirement (MHTR) Service (JCS0037)
129 Written evidence from Miss Joanna Binley, Mrs Kathryn Cahalin, Professor Matthew Callender and Miss Greta Sanna (JCS0010)
139 Written evidence from Revolving Doors (JCS0016) and NHS England’s Mental Health Treatment Requirement (MHTR) Service (JCS0037)
140 Written evidence from NHS England’s Mental Health Treatment Requirement (MHTR) Service (JCS0037)
144 Written evidence from Dr Jay Gormley, Dr Louise Kennefick and Professor Melissa Hamilton (JCS0028)
145 Written evidence from the Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody (JCS0040), see also Q 8 (Justin Russell).
165 Written evidence from NHS England’s Mental Health Treatment Requirement (MHTR) Service (JCS0037)
166 Written evidence from Dr Matthew Cracknell (JCS0014) and Ministry of Justice, ‘Vulnerable offenders steered towards treatment’ (10 August 2018): https://www.gov.uk/government/news/vulnerable-offenders-steered-towards-treatment [accessed 10 October 2023]
170 HM Government, From harm to hope: A ten year drugs plan to cut crime and save lives (29 April 2022): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/from-harm-to-hope-a-10-year-drugs-plan-to-cut-crime-and-save-lives [accessed 24 October 2023]
183 Ibid.
204 Written evidence from Dr Jay Gormley, Dr Louise Kennefick and Professor Melissa Hamilton (JCS0028)
215 Ibid.
220 Written evidence from Dr Eoin Guilfoyle (JCS0004), see also written evidence from Dr Jay Gormley, Dr Louise Kennefick and Professor Melissa Hamilton (JCS0028).
222 Ibid.
231 Letter from Rt. Hon. Damian Hinds MP, Minister of State for Justice, to Baroness Hamwee, Chair of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee (17 October 2023): https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/41868/documents/207632/default
238 Ibid.