Louise Casey on Unpaid Work

While I was busy on leave the Policy Exchange published their report 'Fitting the Crime : Reforming Community Sentences' and I notice that Louise Casey was the star turn at the launch event. Spouting off as usual she asks if “making costumes for the Notting Hill Carnival, working in a charity shop or making tea for the elderly is a punishment?”  In so doing she yet again demonstrates a significant lack of knowledge about the subject. Single placements for Unpaid Work such as in a charity shop or making and serving meals to the elderly are typically arranged for offenders either with special needs or who are felt to be vulnerable in some way. They are not routine because they are expensive to organise in staff time and the opportunities are obviously very limited. Such a placement is often felt appropriate for a female offender, rather than putting them with a typically all male work group. In my view these are entirely appropriate.

What Louise Casey sadly fails to understand, or is deliberately ignoring, is the enormous benefit that often flows from the interaction between the offender, members of the public and staff in such placements. They can be life-changing scenarios and fit precisely with the original rehabilitative ethos of Community Service. Experience shows that old people in particular are often non-judgemental and enjoy the interaction with the mostly young offenders and this is reciprocated to the benefit of each. Making costumes for the Notting Hill Carnival is an equally imaginative and constructive use of an offenders time in my estimation. Ironically all the examples cited also satisfy the test of being socially useful. Sadly it is precisely because of the inability to tailor more such placements due to financial constraints that Unpaid Work has lost its effectiveness in many ways.

By way of illustration I will cite two recent examples where the operation of Unpaid Work is no longer able to fulfill one of the original key objectives. In the first example a qualified football coach given 100 hours UPW spontaneously offered to undertake that punishment by coaching young offenders. In the old days that sort of thing could and did take place. Common sense says it's a win win scenario. Young offenders get free football coaching and the professional coach is giving something back to society by way of punishment. The whole process is rehabilitative and useful. The second example was a professional manager from industry given 200 hours UPW who again spontaneously offered to prepare and write up full risk assessment manuals for all our UPW placements. Unorthodox yes, but we used to do such things. Sadly, stifling bureaucracy and this ridiculous emphasis on only the punishment side of things mean such flexibility and innovation is impossible. 

Regrettably it seems that Louise Casey is really all about soundbites and not substance. She simply is not able to understand that the 'chain gang' punishment approach to UPW might play well in the Daily Mail but is a very unsophisticated way of attempting to change someones behaviour. In fact it will lead to all sorts of problems connected to supervision and breach. Above all else society wants an offender to stop offending as part of any court disposal. If used intelligently and adequately funded, UPW can help to do that,  but it has to be tailored to the individual and that costs a bit more in the short term. For some offenders, a work gang approach with heavy labour say clearing canal towpaths will be just the job, but a 'one size fits all' punishment approach will not work and will not help rehabilitate.