Where Did It All Go Wrong?

I'm still ploughing through stuff kindly highlighted by readers while I was away last week, such as this:-

"Article in The Times today Thurs 27/4 citing report by criminal justice think tank Crest Advisory. 66% of magistrates lack confidence in community sentences. Less use made of community sentences in 2016 than in anytime in the past 13 years! Eg: Just over 100,000 orders made in 2016 compared to nearly 200,000 in 2006."

An astonishing statistic and in case there are still any doubters out there, here we have further evidence of just what a disaster the TR omnishambles has been:-

Community sentences: where did it all go wrong?

A study into the use of community sentences in England and Wales

Despite crime falling overall, our criminal justice system remains under pressure, particularly in our prisons, which are, in the words of the former Chief Inspector, ‘in their worst state for a decade’, with violence, overcrowding and self-harm higher than at any point on record.

The notion that community sentences can be a more effective, cheaper alternative to prison is supported by a strong body of evidence. At their best, sentences served in the community can offer a powerful tool for addressing the root causes of offending behaviour, reducing the rate at which an offender reoffends and thus lowering demand on the system overall.

Yet despite their obvious potential, community sentences are being used less than at any point over the last 15 years.

Where did it all go wrong? is the first systematic attempt in over a decade to understand what lies behind this phenomenon and reveals some of the reasons for this loss of confidence.

Crest Advisory has explored the current use of community sentences in the context of the government’s Transforming Rehabilitation programme and the ongoing and challenging fiscal context. Whilst there are no silver bullet solutions, the report sets out a number of measures the government could implement to make a difference.

Key findings:

The report reveals that community sentences:

• are implemented in a way that bears little resemblance to the evidence of what works: they are neither intensive, swift, nor punitive enough to act as a proper deterrent. Most importantly, offenders are not held properly to account for complying with their sentence;
• are failing to transform lives, acting as little more than a stepping stone on the path to prison: 35% of those sentenced to custody have received at least five previous community sentences;
• have lost the confidence of magistrates: a new survey of magistrates commissioned for this report reveals that over a third of magistrates (37%) are not confident that community sentences are an effective alternative to custody, and two thirds (65%) are not confident that community sentences reduce crime. As one magistrate we interviewed put it: “It may be wonderful what is going on but we want to know what’s going on”.

Recommendations:

The report recommends eleven policy changes, to do with sentencing reform, the role of magistrates, the role of probation and justice devolution:

1. A ‘Project Hope’ for England and Wales
2. Greater flexibility for magistrates to administer innovative punishments tailored to the offender/offence
3. Amend sentencing guidelines to introduce a presumption of intensive community orders for young adult offenders facing custodial sentences of 12 months or less in magistrates’ courts
4. Amend sentencing guidelines to remove the assumption that suspended sentence orders are less onerous than community orders
5. Extend the power to undertake regular court reviews for prolific offenders serving short custodial sentences and/or community orders to all magistrates’ courts
6. Enhance magistrates’ training to improve their understanding of community sentences
7. Improve the quality of pre-sentencing advice
8. Provide feedback about the outcome of sentences to magistrates
9. Support greater transparency of community sentences, particularly the nature of unpaid work
10. Require a new target to ensure that the NPS allocates cases to the CRC on the same day as the sentencing, and that requirements are commenced the week afterwards (or at least no later than a month after sentencing for specialist requirements)
11. Enable PCCs and mayors to co-commission offender management services locally

--oo00oo--

About Crest

We are a team of policy, communications and brand specialists who care about building safer communities. We work with organisations across multiple sectors – helping them think, speak and act more clearly to improve criminal justice and policing. Unafraid to challenge, we take time to understand your needs and offer the right blend of support for you to navigate change and drive success.

Why are we different?

Because we know criminal justice and policing inside out, we provide bespoke advice tailored to your needs, rather than generic solutions. Our range of skills, perspectives and networks also means we are able to offer a unique blend of insight, analysis, communications and brand expertise. And with a team based across the UK, we are able to work alongside you in your communities.

--oo00oo--

Gavin Lockhart-Mirams
Managing Director

About Gavin

A specialist in criminal justice, Gavin has more than a decade of experience working with government, police and public safety organisations. He worked in No.10 Downing Street advising the British Prime Minister and worked closely with other governments to cut crime.

By combining his experience in management consultancy with public policy-development, Gavin founded Crest Advisory in 2011. As a father of two, Gavin is committed to making the world a better and safer place for all.

Key achievements

• Senior policy adviser to the Prime Minister David Cameron on criminal justice, counter-terrorism, public services and crime.
• Advised on ways to shift power to individuals and communities (including introducing legislation paving the way for elected police commissioners in 2012).
• Pushed forward work to increase transparency across the justice system (for example publishing local crime data).