Saturday 2 February 2019

Probation Has to be Fixed

A good summary of the current situation on the Conversation website and why Gauke and Stewart's plans to fix the prison problem won't work unless the probation problem is fixed as well:- 

Short prison sentences as a last resort won’t work unless the probation service is fixed

Short prison sentences of 12 months or less should be used only as a last resort, according to the justice secretary, David Gauke, speaking in a recent interview with the Sunday Times. He emphasised that short prison sentences don’t have a very successful record of reducing reoffending compared to other forms of punishment.

The reoffending rates for prison sentences of a year or less were at 64.5% in the last three months of 2016 – the latest period for which statistics have been published – rising to 67% for sentences of six months or less. This is much higher than the 38% of people who reoffend after being served a court order, such as a community order or suspended sentence, and the 29% reoffending rate of those in prison for 12 months or more. Not to mention the fact that the annual cost of reoffending was estimated to be somewhere between £9.5 and £13 billion in 2015.

Reoffending rates by type of sentence
Proportion of offenders who reoffend (%)

6 months or less 66.7
12 months or less 64.5
12 months or more 29.1
Custody or court order 38.2

Data for October to December 2016
Source: Ministry of Justice Get the data

Campaign against short sentences

Reoffending rates from short sentences have been a cause for concern for years. In 2001, the Halliday review into sentencing suggested that short sentences provided the most serious problems out of the range of available sentences as they served little rehabilitative use. A little over a decade later, the seeming inability of short sentences to reduce reoffending was an important factor in the coalition government’s Transforming Rehabilitation reforms in 2013, which put probation contracts out to competitive tender. Yet, despite these efforts, the reoffending rates for short sentences remain higher than those for community sentences, or even longer prison sentences.

There are several potential reasons for this, most of which lie in the very use of prison as a short-term option. Prison sentences generally are known to have a long-term and negative impact on a person’s employment prospects. They also cause disruption to family time and the development of positive relationships, all of which support successful rehabilitation. At the same time, prisoners serving short sentences are rarely there long enough for any positive, rehabilitation work to be undertaken.

Short prison sentences do not reduce the risk of reoffending, because they are not designed to do so. Rather, they simply displace this risk to a later date.

Meanwhile, research has shown the effectiveness of community-based sentences in reducing reoffending – at least compared to short prison sentences – and that community supervision is less likely to have a negative impact on employment and family time. It arguably makes sense, then, that community sentences should be chosen over the use of prison wherever possible. But while Gauke’s suggestion of a reduction in the use of short prison sentences was welcomed by many, it has come at a bad time considering the current condition of other parts of the criminal justice system.

Red flags and staff shortages

Back in 2017, I wrote for The Conversation about the rise in serious further offences by those serving community orders since the privatisation of the probation service in 2013. Part of the reason for this, I argued, was increasing numbers of offenders “on probation” monitored by fewer staff, meaning that red flags and causes for concern were being missed.

Since then, it appears little has changed and the situation may even have worsened. Recent figures show an increase of over 200 reviews looking into serious further offences by people on probation between 2014 and 2018. Such is the current condition of the probation service, that in mid-2018, the government decided to end all private probation contracts two years early in 2020.

The problem is largely related to an unmanageable staff to offender ratio. In 2018, MPs on the the Justice Select Committee suggested that probation service privatisation had resulted in the delivery of probation services to more that 40,000 extra offenders, at a time when the service itself was carrying more than 1,000 staff vacancies nationally. While the scales are tipped in this way, the probation service arguably remains unfit for purpose.

In the year to June 2018, around 61,500 people were given custodial sentences and of those, 47% (roughly 29,000) were sentenced to six months or less. Given the average reoffending rate of those serving short sentences, roughly 18,000 are predicted to reoffend within 12 months of release. While it’s clear that prison is not the place for these offenders, the current state of the probation service suggests that probation is not the place for them either. The only way any reduction in the use of short sentences will work is if the probation service is fixed first.

Christopher Kay
Lecturer in Criminology and Social Policy, Loughborough University

9 comments:

  1. Reoffending rates by type of sentence
    "Proportion of offenders who reoffend (%)

    6 months or less 66.7
    12 months or less 64.5
    12 months or more 29.1
    Custody or court order 38.2

    Data for October to December 2016
    Source: Ministry of Justice Get the data"

    A typo? Or just more nonsensical data? The first three stats relate to varying lengths of custodial sentences, and the fourth is described as "custody or court order" - which would be therefore be *all* sentences?

    Why not also define reiffending rates for lengths of community penalty, e.g, is a 12 month Order more effective than 24 or 36 months? Or for types of community penalty - is UPW more effective than suoervision? Or by which organisation &/or area manages the community order?

    Anyone can 'prove' anything with data:

    29% reoffending rate for those serving 12 months or more? Send everyone to jail for 12+ months.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The author has failed to discuss the fact that the crc supervise offenders who are given 12m or less custodial sentences, as they now come out on licence. There was no additional funding for this, despite a significant case load increase. Inspections have stated this "through the gate" scheme is not fit for purpose for this very reason. I would therefore be interested to see more up to date figures/reoffending rates relating to this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. post sentence supervision cases do not form part of any stats ie once the licence has finished their attendance is not captured on management spreadsheets although obviously staff have to continue managing them which is due to the CRCs getting no money for them and we're encouraged to see once per month and not worry about them.

      Delete
    2. What a can of worms Gauke has opened up with this one.

      https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/02/victims-able-challenge-parole-board-decisions-justice-secretary/

      Delete
    3. Victims of crime will be given a new legal right to challenge parole decisions, under plans drawn up following outrage over the release of John Worboys, the black cab rapist.

      David Gauke, the Justice Secretary, will be able to ask the Parole Board to reconsider specific decisions if he finds that they may have involved serious mistakes or legal flaws.

      Mr Gauke said the plan was intended to "empower" victims to hold the body to account and help restore public confidence in its work.

      It would allow victims to appeal directly to the Ministry of Justice if they believe that a decision to release an offender was "fundamentally flawed", rather than bringing a costly legal case.

      The move follows a major review of the system after the board ruled last year that Worboys, 61, was eligible for release following his conviction in 2009 for attacks on 12 women - prompting a public outcry.

      The decision was overturned by the High Court following a judicial brought by his victims.

      The court ruled that the panel which approved Worboys' release had failed to explore a wider pattern of alleged offending.

      Under the Government's plans, to be announced this week, victims will be able to challenge Parole Board decisions without having to go through the lengthy and costly process of a judicial review.

      Mr Gauke said: “This landmark reform will for the first time empower victims to hold the Parole Board to account for its decision and help restore public confidence in the important work that it does.”

      Under the plans, victims who want to challenge a decision to release a particular offender would be able to apply to the Justice Secretary, on the basis that the ruling was "fundamentally flawed".

      The case would initially be examined by officials at the Prison and Probation Service, an agency of the Ministry of Justice, who will consider whether there could have been serious mistakes or legal flaws in the ruling.

      If Mr Gauke decides that there is a case for the decision to be reviewed he will refer the appeal to a judge at the Parole Board.

      The judge would apply similar thresholds to the bar needed to successfully launch a judicial review, based on illegality, irrationality and procedural unfairness, according to officials.

      The judge would be able to either ask the original panel to review its decision or order a fresh hearing by a new panel.

      Officials are understood to believe that victims of Worboys would have been able to challenge the decision to release him on the basis of procedural unfairness.

      The move comes after Mr Gauke said in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph last year that he wanted to improve the treatment of victims throughout the criminal justice system.

      "We can ensure that the system listens to victims, treats them with respect, treats them with sensitivity, ensures that they are properly communicated with, doesn't leave them in the dark, doesn't leave them feeling that they're an afterthought," he said.

      Delete
  3. I would argue that before probation can be start to be fixed, it has to define itself and adopt an unambiguous position of purpose.
    Is probation the first stage of re-entering society, where assistance and support is given to achieve the fundamentals needed to lead a purposeful and law abiding life, or is it the last part of a sentence where compliance to imposed regulations is enforced and failure is met with sanction?
    It's makes little sense to begin a journey (fixing probation) if there's no real idea of a destination.

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
  4. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/manchester-youth-justice-service-unsafe-15765406

    ReplyDelete
  5. Keep an eye on what is happening in Wales. CRC contracts to end with the transfer of offender management to NPS, and the Welsh government increasingly engaged.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This seems to argue that probation will always increase offending rates. It's only prison that works.

    https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/no-minister-criminals-need-prison-not-community-work/

    ReplyDelete