I see that Danny Shaw has written a blog piece on a bit of smoke and mirrors the MoJ are in the habit of using:-
“Hugely significant.” That was the description given by Antonia Romeo, the most senior civil servant at the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), to the decline in reoffending rates in England and Wales over the past ten years. Among adults, they have fallen from 30 per cent in 2010-11 to 24 per cent in 2020-21. For those aged 10 to 17, the drop has been even more marked, down from 40.9 per cent to 31.2 per cent.
Giving evidence at the Commons Justice Committee, Romeo suggested that the reduction was because officials in her department had done “a lot of work…on reoffending and what works to get people not to reoffend any more." She said: “This is getting them into a job and accommodation, managing the Through the Gate process, and getting them off substance misuse.”
The Justice Secretary Dominic Raab has been even more effusive. When figures were published last October showing a two percentage point drop in reoffending levels in 12 months he tweeted: “This shows that our investment in drug rehab, training in prisons and offender employment is working and helping make our streets safer.”
Does it show that? Look closely at what reoffending rates really measure and it’s clear that the reduction is nothing to boast about - it’s simply a reflection of a wider failure to deliver justice. That’s because the reoffending rate is a misleading term. It is not worked out by counting what proportion of offenders commit a further crime; it’s based on how many are caught and sanctioned.
Tracking the cohort
The MoJ calculates it like this. Every three months it adds up the number of people who within that period have been: cautioned, reprimanded or issued with an official warning by police; given a non-custodial sentence at court, such as a fine or community order; released after serving a prison sentence. This ‘cohort’ of offenders is then tracked.
If, in the following 12 months, anyone in the cohort commits an offence for which they are convicted, cautioned or given a police warning they are officially classed as a reoffender. The penalty or conviction counts only if it’s issued within the initial 12 months or a six-month period afterwards. Some offences, like breaches of court orders, don't count. The number of reoffenders is then divided by the overall number of offenders in the cohort to produce the reoffending rate.
So, the reoffending rate is really the re-conviction or re-cautioning rate. It all depends on the offender being arrested and given a police warning or successfully prosecuted in the courts. As such, reoffending rates vary according to the effectiveness of the 43 police forces, the Crown Prosecution Service and the criminal courts.
But don’t take my word for it - even the MoJ acknowledges that the methods are imprecise and understate the reality of reoffending. “Measuring true reoffending is difficult,” says the department’s ‘Guide to Proven Reoffending’, issued in 2017.
“Official records are taken from either the police or courts, but they will underestimate the true level of reoffending because only a proportion of crime is detected and sanctioned and not all crimes and sanctions are recorded on one central system. Other methods of measuring reoffending, such as self-report studies, are likely to also underestimate the rate,” the document says.
Detections and sanctions
To understand the extent to which reoffending rates may have been affected by the performance of police, prosecutors and the courts, just look at overall levels of crime detections and sanctions compiled by the Home Office as part of their 'outcome' figures.
The methods changed in 2014-15, so that’s the earliest comparable date. That year, 15.5 per cent of crimes recorded by police led to a suspect being charged or summonsed to appear in court. A further 4.6 per cent resulted in a formal out-of-court disposal, such as a caution.
Over the next seven years, as has been well documented, the charge and caution rate plummeted. In the 12 months to the end of September 2022 it was 5.5 per cent and 1 per cent respectively.
So, over a seven-year period there was a 3.6 percentage point reduction in caution rates and a 10 percentage point decrease in charging levels. Without a charge, of course, there can’t be a conviction, so convictions, as a proportion of all crimes, will also have fallen substantially.
You can probably see where this is heading. With such a dramatic decline in cautioning and charging rates, it’s no surprise that reoffending levels (measuring the proportion of offenders who have been cautioned or convicted again) have fallen too. In 2014-15, the MoJ calculated the overall reoffending rate to be 30 per cent. The latest figures, covering a cohort of offenders in January to March 2021 who were tracked for the following 12 months, show the rate fell to 24.3 per cent, a 5.7 percentage point reduction in reoffending.
Timeliness is also a factor. Criminal cases are taking longer to resolve because of record court backlogs which started growing in 2019. It takes around 180 days, on average, for an offence to be dealt with by magistrates compared with 150 days in 2014-15. For Crown Court cases, it’s gone up from 250 to 350 days. That means an increasing number of offenders who committed a further crime will not have been counted for the purposes of the reoffending data because they weren’t convicted within 12 months or the six month follow-up period.
Bleak reality
If overall charge and cautioning rates had been broadly stable, then this “hugely significant” reduction in reoffending rates, as the permanent secretary put it, would indeed be hugely significant. It would suggest that external factors, such as improvements in rehabilitation, employment and accommodation support, were playing a part - but there is no evidence that they have. The evidence simply, and bleakly, points to the fact that fewer offenders are being caught and brought to justice, while delays in the criminal justice system are masking some reoffending that would previously have been included.
It’s time ministers and officials acknowledged this. They should start by re-labelling ‘reoffending’ rates to avoid confusion and misinterpretation: they are re-conviction and re-cautioning rates. Better still, they should look for an alternative way to measure the true level of reoffending through a combination of anonymous surveys of offenders, information from probation staff, arrest figures, and re-caution and re-conviction data, adjusted to take account of overall caution and charging trends.
The fall in reoffending rates is, sadly, not the ray of light the Ministry of Justice was hoping for and no one should be misled into thinking that it is.
PS: Isn't it odd that for the purposes of reoffending data, an offender's time in prison doesn't count? The official reoffending clock starts on release from jail or at the moment the court orders an offender to serve a sentence in the community. So, when comparisons are made between reoffending rates for those who've served prison sentences and people given community penalties they never take account of the time spent in custody. That doesn't seem right. One of the benefits of prison is that while locked up a person is not committing crimes in the community: surely the reoffending figures should reflect that.
Danny Shaw
As the next general election approaches, with the state the country is in, the Tories have precious little to sell the public in order to garner votes. A poll this week even suggested that if a snap election were called now they might even find themselves as the third party in parliament instead of in opposition.
ReplyDeleteEnter the CJS.
I think there's going to be a lot of dissembling and scaremongering going on, and I think the CJS is going to be in for a rough ride over the nex 18mts.
This week alone with the media full of SFOs the Tories have appointed a chairman openly in favour of the death penalty.
They've rejected the notion of resentencing IPP prisoners.
They've given police forces quotas to take in the prison over spill.
Rabb has announced prison abstinence wings to reduce 'state sponsored drug dealing' reducing the amount of methadone and subutex given in prison to addicts.
They've changed the criteria for releasing prisoners serving under 4 years early on tag. They've excluded people serving sentences for domestic violence, stalking and harassment etc from being able to be released early on tag, whilst in an attempt to balance the impact this will have on prison population, they've increased the period for those who are eligible from 4 and a half months prior to release to 6 months prior to release.
I have no idea how this will impact on the courts or probation services.
The CJS is always used as a political football as elections approach, but more then ever I fear we are going to see big changes, bigger lies, more spin then ever before. The Tories are going to be the new vaccine for crime.
And as usual, very little good will come of it.
'Getafix
Its a bit of a perfect storm isn't it? We are in the wake of apalling and inevitable failures of our Probation public protection brief.
DeleteRedefined in current media and by this awful government, and the equally awful MoJ command, as the agency with responsibility no not so much as manage risk, but to eliminate it, the flickering flame of Probation Identity as an agency of social justice, critical of the state, and alive to the social context of crime, working in therapuetic and humane ways with our clientele, may be extinguished, if it isnt already.
Exhausted and betrayed staff are now queuing up to blow the whistle and Pandora's box is now opened. Probation people are in my experience, a very diffident, moderate, corporate and discreet bunch but they have been tested to destruction. The alacrity with which they are now giving vent in public is tantamount to civil unrest. Its a development fraut with risks, given the relish with which the party in government is now debating the benefits of capital punishment within its ranks. No response from within HMPPS will be anywhere near the mark of what is needed and wanted. Government in waiting is not inspiring -to be kind- on this front.
The scope to build something meaningful and progressive from within looks pretty minimal, so maybe destruction of the status quo is the only and inevitable way. There are allies and practitioners at all levels working to forge progress within the current structures, and power to their elbows, but its too urgent and the organisation has no capacity or will to listen. The alternative is however to start from scratch: a small movement of missoneries - lets say people with social consciences and humanity- to start from scratch.
The quandry for all of us, not least our Union, is that with wilful hastening of the destruction of what remains of the profession, there will be a real and painful impact on the lives and living of employees.
Another great example of smoke and mirrors used to mask the governments ongoing failure to understand criminality. The train wreck of our rehabilitative services, orchestrated by mr Grayling continues to pile up. That disaster then repackaged and advertised as progress? This lot are deluded and clearly trying to sell ice to the Eskimo…
ReplyDeletewell done Danny, & thank you.
ReplyDeleteDo not all probation practitioners realise how unreliable are any crime statistics the first time in interview they discuss offences takin into consideration, but not charged or when they hear a police antecendents officer in the Crown Court read out a list of convictions and then hear the defence advocate dispute some, which a judge may even accept.
ReplyDeleteAs a practitioner it was not always possible to get police pre convictions by the time of a PSR interview - my style of interviewing involved me enquiring of interviewees, what they were, adding the comment, that I will get the police list before I complete my report, so unless they give me an explanation now, I will have to accept the police's word at face value.
It was amazing the number of times offences were discl;osed in interview that were not recorded by police - does that not still happen?
Hence looking at comparisons of totals of conviction statistics - it seems inevitable they will be inacurate because of attitudes to recording and how they change over time.
Napo mailout today:-
ReplyDeleteOver the opening weeks of 2023, Napo has attracted substantial media attention as we seek to expose the facts about unsustainable workloads, staff vacancies and sickness rates that have resulted in 8 out of 12 Probation Regions being identified as being in crisis.
This follows two recent reports from HM Inspector Probation which have covered two separate Serious Further Offence incidents that led to the tragic loss of life in Derbyshire and London last year.
Our contact with the media has also been assisted by members who have offered anonymised testimonies about their efforts to protect the public in the face of the huge difficulties caused by the neglect of the service by the government.
This week saw another expose by Channel 4 Television, who along with a number of other media and radio outlets have welcomed Napo’s input and our efforts to add some much needed perspective to what is happening to the Probation service and the wider Criminal Justice System.
How you can help our campaign
As we have been making clear to the media and politicians at this week’s events via the Trade Union Co-Ordinating Group and Justice Unions Parliamentary Group, we need to see this government own up to the egregious damage inflicted on Probation by the disastrous part-privatisation (TR) reforms that were implemented in 2014 and eventually reversed in 2021.
By contacting your member of Parliament and urging them to pressurise the Secretary of State for Justice to provide the desperately needed resources to help retain experienced members of staff as well as recruit new ones, you can help to keep Napo’s campaign fresh in the eye of politicians, many of whom are still not aware of what happened back then, and how long it will take to restore Probation to anything like its former entity.
It’s also important to engage with colleagues who may not be in a trade union and demonstrate the work that we have been putting in to achieve the extensive coverage of the problems being faced by our members on a daily basis.
Napo stands by its members in all of the employers where we have recognition, and more members allows us to step up our efforts to protect and promote your interests.
Regards
Napo HQ
“Napo has attracted substantial media attention …”
DeleteReally?, I hadn’t noticed. Is it the BBC, Sky News, CNN?
“you can help to keep Napo’s campaign fresh in… “
And what is that campaign exactly?
“Napo … to protect and promote your interests.…”
Will this include a better pay deal?
"Over the opening weeks of 2023, Napo has attracted substantial media attention"
Deleteerm, sorry to burst your balloon but I think you'll find the media attention wasn't about Napo. The media attention was about the circumstances surrounding tragic deaths of people & the victims left behind. The media attention was about a wholly dysfunctional public service & the catastrophic events resulting from that service failing to discharge its duties properly.
It was not about a collection of overpaid, useless bodies in a London office, or the union they claim to represent.
"we need to see this government own up to the egregious damage inflicted on Probation by the disastrous part-privatisation (TR) reforms that were implemented in 2014 and eventually reversed in 2021."
Napo signed off on the transfer agreements to allow TR to happen.
There has been NO reversal; just a shifting of staff from privateer contracts to weak-as-water hmpps contracts (unless you're in the happy clique of chums)
Napo, we see you & your PR bandwagonning.
"you can help to keep Napo’s campaign fresh in the eye of politicians, many of whom are still not aware of what happened back then"
Only because NAPO did nowt of substance, kept its collective mouth shut, agreed staff transfer contracts (both ways) & invisible severance arrangements that were detrimental to members. By saying nowt & signing the agreement - which included £80million of under-the-counter public funded bribes to pay for redundancies - Napo was complicit in the loss of hundreds of probation jobs to make the CRCs & TR look cost-effective.
Very true. Ian Lawrence signed a redundancies agreement against our members. Lawrence saw 1000 plus staff sacked no compensation and took not one case to court tribunal. Lawrence you aided the cutting of staff now critically needed. You are incompetant but an able opportunist. Stand by yourself I don't stand with you.
DeleteNAPO are gaslighting with their latest email. They haven’t done a thing to highlight the mess were in to the media and are non existent in my area. They’ve simply jumped on the coverage of the tragic SFO’s that have occurred and the resulting press scrutiny of the service.
ReplyDeleteIt is shameful on the back of such tragedy Napo make outrageous claims. They certainly did not lead or win any news media because all they were is a respondent to the awful circus reporting. The Napo line would not speak of its agreement to tr and staff losses that led to this. Duplicitous and complicite come to my mind.
DeleteIt’s shameful they make these claims while pocketing all the members money.
DeleteNapo has been doing a lot behind the scenes. I don’t see the other unions saying anything. Napo staff do contact the media but it’s down to the media whether they choose to interview napo or use the material. If Reps are not in your area it’s likely that there are not enough members volunteering to be on the exec or be reps. Some reps are stretched thin as they are doing a number of roles.
ReplyDeleteNot that old chestnut. Napo are doing the bare minimum, if even that. There is hardly anything happening “behind the scenes”. Probation is in the media because of SFOs, HMIP failings and whistleblower. This is nothing to do with Napo so stop trying to take credit. If you’re “stretched thin” then stop taking members money.
DeleteTR, Vetting, Unification, were ushered in by Napo. You didn’t bring any judicial reviews or support tribunals but you sang Chris Grayling happy birthday. Napo had its chance to speak up in 2022 when we were offered a crappy 3% pay offer. You sat back and let that offer go through saying “it’s the best we can get”.
Perhaps you’d like to volunteer to be a rep ? Local reps are volunteers from local offices who represent local staff; they balance this with their operational role within the office
ReplyDeleteNapo is rotten at the core and useless. Too many reps are an extension of that. Now the current GS hangs on for another term. Who’d want to be part of that.
Delete