Sentencing Review 3

Mr Jones has spoken:- 

A statement from HM Chief Inspector of Probation, on the launch of an Independent Review of Sentencing

Last week the Lord Chancellor announced an Independent Review of Sentencing, which will be chaired by former Lord Chancellor, the Rt Hon David Gauke, and supported by a panel including representatives from the judiciary and expertise from across the justice system.

I believe this review represents a unique opportunity to deliver a more effective system, resulting in better use of resources, lower reoffending rates, fewer victims and safer communities.

The decisions HM Inspectorate of Probation stands ready to support this work, using our findings to highlight options for the future of probation, and its consequential impact on prisons, and I have shared my initial thoughts, as detailed below. 

• Use of community orders and sentence lengths 
• Increasing the use of deferred sentences 
• Length of licence periods
• Recalls 
• Better support in the community

Use of community orders and sentence lengths:

I have no hesitation in arguing that serious, violent or sexual offenders should receive custodial sentences which are long enough to punish, deter, and protect the public. However, whilst prison must be there for the most serious offences, based on the Ministry’s published evidence there is a compelling case to move less serious cases from prison into the community. There, a better resourced, more stable probation service, working closely with local partnerships, would reduce reoffending, keep communities safer, and prevent future victims. Far from being soft on crime, such a move is smarter and demonstrably more effective. This approach would also enable our prisons to become safer places, where successful rehabilitation can become the expectation, rather than the exception.

The shift in numbers over the last decade is stark. In 2012 c150,000 people received a community sentence, and it was the mainstay of the work of probation. By 2023 that number had more than halved to c71,000. Over the same period the growth in post-sentence supervision has meant that the probation service is spending a far greater proportion of its resources preparing prisoners for release and supervising and enforcing licence conditions. C137,000 people are currently subject to pre or post release supervision. This is in spite of the fact that we know that well-delivered community sentences may be more effective at getting to the root of the causes of crime and reducing reoffending.

Given the extent of the shift, a new strategy is now needed to reinvigorate and rebuild sentencer and public confidence in community sentences. Whilst undoubtedly punitive, short custodial sentences do little to achieve rehabilitation and creating a statutory presumption against their use could reduce reoffending. In youth justice there is a minimum four-month threshold for a Detention Training Order which works effectively.

I note the recent Judicial Critique on sentence inflation and believe that through a non-partisan review of the evidence it may be possible to reverse the inexorable, expensive and, in reality, ineffective increases in sentence lengths we have seen over the last three decades. Such a move would enable the Government to better refocus the finite resources available to reduce reoffending, ensure rehabilitation in our prisons, and better support intervention and supervision in the community on licence.

Increasing the use of deferred sentences:

Many of those that end up in contact with the criminal justice systems are there because of their underlying issues. People in prison are more likely to have: 

• spent a childhood in care; 
• experienced abuse as a child; 
• failed to have gained qualifications, or been excluded from school; 
• been unemployed or homeless; 
• suffered depression or other mental health issues; used class A drugs or misused alcohol.

A short time in prison will fix none of those underlying issues, nor will a short period on licence; feeding the revolving door of reoffending.

In France, some custodial sentences are not served immediately. Judges who believe custody is merited can instead provide a window for an individual who has committed a crime to turn their lives around before they invoke a prison sentence. People have an incentive to engage and receive credit where that opportunity is taken. The sentencing review might consider the case for a similar approach involving deferred sentencing for those with entrenched underlying issues. Local partnerships, led by probation, could work to deliver better provision, tackling these challenges which are cross-cutting local and central Government. For less serious offences it may be possible to deliver similar outcomes through use of conditional cautioning (with requirements that must be fulfilled).

Length of licence periods:

Whilst we can make better use of our prisons, there will always be people whose offences are so serious that detention is the only answer. All prisoners must be released when they have served the relevant part of their sentence, or (for the most serious cases) when they are no longer judged a risk to the public. At that point they need to be supervised for long enough to ensure the public are protected, but there is a risk that excessive licence periods can be a sword of Damocles, which do not allow people on probation to move on with their lives.

As sentences have grown longer, so has the number of people being supervised by the probation service. Nearly 60% of the service’s caseload are people being prepared for release or being managed in the community. This has been a seismic shift of focus. As a result, there is a danger the probation service becomes focused on supervision and ensuring compliance with rules rather than seeking to turn lives around. It would be reasonable to consider pruning that caseload. Until 2014, those serving less than twelve months in custody were not supervised by the probation service at all, nor could they be recalled to custody.

The sentencing review could usefully consider shortening those licence periods to give the probation service more time and space to better manage the cases where its supervision can make the most difference. Before the Criminal Justice Act 2003 there were periods where people on probation were not supervised on licence, but would instead face a tougher sentence if they reoffended in their “at risk” period. Such changes would also limit recall numbers.

Recalls:

Whilst, for understandable reasons, there has been a focus on the remand population which has been driven up in recent years by the Crown Court backlog; the fastest growing part of the population over the last two decades has been the recall population. This has been driven by sentencing changes including the now abolished IPP sentence, and an increase in the number of people supervised and subject to recall.

In the year 2000, the recall population was under 1,000 (even then a record high). By 2010, as a result of sentencing changes including growing licence periods and a reduction in judicial oversight of recall, it had increased to over 5,000. According to the last published figure the recall population now stands at 12,199 which equates to 14% of the total prison population. Recent increases have been driven by the extension of supervision to short sentences, and the underlying fear of serious further offending. According to official figures over 2,000 prisoners are recalled to prison every month. Whilst it is important that licence conditions are enforced, it is unclear to me what this scale of recall is achieving.

Recall can be a vital tool to protect the public when there are signs that a person on probation’s risk has increased. I am certain that a timely, well-judged recall keeps the public safer – particularly where there is high risk (as seen in our independent reviews of cases like McSweeney and Bendall). However, it may not always be necessary. Despite the twelve-fold rise in the recall population, there is little to indicate that the overall rate of serious further offending has changed significantly over the period. In 2009-10 there were 273 convicted SFOs. In the latest year for which figures are available (2021-22) there were 288. The number of SFOs remains broadly stable at close to 300.

According to the publishes figures on reasons for recall, the majority of recalls are for non-compliance (39 per cent), failing to keep in touch (17 per cent), failing to reside (13 per cent), or problems with drugs and alcohol (4 per cent). These figures support my assessment that recalls are inexorably linked with pressure on the probation service, a lack of confidence, and a lack of adequate support in the community.

I would fully support moves to draw upon international evidence to reimagine the way in which recall is used. In most common law countries (including Scotland, Canada and New Zealand) there is judicial oversight by the courts, or the Parole Board, of executive use of recall. It is noteworthy that the recall population started to rise steeply following the removal of judicial oversight of recall in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Under Canadian law, there is a statutory requirement that even if a prisoner’s recall is endorsed by the Canadian Parole Board, a new automatic release date is calculated to avoid a situation where prisonersare released with no supervision by probation. They argue this keeps the public safer, and I am minded to agree.

Better support in the community:

We know from the evidence that having a place to live, the opportunity for employment, help with drugs, alcohol or mental health problems, and support in the community, are key to reducing reoffending. However, the unsustainable pressures on prisons, probation and local services make this extremely difficult to achieve. The high rates of recall and reoffending we see at present demonstrate that there is much more to do to improve preparedness for release. I am hoping that we will identify some helpful lessons through our planned Approved Premises inspection programme which is due to commence in 2025, and our upcoming national inspection of the Probation Service.

In recent inspections HM Inspectorate of Probation have found that recall is often the result of a lack of support in the community. In essence a lack of help with drugs, alcohol, mental health, and accommodation, combined with probation officers being under too much pressure to spot early warning signs, precipitates a “crisis” that results in recall. Avoiding that crisis by earlier action would represent a significantly better use of resources. Although unpalatable, it may be necessary to move a proportion of offender managers in custody to better manage people in the community.

Based on the annual cost of a prison place, the 12,000 recall population currently costs the taxpayer c£600m a year. I am certain that, through prudent change, that number could be reduced and some of those resources could be reinvested to better manage people in the community. It is noteworthy that Youth Justice Services tend to achieve better results because they have strong statutory partnerships and local leadership to get to the heart of the reasons children offend. Within a national organisation it should still be possible to provide delegated local budgets which empower local probation leaders to work with local partners to design and develop services that are capable of breaking the destructive cycle of reoffending.

Sentencing Review 2

This from the Prison Reform Trust:-

The sentencing review is a chance to reset the dial on decades of failure in penal policy

The government has launched a major review of sentencing policy that will aim to find a long-term solution to the overcrowding crisis in our prisons.

Rt Hon David Gauke, the former justice secretary and a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust, has been appointed chair of the sentencing review. To maintain his and the charity’s independence, Mr Gauke will step down as a trustee of the charity for the duration of his appointment as chair of the review.

Central to the aim of the review must be a commitment to bring overall numbers in prison and the use of imprisonment down to a more proportionate and sustainable level. England and Wales has one of the highest imprisonment rates in western Europe at 140 people per 100,000 head of population, second only to Scotland (150 people per 100,000) and which is currently facing its own prison capacity crisis. The prison population has risen by 93% in past 30 years and currently stands at just over 87,000. It is predicted to rise by as high as 114,800 by March 2028.

The growth in the prison population over the past three decades has mostly been driven by sentence inflation at the more serious end of offending. However, a rising recall and remand population, and an increase in police officer numbers leading to a rise in arrests and convictions, have also contributed to the rise in prison numbers since the end of the pandemic.

For serious, indictable offences, the average prison sentence is now 62.4 months — almost two years longer than in 2010. More than two and a half times as many people were sentenced to 10 years or more in 2022 than in 2010.

Punitive changes to the sentencing framework introduced by successive governments over the past three decades have been a significant factor behind the overall increase in sentence length and rise in prison numbers. For instance, schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 increased the minimum tariff length for a range of types of murder offences. As consequence, the average length of minimum term rose from 13 years in 2000 to 21 years in 2021.

Sentence inflation has contributed to a prison system characterised by chronic levels of overcrowding and indecent and inhumane conditions in many establishments. The pressure of increasing demand means that the system has little bandwidth to do more than warehouse the ever-growing number of prisoners in its care. A focus on rehabilitation and reducing the risk of reoffending on release is sidelined to the demands of population management.

Prisons have been under emergency capacity measures since November 2022. The latest round of measures — known as SDS40 — were introduced by the new government in September 2024. However, they are expected to buy the government less than 12 months breathing space before prisons will again become dangerously overcrowded. Further emergency measures are widely predicted will be needed by summer 2025.

In announcing this important review, the government has acknowledged the reality that it simply cannot build its way out of the capacity crisis. The current rate of prison building can’t keep pace with increasing demand. Furthermore, at a time when public finances are constrained, building more prisons is expensive and wasteful of taxpayers’ money.

Without a strategy to also reduce demand on the system by curbing sentence inflation:

• The system can’t look beyond next capacity crisis — there is no bandwidth for further improvement.
• The government will not be able to tackle chronic levels of overcrowding which is a key factor contributing to many of the problems in our prisons.
• The government won’t be able to take prisons offline which are no longer fit for purpose.

Commenting, Mark Day, deputy director of the Prison Reform Trust, said:

“The current capacity crisis has bought our criminal justice system close to collapse. Emergency measures are not a long-term solution. We urgently need to get to grips with runaway sentence inflation which has contributed to chronic levels of overcrowding and driven prison numbers and our use of imprisonment up to an unsustainable level. This important review is a vital opportunity to reset the dial on decades of failure in penal policymaking.”

Responding to the news that the review will not include the sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) or its administration, Day added:

“It is vital that the government does not lose sight of the ongoing injustice faced by thousands of people still subject to the abolished IPP sentence. Particular effort needs to be focussed on progressing the sentences of those who have never been released and remain in prison many times over the length of their original tariff.”

--oo00oo--

This from the Howard League:-

The most senior former judges in England and Wales have called on the government to reverse the trend of imposing ever longer sentences, giving warning that radical solutions are needed to address the acute crisis in prisons.

In a paper published by the Howard League for Penal Reform, they outline how and why prison sentences have increased in recent decades and the impact this has had.

The paper, Sentence inflation: a judicial critique, is signed by the four surviving former Lords Chief Justice of England and Wales – Lord Woolf, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and Lord Burnett of Maldon – and Sir Brian Leveson, the only surviving President of the Queen’s Bench Division who was also Head of Criminal Justice.

Addressing challenges around sentencing is one of the Howard League’s strategic priorities. Our strategic priorities reflect those issues that we consider most urgent and important in ending the overuse of prison.

In September 2024, five of the most senior former judges in England and Wales made an extremely rare intervention and called on the government to reverse the trend of imposing ever longer prison sentences.

Lord Woolf, Lord Phillips of Matravers, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd and Lord Burnett of Maldon, all of whom served as Lord Chief Justice, and Sir Brian Leveson, the only surviving President of the Queen’s Bench Division who was also head of Criminal Justice, wrote that sentence lengths had approximately doubled in the half-century that they had been involved in the law, and so had the prison population.

Their paper, Sentence inflation: a judicial critique, published by the Howard League, called for “an honest conversation about what custodial sentences can and cannot achieve” and a return to “more modest proportionate sentences across the board”.

Coming only a week before the start of an emergency early release scheme aimed at easing the prison overcrowding crisis, the paper received considerable media attention. It helped to put sentencing policy, and its links to the acute problems in prisons, under the microscope. The government has announced that a former Secretary of State for Justice, David Gauke, will lead an independent sentencing review. In the words of legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg, writing in the Law Society Gazette, there is now “no time to lose”.

So, what is sentence inflation? And what impact is it having? In response to the many enquiries that we have received from politicians, journalists and the public, we have created a dedicated page on our website to explain what the problems are, how they arose, and how they might be solved.

----///----

The former judges wrote: “Faced with compelling demands to increase spending on health, education, care for an ageing population, defence, and measures aimed at increasing productivity, the government should be seeking to reduce to a minimum the amount that has to be spent on keeping prisoners locked up.”

One idea could be to introduce regular reviews of minimum terms for people serving indeterminate sentences. We must release people who are serving sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) or ‘two-strike’ indeterminate sentences and have been in prison for longer than their tariff (the point at which they become eligible to apply for release on parole).

Another option could be to change the rules so that anyone serving a determinate sentence longer than 10 years gets their case reviewed at the halfway point and then at regular intervals, resulting in earlier release on licence or a reduced sentence.

For some offences, those convicted are not eligible for release from prison on licence until they have served two-thirds of their sentence; reducing this to the halfway point, as used to be the case, would help to ease pressure on the system.

We could consider reviewing the needs and risk levels of older people in prison upon reaching a certain age, followed by a managed move to a more appropriate secure location if required. People who are very elderly, dying or suffering dementia could be removed from prisons, which are ill-equipped to care for them.

There is growing evidence that a distinct approach is needed for sentencing young adults, aged 18 to 25, as they are still maturing. Perhaps people who committed their most serious offence before they turned 25 should receive regular sentence reviews or expedited parole eligibility.

Currently, people can only apply to move to an open prison within three years of their release date. What if we offered that opportunity sooner, giving more people the chance to benefit from work, education and building family ties, all of which have been shown to help reduce reoffending?

For too long, criminal justice policies have been judged on whether they appear “tough” or “soft”, when what really matters is whether they work. Making sentences longer and longer puts intolerable pressure on the prison system and creates bigger challenges that will have to be tackled sooner or later. Dealing with the consequences takes valuable resources away from preventing crime and supporting victims.

We can start to put things right if we shift our focus away from the length of sentences and towards what people are doing while serving them. If someone needs support to move away from crime, locking them in a prison cell for hours on end with nothing to do is not going to help.

Want to know more about the prisons crisis? Read our explainer on why prisons are overcrowded.

Dear Mr Jones

I thought this was good, so deserves a post on its own:-

Dear Mr Jones,

"doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

The inspection results have been dire for years, but no-one has ever taken the management structure to task over any of those dire results, i.e. most of the culprits are still in post/have been promoted.

Why do I take such a view? Because my experiences of inspections have always been:

1. there is plenty of advance notice (usually months) of the imminent inspection, the cases to be inspected and the purpose of the inspection
2. local management order the toilets to be painted
3. case records are audited, adjusted and staff groomed
4. local management have cosy chats with the inspectors

And despite all of these 'advantages' and prep time, probation areas achieve shit scores... the failures are levelled at frontline staff... and not much changes at any level.

You say: "My conclusion, is that we are unlikely to see any significant improvements in our findings in the short term and I am concerned at the potential damage to morale on the front line and public confidence if we merely report similar findings."

I ask:

1. Why are there unlikely to be significant improvements? We've had decades of strategies & policies and consultations and political directives, yet nothing has changed for the better. Everything has just "gotten shitter".

2. Potential damage to frontline morale? Potential? The potential has been reached; and exceeded. I'm not sure frontline morale could be any more damaged than it already is. How about sacking some of the "excellent leaders" who have carelessly and callously led the service into this death spiral while being labelled "excellent" and "strong" by... the inspectors!

3. Public confidence? Most of the general public have no idea who or what probation is, except when some poor bastard on the frontline is being hung out to dry following a dreadful incident beyond their control, while the piss poor management make tutting noises and chunter about "lessons to be learned" or "a sad lack of professional inquisitiveness".

Have ***any*** lessons been learned?

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/media/press-releases/2022/09/sfo-2022/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/2021/06/09-june-2021/

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/3582/transforming-rehabilitation-inquiry/news/99492/new-probation-system-must-learn-lessons-from-botched-current-model/

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/nov/02/probation-service-monitoring-inquiry-sonnex

https://news.sky.com/story/re-offending-fears-as-probation-service-fails-to-learn-from-past-mistakes-11987919

https://www.theguardian.com/society/joepublic/2009/jun/04/sonnex-probation-service

https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2006/02/28/probation-staff-suspended-following-critical-report/

No!

So, seeing as repeating the same format with no improvement is proving unhelpful, maybe HMI Probation could stop using the same tactics and start doing unannounced inspections where inspectors turn up at an office and look at random case records with the case managers, listening to them as they discuss the cases together, getting to grips with the local difficulties and impossibilities, reading the bullying emails, experiencing the true gravity of the situation.

Then, maybe, there might be some real progress in short order.

Yours,

Anon

Have Your Say

A consultation on standards and ratings for a national inspection of the Probation Service

In this consultation, we are asking for your views on our proposed standards for a national probation inspection, as well as how we rate the evidence that we see against the standards. Our aim is to focus on the things that make a difference to the ability of regions and PDUs to deliver probation services effectively. We are proposing four standards for which we will award ratings. Our ratings will continue to follow our established four-point scale and we are interested in your views on whether we should also provide an overall rating. We will make recommendations to drive improvement, targeting them where we believe they can have the most impact, and will publish our findings.

This consultation is hugely important to us in shaping an approach that best drives improvement.

Subject to the outcome of this consultation and resources, we plan to carry out the first national inspection in the first half of 2025. We have designed inspection standards that are future proof to enable us to undertake further national inspections when we think there is a need to do so.

Martin Jones, Chief Inspector of Probation has commented “We are unlikely to see any significant improvements in our findings in the short term and I am concerned at the potential damage to morale on front line services and in public confidence if we merely continue to report similar findings. Regions and PDUs need more time to allow matters, including the recent SDS40 changes and Probation Reset, to embed. We have a brief gap before we start the next regional inspection, and we plan to utilise that time by undertaking a national inspection.”

Our consultation closes at 11:59pm on Sunday 10 November 2024. We would very much welcome your views on the detail of our proposals, and hope you will take the opportunity to respond.

You can read the full consultation document here – A consultation on standards and ratings for a national inspection of the Probation Service (PDF, 357 kB)

Foreword 

The national arrangements for the delivery of probation services have a crucial role in enabling effective frontline delivery. We see some of the impact of this national activity through our regional and PDU inspections, but these do not give us a full picture of the impact of national arrangements. We need this information so that we can target recommendations where they will best drive improvement. This is why we are preparing to carry out an inspection of the Probation Service, focusing on the arrangements and activity in place at a national level. This will give us a comprehensive picture of the things that help or hinder the effective delivery of probation services by regions and PDUs. 

We have published fifteen reports and two regional inspection reports during 2024. Whilst we have found some positive practice and leadership in some areas, all of those reports have rated PDUs and regions as either Inadequate or Requires improvement. The themes underpinning our scores are consistent. Areas are still hamstrung by staffing deficits (including retention difficulties), consistent shortfalls in our standards on public protection, and the workload pressures. 

My conclusion, is that we are unlikely to see any significant improvements in our findings in the short term and I am concerned at the potential damage to morale on the front line and public confidence if we merely report similar findings. Regions and PDUs need more time to allow matters including the recent SDS40 changes and probation reset to embed. We have a brief gap before we start the next regional inspection and we plan to utilise that time by undertaking a national inspection. 

In this consultation, we are asking for your views on our proposed standards for a national probation inspection, as well as how we rate the evidence that we see against the standards. Our aim is to focus on the things that make a difference to the ability of regions and PDUs to deliver probation services effectively. We are proposing four standards for which we will award ratings. Our ratings will continue to follow our established four-point scale and we are interested in your views on whether we should also provide an overall rating. We will make recommendations to drive improvement, targeting them where we believe they can have the most impact, and will publish our findings. 

This consultation is hugely important to us in shaping an approach that best drives improvement. 

Subject to the outcome of this consultation and resources, we plan to carry out the first national inspection in the first half of 2025. We have designed inspection standards that are future proof to enable us to undertake further national inspections when we think there is a need to do so. Our consultation closes at 11:59pm on Sunday 10 November 2024. We would very much welcome your views on the detail of our proposals, and I hope you will take the opportunity to respond. 

Martin Jones CBE 

Chief Inspector of Probation

Sentencing Review 1

Well, here it is then. We can only hope the new government has the bottle to get a grip on this issue and 'lean into' the problem and not go by what focus groups say. We also hope it presages a sensible review into the Probation Service that was promised in the Labour manifesto.

Landmark Sentencing Review launched to end prison crisis

Public safety will be at the heart of an independent review into sentencing, as the government pledges to end the crisis in our prisons.

• review into sentencing launched to end prison crisis and ensure no government forced into emergency release of prisoners again
• the first principle of the Review will be to protect the public and make sure prisons punish serious offenders
• this forms part of the government’s pledge to always have the prison places needed to lock up the most dangerous offenders, alongside its commitment to build 14,000 prison spaces
• review will also look at tough alternatives to custody

Chaired by former Lord Chancellor David Gauke, the review will make sure the most serious offenders can be sent to prison to protect the public, and that the country always has the space needed to keep dangerous criminals locked up.

Launched on the day more prisoners will be leaving jail under an emergency release scheme due to chronic overcrowding, the review will make sure no government is ever placed in this position again.

The prison population has roughly doubled in the last 30 years - but in the last 14 of those years, just 500 places were added to the country’s stock of jail cells.

The government has committed to creating 14,000 extra prison places and outlining a 10-year capacity strategy later this year. Alongside this, the Sentencing Review will follow 3 core principles to ensure a sustainable justice system:

• make sure prison sentences punish serious offenders and protect the public, and there is always the space in prison for the most dangerous offenders
• look at what more can be done to encourage offenders to turn their backs on a life of crime, and keep the public safe by reducing reoffending
• explore tougher punishments outside of prison to make sure these sentences cut crime while making the best use of taxpayers’ money

The review will also specifically consider whether current sentencing for crimes committed against women and girls fits the severity of the act, and ask whether there is more can be done to tackle prolific offending.

Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, said:

"This government inherited prisons in crisis, within days of collapse. This review, along with our prison building programme, will ensure we never again have more prisoners than prison spaces. I believe in punishment. I believe in prison, but I also believe that we must increase the range of punishments we use. And that those prisoners who earn the right to turn their lives around should be encouraged to do so. The Sentencing Review will make sure prison and punishment work - and that there is always a cell waiting for dangerous offenders."

The review will examine the tough alternatives to custody, such as using technology to place criminals in a ‘prison outside prison’ and forcing offenders to do hard work in the community that gives back to society. In developing their recommendations, the independent chair and panel will look at evidence in this country and also from overseas jurisdictions, such as the US, to explore alternative approaches to criminal justice.

Independent Reviewer David Gauke said:

"Clearly, our prisons are not working. The prison population is increasing by around 4,500 every year, and nearly 90% of those sentenced to custody are reoffenders. This review will explore what punishment and rehabilitation should look like in the 21st century, and how we can move our justice system out of crisis and towards a long-term, sustainable future."

--oo00oo--

Terms of reference:-

Independent Sentencing Review 2024 to 2025 – Terms of Reference:

In Summer 2024, the capacity pressures on the prison system brought it dangerously close to total collapse. On taking office, the new government was forced to announce emergency measures that reduced the custodial term of some standard determinate sentences from 50 percent to 40 percent of a sentence.

This review of sentencing is tasked with a comprehensive re-evaluation of our sentencing framework. Its goal is to ensure we are never again in a position where the country has more prisoners than prison places, and the government is forced to rely on the emergency release of prisoners.

To do so, the review will be guided by 3 principles: 

• firstly, sentences must punish offenders and protect the public - there must always be space in prison for the most dangerous offenders
• secondly, sentences must encourage offenders to turn their backs on a life of crime, cutting crime by reducing reoffending
• thirdly, we must expand and make greater use of punishment outside of prison

In developing their recommendations, the independent Chair and panel are encouraged to draw not only on national data but also on international comparisons. This sentencing framework must follow the evidence of what reduces offending.

Sentencing is a matter for the independent judiciary and the review will therefore not look at sentencing in individual cases or the role of the judiciary.

The review will provide long term solutions for our justice system by:

• examining the use and composition of non-custodial sentences, including robust community alternatives to prison and the use of fines
• looking at the role of incentives in sentence management and the powers of the probation service in the administration of sentences in the community
• looking at the use and impact of short custodial sentences
• reviewing the framework around longer custodial sentences, including the use of minimum sentences, and the range of sentences and maximum penalties available for different offences
• looking at the administration of sentences, including the point at which offenders are released from prison, how long they are supervised in the community on licence, recall to prison, and how technology can support this
• considering whether the sentencing framework should be amended to take into account the specific needs or vulnerabilities of specific cohorts, such as young adult offenders, older offenders, and women
• considering the approach to sentencing in cases of prolific offenders
• considering specifically sentencing for offences primarily committed against women and girls

There are some important areas which we consider are best-placed to be progressed outside of the review. The review will not consider: 

• the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence or the administration of it
• the use of remand
• the youth sentencing framework
• wholesale reform of the murder sentencing framework: Whilst the review may consider the impact of sentencing for murder on the wider sentencing framework, the department is considering wholesale reform of homicide law and sentencing separately
• out of court resolutions

The review should submit its findings in full to the Lord Chancellor by Spring 2025.

--oo00oo--

David Gauke writing in the New Statesman:-

How to fix the prisons crisis

The political bidding war over tougher sentences must end.

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. Perhaps a Godfather quotation is not entirely appropriate for the subject matter but, more than five years after leaving the Ministry of Justice I am back – rather to my surprise – chairing an independent review of sentencing policy.

It is a privilege to serve, not least because such a review is timely and necessary. It is timely because we face an immediate crisis in prison capacity. The current government inherited a situation in which we were very close to running out of places and had no choice but to take emergency measures and release prisoners early. Anyone in office over the summer would have done the same. But these emergency measures, including further releases today, only provided a brief respite. Demand for prison places is currently growing at 4,500 a year, much faster than the supply of places. This means that unless strategic measures are taken, we will repeatedly risk running out of places.

This capacity issue highlights why it is necessary to look more fundamentally at sentencing policy. We now incarcerate more people per head than any other western European country. Since 1993, the prison population of England and Wales has doubled, even as crime has consistently fallen (a fall, by the way, that can be seen in countries that have not increased their prison population). The reason for the increase in the prison population is clear. We sentence more people to prison and we sentence them for longer than we used to do.

Prison, of course, should continue to be a vital part of our criminal justice system. There are many circumstances in which it is the right form of punishment and the best way of protecting the public. But the large majority of prisoners will be released at some point and our very high reoffending rates suggest that our overcrowded prisons are not successful in rehabilitating offenders. We need to look at ways in which sentencing policy can better contribute to reducing reoffending and, as a consequence, crime.

There are some who will argue that we should build our way out of our prison capacity issues. But we cannot simply dismiss the reality that we will run out of capacity long before any new prisons can be built. And even if we do, there is a question of cost. On current projections, just to keep up with the growth in prison numbers, we would have to build three large prisons a year at a total cost of £2.3bn. Then there are the staffing, maintenance and other ongoing costs, which mean that it costs the taxpayer £52,000 per prisoner. Maintaining the current approach is, in effect, a significant and unfunded spending commitment at a time when tough decisions must be made about the public finances.

We really ought to be able to do better than an expensive system that fails to rehabilitate offenders. But how to do so?

The Sentencing Review Panel is, of course, only at the beginning of its process and there are many aspects of sentencing policy we will want to review but let me highlight three aspects here.

The first is short sentences. As justice secretary, I argued that short prison sentences did more harm than good. The evidence at the time supported this contention but I want to revisit it and, in particular, look at how we can more effectively deal with the most prolific offenders.

Whatever we do with short sentences, however, will not solve the capacity issue when the prison population is increasingly made up of those serving four years or more, very often considerably more. Prisoners, like everyone else, respond to incentives and other jurisdictions have done more than us to reward good behaviour. Texas, for example, introduced a new approach which results in prisoners who complete their programmes, behave well and show evidence of rehabilitation spending less time in jail. The (admittedly very high) Texan prison population has fallen, as has its crime rate. So a second area of interest is whether we could develop an incentives policy appropriate for our system.

The third area is technology. Specifically, does it provide an opportunity to punish, protect society and rehabilitate offenders outside of prison in a way that is much more effective than has previously been possible? Electronic tagging, for example, is increasingly used but we need to understand whether more could be done. The same can be said of drink and drug monitoring. We need to understand the potential for current and future technologies to keep offenders out of prison in the first place, or to safely release some prisoners at an earlier stage than is currently the case. There may well be lessons to be learned from other jurisdictions to ensure that sentencing policy is properly able to exploit these technologies.

For the last 30 years, there has been a sentencing bidding war between the political parties seeking to compete to be seen as the toughest on crime by promising ever-longer prison sentences. Rightly, the public expects criminality to be punished and prison is often viewed as the only effective means of punishment. But the capacity crisis in our prisons has meant that – at the very least – we have no choice but to pause the increase in the prison population. It is also sensible that we now look more broadly at the evidence and ask whether sentencing policy should be more fundamentally reformed. By next spring, we should have the answer.

David Gauke

Sound Advice Was Ignored

As rumours grow about possible funding cuts to be announced in the Budget, it turns out that the sentiment expressed in Friday's Guardian Editorial has a very long pedigree:- 

The Guardian view on prison reform: Labour must champion alternatives

Jails are squalid and the number of incarcerated people keeps rising. Investing in probation is part of the answer.

Last month’s report on sentencing from a group of former heads of the judiciary ended with a stark warning that the country faces a future of “US-style mass incarceration” – overcrowded prisons, mounting costs and deepening social inequalities – “without urgent remedial action to address sentence inflation”.

The gap between the two countries remains large. The UK has the highest per-capita prison population in western Europe. But the 0.1% of the population that is incarcerated in England, Wales and Scotland is still only a seventh of the 0.7% imprisoned in the US (Northern Ireland’s rate is far lower). Still, with the prison population of England and Wales predicted to rise from 88,000 (in August) to 106,000 by 2028, the judges are right to sound the alarm.

Ministers know they have a problem. So did their Conservative predecessors. Spending by the prison and probation service has ballooned to £4.6bn – around three-quarters of which goes on prisons, including £100m spent on keeping more than 2,000 men over 70 locked up. Conditions in many jails are appalling. The latest urgent notification from the prisons inspector, Charlie Taylor, regarding Manchester, described drones delivering drugs through windows that have been broken to enable this.

While Labour’s early release scheme was a sensible opening move, it has not been enough to curb rising prisoner numbers. In fact, the decision to let magistrates hand down longer sentences of up to 12 months is expected to further inflate the prison population. More radical changes will depend on the independent sentencing review promised in the manifesto.

The former Conservative justice secretary David Gauke is the favourite to lead this, and should command cross-party support. This matters because both parties bear responsibility for the sentence inflation of the past 30 years. The lack of alternatives to custody and low public confidence in existing ones have fuelled a widespread belief that voters – along with the rightwing press – prefer harsh sentencing. As a result, successive prime ministers have refused to commit to the penal reform programme that is urgently needed. Under Boris Johnson, sentences were increased, and rules changed so that some violent offenders must now serve two-thirds of their sentence behind bars, rather than half, before being considered for release.

The destructive consequences of the partial privatisation of the probation service were recognised when this was reversed. But further reform has been ducked. Probation should be taken out of the Prison Service and locally embedded instead – with stronger links to councils, housing providers and charities. Investment in the workforce would be part of this process. Effective use of technology could also make community supervision work better. Given the problems with short sentences, including high reoffending rates, robust alternatives including tags, curfews and harm prevention orders should be prioritised.

Victims’ needs must also be considered. Campaigns against perceived leniency are one reason for sentence inflation. If the public is to be persuaded that alternatives to custody are meaningful, the service offered to victims must be improved. Unacceptable delays in the trial process contribute to a general sense of grievance at a broken system. While the last word on sentences belongs to judges, the public’s views on crime and punishment must be taken seriously if confidence in the system is to be renewed. Good communication is crucial. As a former head of the Crown Prosecution Service, Sir Keir Starmer has relevant expertise and should be bold in pushing through change.

--oo00oo--

"Probation should be taken out of the Prison Service and locally embedded instead – with stronger links to councils, housing providers and charities."

There is absolutely nothing new in this widely-held sentiment and indeed I have been recently reminded just how far back the probation profession has been saying this. Only yesterday a trawl through mountains of paperwork here at blog HQ threw up a response by the West Yorkshire CPO Anne Mace to the Labour government's consultation document 'Joining Forces to Protect the Public' of 1998. I quote from it:-   

There is now a broad consensus and acceptance that solutions to the problem of crime and the harm it causes must be a priority for many local and regional agencies as well as Government, and equally that no one agency has the capacity to afford full protection to the public against crime. West Yorkshire Probation Service places great emphasis on the need for departments and agencies to work together to agreed objectives in order to reduce crime and increase community safety. We believe this requires both good strategic co-ordination from the centre, and robust inter-agency attention to planning, objective setting and service delivery partnerships at local level to address the issues that affect local communities. 

We are struck by the extent to which the consultation document which has emerged from a major Prisons Probation review focuses heavily on structural change for the probation service. It is our view that any revised structure for the Probation Service for the new millennium must have demonstrable links to capacity for improved local performance across the full range of Service responsibilities, and that this must be held in balance with the drive for national consistency. A new structure must also be a clear aid to greater public safety and confidence, future adaptability and innovation, clear and regular accountability to key stakeholders, and efficient use of public money. It must offer a model that fosters sound and responsive working relationships, both internally and externally, and that builds a platform for local and regional partnership developments that will increasingly feature in policies for tackling social malaise and economic decline, particularly in crime-ridden communities. The effectiveness of a locally delivered service does not require uniformity of provision. The critical issue for public protection and public confidence is achievement of effective outcomes.

The recently implemented provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 specifically promote the need for local agencies to work co-operatively together on Community Safety strategies and arrangements to tackle youth crime, which is consistent with the Home Office Aim for reduction in crime, particularly youth crime, the fear of crime, and maintenance of good order. West Yorkshire Probation Service welcomes these developments, but has found some of the proposals in the consultation document in conflict with them. The Best Value approach to public service provision requires that more relevant and effective local services are planned and negotiated by local managers who can make commitments in relation to both policy and resources. It is our view that a centralised command structure could not deliver such a service operationally with the requisite community focus. Successful resettlement and public protection grows from regular co-operation between key services locally ie police, probation, health services and the housing education and social services departments of Local Authorities. We would argue that this suggests the need for a strong local and regional touch within the framework of nationally determined policy and clearer lines of accountability for policy implementation than those that exist in the present governance arrangements.

We have also noted that the fifth annual report of the Chief Inspector of Probation (published June 1998) states that:-

The strength of the probation service is the unique place it occupies in the criminal justice world because it is involved at every stage in the process from crime prevention, through to pre-trial and to post-release work. One of its fundamental skills is its ability to liaise with all the players. Whatever changes may be made to the service in the future, that unique position must not be weakened. 

--oo00oo-- 

Well, sadly we know all these wise words were largely ignored by successive governments and hence we now face both a prison and probation service largely unfit for purpose.    

Postscript 21/10/24     

Astonishingly, a further search in the archives has revealed the fact that I submitted my own response to the consultation on 26/11/98. Here's what I said:-

This response is being made in a personal capacity as a current serving Probation Officer. I joined the West Yorkshire Probation Service in 1985 having successfully completed the four year combined BA and CQSW course at Bradford University. I have chosen to remain working for the last 13 years in a generic capacity within a field team based in Pontefract. As a consequence, I believe I have developed a broad experience of core probation practice and familiar with current issues of debate and concern. For the purpose of making this response I have had sight of the response from both the West Yorkshire Probation Service, together with the National Association of Probation Officers.

Organisationally, the Probation Service is clearly an anachronism and therefore I can appreciate a bureaucratic imperative to 'tidy' thins up a bit. But it must always be borne in mind that one of the Service's strengths has been a high degree of local 'ownership' together with accountability. There may be a clear case for some service amalgamations, but in my view some strong degree of local involvement must remain. Tackling crime and offending is increasingly viewed as best achieved through a partnership approach and the Probation Service has a proven track record in being able to deliver such initiatives, both by its local management and by being able to be flexible and responsive. My major concern is that this ability will be considerably hampered by making the service directly accountable centrally as envisaged by turning it into a Next Steps Agency. In my view this goes counter to accepted orthodoxy and may add yet further to our existing high levels of non-productive form filling and bureaucracy. 

There may be a case for making the service a stand alone QUANGO that could retain a high degree of local organisation, whilst at the same time benefitting from a coherent national image, together with some greater standardisation in service delivery. However, it must always be borne in mind that historically one of the main strengths of the Probation Service has been its ability to innovate and respond flexibly to changed needs and situations. Traditionally many significant developments in probation practice have been initiated by main grade officers on the ground identifying a problem and being allowed by a flexible management structure to experiment and develop an appropriate response. Should ant organisational changes result in over-centralised control, this vital and valuable ability will, in my view, be lost.

The Probation Service has always in my experience suffered from an image problem in that most people do not understand what we do, and in fairness the complexity and variation of tasks does not lend itself to easy explanation. In the absence of a popular TV drama series how does the public form a view of an important public service such as ours? Changing the name would, in my view, be counter-productive and only serve to increase confusion in the public's mind. The name is widely recognised, both nationally and internationally, has a proud history and is viewed with a high degree of professional integrity across many other disciplines in the legal, medical, social and academic fields. Of all the changes proposed, changing the name would in short be potentially the most damaging in terms of staff morale.

It is widely accepted that change can be a threatening and unsettling process, but it may also afford an opportunity by which a service can improve and develop. This is certainly my hope, but it should go without saying that change should only be considered if improvement can be demonstrated with conviction.

JRB 26/11/1998              

Probation Is Waiting

Here we have Lord Timpson's speech to the PGA a few days ago. I wonder how long it will be before he gets around to addressing probation's problems?

Prison Governors Association Speech

Lord Timpson, Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending, sets out why prison governors are at the forefront of efforts to drive down reoffending.

Thank you for that introduction, Graham, and for the invitation to speak – it’s great to be here. Thanks to everyone involved for putting this event together. Let me start by saying just how grateful I am for the PGA’s work. You speak up for change, where change is needed…You push Government, where it needs to be pushed…And you do it not just for those you represent, but in the interests of public safety too. Your voice is valued, and we thank you for it… even when you say things we don’t necessarily want to hear.

I know it’s your first annual conference since becoming PGA President, Tom – congratulations again on your appointment. Let me also congratulate your new Vice-Chairs, Mark, and Carl, on their appointments too. I’ve known Tom for a while now - we once even shadowed each other a few years ago, when he was Governor at HMP Wakefield, and I headed up the Timpson Group.

I took Tom to visit some of our shops – one branch was in Uttoxeter Tesco, as I recall – while I found out what it’s like to lead one of our toughest prisons. I know who has it harder…! And now I’m wearing a new hat, I did ask Tom if he fancied another job swap – but for some reason he wasn’t up for it. I can’t think why…

I realise that the CEO of a business and prison governor are very different roles – but there are similarities, too. Both manage complex organisations. Both need a strategic brain, excellent management skills, the ability to communicate, inspire and motivate. But the main difference is this: most people know what a CEO does, what their job entails.

You, on the other hand, are largely hidden from view. Even when prisons are plastered all over our TV screens, as they are right now. The average person would have little idea about your day-to-day – what it really means to lead a prison in 2024, as Tom has set out so starkly just now.

Working every hour, under extraordinary pressure, to run safe and secure regimes. Dealing with self-harm, deaths and the scourge of drugs on a daily basis. Supporting your teams and trying to nurture them in an environment more stressful than most could imagine. Every challenge amplified, because our prisons are full to bursting. These are the realities you face every day.

Now, prisons have always fascinated me – since I was a young boy, and my Mum, Alex, would take the babies she’d fostered into HMP Styal, so their mothers could see them. I’d sit outside in the car and wonder what was going on inside… What had these women done that was so terrible, that they couldn’t be with their babies? It was the start of a life-long interest.

And as you may know, around 10 percent of people who work for Timpson are ex-offenders. It all started by chance 22 years ago, when, as a new CEO, I visited a local prison and met Matt – who got into a fight after his A-levels, and instead of going to university, went to jail. Matt showed me around the wing, and I immediately liked him. He was bright, enthusiastic, and I thought he was just the sort of person we wanted in the business. So I told him – “when you get out, I’ll give you a job.” And the rest is history.

Matt went on to be one of our most successful branch managers – in a branch just a stone’s throw from the prison he served time in. He’s still there today. And while he hasn’t gone far physically, he’s travelled lightyears in terms of what he’s achieved…Because he had the will to turn his life around, and that extra support to get into work. I knew there must be more great people like Matt in our prisons, and from then on, we decided to proactively recruit ex-offenders.

Later, working with you, we set up prison training academies…Then to create Employment Advisory Boards, building those vital links between prisons and local employers. And, in 2016, I was honoured to become Chair of the Prison Reform Trust. So I’ve been behind the scenes.

And in that time, one constant has been your outstanding leadership, in the most challenging circumstances. It has been a privilege to get to know you, and to see the incredible work you do. Thank you. You have our deepest respect, and our gratitude.

Over the years there has been much debate about what prison is primarily for – be it punishment, public protection or deterrence. Of course, it’s all of these things. It’s right that dangerous people are taken off our streets – and that people who destroy lives and wreck our communities face the consequences. But if we cut to the core of it, prison should also be about reducing offending. That’s the only way we are genuinely going to protect the public.

I say ‘should’, here, because it’s something we haven’t always been very good at in this country. I know you’d agree. Serious criminals should see the inside of a jail cell – and the most dangerous should stay there. But what happens next to the many offenders who will someday be let out really matters.

For the vast majority of offenders, being locked up is a fork in the road. One way on that road can lead them to turn their lives around… The other will take them straight back to prison. Too often, it’s the latter. And I’ve no doubt how deeply frustrating it must be for you to see the same faces at your gates again and again.

The numbers are clear – 80 percent of offending in this country is reoffending. That is too high by any measure. But I know just how determined you are to turn that around. We all know what the answers are. I know that you know what needs to be done. My job is to help you realise those ambitions.

Having worked in the family business since I was 14, I hope I’ve learnt a few things about leadership and responsibility along the way. There are plenty of philosophies out there. I found that a strong culture and high standards – rooted in trust, and kindness – was what worked for us. And I firmly believe that strong leaders – you – are the single most important element in a good prison.

You set the culture… You set those high standards for your teams to follow, and for the prisoners you rehabilitate. And I can’t stress enough how important high standards are in our prisons. Put it this way - I’ve never known a great organisation to have poor standards. That starts with the basics - a clean, tidy, environment, where prisoners and staff respect the rules.

When I was a CEO, I’d check the Timpson head office car park for weeds and litter…Small things, I know. But they really matter…Those first impressions for people arriving really matter…And as leaders, it’s our job to lead by example. And in over 20 years of being involved with prisons, I can’t think of a time when your job has been tougher.

For too long, you’ve been doing your best in very challenging circumstances. People don’t turn up to work to get beaten up, they turn up to inspire people, and to and turn lives around. Yet our crammed prisons are breeding violence – which threatens everyone’s safety, staff and prisoners alike…Staff shortages - and a lack of experienced staff - stretch your ability to run the kind of regimes you want to run. While so many of your prisons are dilapidated, in desperate need of repair…

I’m grateful to Charlie Taylor – who is up next – for HMIP’s unflinching focus on these issues. And I know it hasn’t been easy, trying to rehabilitate offenders in a system teetering on the edge of disaster. A system that, when we came into government, had been run at 99 percent capacity for months. I should emphasise - none of this is your doing – in fact, the PGA has been sounding the alarm loud and clear. That’s why we had to take the tough decision to bring in changes to automatic release to ease the pressure on our prisons.

It was, quite literally, a rescue effort. If we hadn’t acted, the justice system would have ground to a halt: Courts would have been unable to hold trials and police unable to make arrests. We would have faced the total breakdown of law and order. We only have to look at the recent disorder on our streets to see how close to catastrophe we came…Because we could deliver justice swiftly, we brought the violence to an end.

But, in the process, we came dangerously close to running out of prison space entirely. We had no choice but to introduce emergency measures in the first few days of this new Government. It was only thanks to the heroic efforts of prison and probation staff, that we pulled through. We didn’t want to do this. But we were left with no choice…To attempt to delay any further, would have allowed our justice system to collapse. We could never have allowed that: This Government will always put the safety of the public – first.

Throughout all of this you have been under immense pressure. Offender management units, in particular, have borne the brunt of several emergency measures…While more broadly the estate has coped with higher numbers of late arrivals and redirections. It’s in times like these that strong leadership matters most. We couldn’t have managed this crisis without you. And while there is still work to be done ahead of the next releases later this month, I want to thank you, again, for everything you’ve done to get us to this point.

So, our changes have bought us some time. Time for the system to catch its breath. But these challenges haven’t just disappeared, and the crisis isn’t over. If things don’t change, we’ll end up in the same position all over again… Sooner than we care to mention. I want us to get a point where you can run your prisons how you want to run them…

That is why the Justice Secretary has been clear that getting prisons built is a priority for her. That is why we will take control of the planning process, and deem prison development of national importance. And we also need decent regimes, that help offenders turn their backs on crime for good.

I know there is brilliant, innovative work going on, and I want to encourage more of it. But innovating is difficult – impossible, even - when you’re so full that you can’t let prisoners out of their cells. That’s why it is essential we resolve this capacity crisis…So we can support and empower you to go even further to reduce reoffending. And, if we create the right conditions for you to do your jobs as you’d want to do them – I hope to see more of you staying in post for longer, too.

Stability at the top is crucial. Because our prisons are on a journey, and there’s a long road ahead. Culture change doesn’t happen overnight. In my experience, it can take anywhere from three to five years to really move an organisation on. Much of our success will be down to you, our prison leaders. So I want to see more of you staying on that road for longer – and I want you to tell me how we can support you to do that.

Great prisons need great leaders. But second, they need hardworking dedicated staff, like the officers in your teams. Fundamentally, prisons are a people business – like any company. As a CEO, I found that the happier people are in their jobs, the better they work. If they feel valued, trusted and cared for, they are going to perform well for you. And in your teams, people are working under such intense pressure day in, day out.

The relationships - between you, and your staff… and your staff and your prisoners – go right to the core of safe, decent prisons. If we invest in officer training – in their well-being, and development – we empower them to do much more than simply maintain order. We empower them to become agents of change – to help people turn their lives around.

I’ve met plenty of men and women who say that a prison officer transformed their life. Officers who took the time to mentor them - who really got to know the people on their wing. Who knew if their mum wasn’t well, or when their kids were starting school. But to be a prison officer requires a unique set of skills – quite unlike any other job. That ‘jailcraft’ equips officers for the challenges they will face every day. It takes time, and continual learning.

Before joining the Government, I had the privilege of leading a review of prison officer training – speaking to hundreds of officers across the estate. It’s clear we have some decent foundations – but we can do so much more. I want to see more in-depth training that fully prepares officers for the realities of the role, right from the start. 

Greater consistency – with a strong curriculum and clear standards…More local ownership of training…Clear channels of accountability…And a culture of ongoing learning throughout an officer’s career…One that rightly builds pride in this absolutely critical role. I want to push forward with these changes, and I’ll say more about this as soon as I can.

The third element of a good prison is, of course, purposeful activity. Prison education and training has a huge influence on the path offenders choose to take. It’s crucial that we get this right if we are to release better citizens, not better criminals. Yet I’ve seen people leave prison not even knowing how to use a computer.

When we spend so much of our lives - and jobs - online, how are they supposed to get on in the modern world? That’s just one example. There are many others. But the point is clear: when you don’t have the right skills to get a job, slipping back into old habits is all too easy. And the lure of easy cash might feel like the only way to put money in your pocket.

So, it might not come as a surprise that I’m passionate about prison education and training. Training that opens doors – that gives prisoners pride - and real skills that today’s employers want. I’m clear that prison is a punishment. But that’s no reason to stop the one in four working-age people in the UK who have criminal records from getting jobs.

We know that prison leavers are less likely to reoffend if they have a job within a year of release. So, getting them into work doesn’t just cut crime, it boosts our economy too. That’s a win-win we can’t ignore. But for many, the process of applying for jobs can be daunting.

That’s why I’m pleased to see a new partnership - between the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development Trust and the New Futures Network. It will embed HR professionals in EABs…Ensure that prison leavers can access HR advice to support them into work…Provide mentoring for Prison Employment Leads…And help us to create even closer links between prisons and local employers. And, I can testify, former prisoners make great colleagues.

In my experience, they work hard, they turn up on time, and they are trustworthy – because they are so hungry to prove themselves. The amount they can achieve – starting from rock bottom – is nothing short of extraordinary. It’s no exaggeration to say that some of the most accomplished people I know were once in prison. They want to grasp that second chance with both hands. Together - let’s make sure they get it.

Our fourth route to reducing reoffending is by tackling the scourge of drugs in our prisons. As you know so well, drugs undermine rehabilitation, fuel violence, debt, and are a sure path back into crime. Nearly half of prisoners have a history of drug misuse. Many will have addictions when they turn up at your gates, but too many who were clean on the outside are drawn into drugs on the inside. That flies in the face of what we want our prisons to achieve.

The answer is clear. First, we need to stop drugs getting into prison. We can hardly expect prisoners to kick the habit if our jails are a sweetshop for drugs. We know what you are up against. Not least the growing use of drones to smuggle drugs - and the phones that power the illicit market - over your walls…And the increasing threat of synthetic opioids…

We have to adapt rapidly if we are to protect our staff and prisoners. Second, we need prisons to drive demand for drugs down, not up. Purposeful activity is so important here. If prisoners have meaningful ways to spend their time, they’re less likely to turn to drugs through boredom, or distress. Staff training is crucial too. Your teams have to understand drugs, and addiction, so they can make sure prisoners get the right support, and are helped to recover.

Third, prisoners with an addiction need treatment. There is good evidence to show this reduces reoffending – but we also need to make sure they stay in treatment after release. That groundwork starts in prison. 

And fourth – where it’s safe and appropriate - we should be driving more people with a drug problem away from prison and into treatment. That could include greater use of drug and alcohol treatment requirements attached to community sentences, for example.

There are no easy solutions, but I want to work with you to create a system where people leave custody prepared to lead productive, drug-free lives. I know there is innovative work going on out there – and I want to explore how we can replicate that work elsewhere.

As I come to a close, let me say again - this is the beginning of a new journey for our prisons. This Government will rebuild and reform the system. We’ll accelerate the prison building programme, to make sure we have the cells we need. We’ll soon publish our ten-year capacity strategy, setting out how we will acquire new land for prisons, and reform the planning process. And, as you’re aware, we will carry out a review of sentencing - with a focus on how it both protects the public and reduces reoffending.

We’ll soon be in a position to share the terms of reference of that independent review and announce its chair – and I know the PGA will play its full part once it is underway. As I’ve said, change takes time. It also takes stamina. The last Government hardly led by example - 14 Prison Ministers in as many years isn’t a record to be proud of. So I can assure you – it’s very much my intention to stay the course.

I want you to judge me on my actions. When I’m back here next year, and the year after that, let’s see where we’ve got to. I’m fortunate to have started this job with a good working knowledge of prisons, but it’s been humbling to visit some of you recently, and be reminded of the complex and challenging work you do every day.

Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to talk to me so far –

Aled at Holme House…
Pete at Five Wells…
Amy at Downview…
Andy at Wandsworth…
Emily at High Down…
Dan at Preston…
And many, many more…

I should say that getting out into the estate is another of my top priorities…So you can tell me straight - what’s really going on in the system, what you’re up against, and how, together, we can make it better. I hear the last Minister to go to Isle of Wight prison was Anne Widdecombe. So, Dougie, you’ve been forewarned. I’ll be coming down!

Let me finish by saying thank you, again…To you, to your teams, and every single person who keeps the system running – the teachers, nurses, psychologists, and non-operational staff. As leaders, your role goes far beyond managing institutions. You are protecting communities..You are shaping lives…And ultimately, you are strengthening our society.

Thank you.

Guest Blog 102

PO's and Computers 

As Jim Brown’s Guest I thought, unlike Jim, I would try and stir up some controversy and hopefully some intellectually driven feedback via the comments. So based upon my 10 years working in Business Support and Computer Roles (2006 – 2016) within the National Probation Service and then a CRC getting PO’s to take any interest in Business Processes and Computers Systems was a mission impossible. Yes there was the odd PO that took an interest but for most of them the moment the first PowerPoint displayed a Process Flowchart then their eyes rolled and any engagement ceased. Based upon my earlier Guest Post on here which included an outstanding Offender Management Workflow Diagram this received no feedback whatsoever. 

So things haven’t changed since 2016 when I was made redundant by the CRC. Significantly they weren’t interested in what I had to offer either but for another reason. They decided to dispose of me to avoid having to listen to the complexity of the Business and Computer Processes they needed to support having acquired the business. They had been sold the idea by the Government that it was a simple straightforward “client services” business just needing some basic computer systems that kept the client off the premises. For starters nobody had told them about the hundred plus variations in Court Sentences that a Court could apply and expected you to service and report back in different ways. So why do the majority of the PO elk show no interest in Business Processes and Computer Systems.

So being a bit of a Techie Nerd I decided to ask Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the form of the ChatGPT App why this was the case. Its response is below which I thought being only a machine designed to do a bit of thinking it described it in a very almost social reformist genre and how I envisaged a Humanist PO describing it to me as Determinist Techie.

The challenge that professionals in the social sciences face in taking an interest in business processes and computer systems can stem from several factors related to mindset, training, and the nature of the fields themselves. Here are some of the main reasons:

1. Different Educational Backgrounds

Social scientists typically focus on human behaviour, society, and cultural dynamics, while business processes and computer systems are more technical, structured, and data-driven. The academic training in social sciences often emphasizes qualitative analysis, critical thinking, and understanding societal structures, which may seem disconnected from the quantitative, efficiency-driven focus of business processes and computer systems.

2. Perception of Relevance

Social scientists might see business processes and computer systems as outside their primary area of interest. They may perceive these fields as more concerned with corporate or economic efficiency rather than with the broader societal issues they study, like inequality, politics, or human development. This perception can make it difficult for social scientists to appreciate the potential role of business and technology in shaping societal outcomes.

3. Cultural Divide

There is often a cultural divide between social science disciplines, which prioritize human experience, and the more technical fields of business and IT, which prioritize logic, systems, and structure. Social scientists might view business and computer systems as too rigid or focused on profit rather than the human element, making it harder to relate to or engage with.

4. Complexity of Business and IT Systems

Business processes and computer systems can be highly technical and require specialized knowledge in areas like software development, systems design, and financial metrics, which may be outside the typical training of social scientists. The complexity and jargon-heavy nature of these fields can be daunting or appear irrelevant unless there is a strong reason to engage with them.

5. Priorities and Research Focus

Social science professionals are often concerned with addressing societal issues like social justice, ethics, and human well-being, which can seem disconnected from the business world’s emphasis on efficiency, profitability, and system optimization. Their focus on social theory, human interaction, and societal improvement can make business processes and computer systems seem like secondary concerns or less impactful on the human condition.

6. Interdisciplinary Gaps

There has historically been a lack of interdisciplinary education and collaboration between the social sciences and fields like business and information technology. Without formal integration, these professionals may not have the tools or language to bridge these gaps easily. However, fields like digital sociology or organizational behaviour are emerging to address this disconnect, helping to show how technology and business processes shape human experience.

7. Concerns About Ethics and Impact

Social scientists might also be wary of the ethics and societal impact of business processes and computer systems. They may be concerned about the effects of automation, surveillance, or corporate behaviour on social inequality, privacy, or the environment. This ethical concern can create scepticism or reluctance to engage deeply with these systems, unless they see a clear societal benefit.

While these are common reasons for the disconnect, there is increasing recognition of the value of integrating social science perspectives into business and technology. Understanding the human factors in systems design, organisational behaviour, and user experience can lead to more ethical and user-friendly solutions. Cross-disciplinary approaches are gaining momentum to bridge these gaps.

Banno

Guest Blog 101

The Privatisation of Probation Failure

The Probation Service has the lowest media profile of any of the public facing Government Services. The only time it makes the headlines is when something has gone seriously wrong, normally resulting in a death, with the blame directed at Probation. So it was a real surprise to see Ian Dunt devoting his whole Introduction in his bestselling book, “How Westminster Works”, to the subject of Probation’s failed attempt at privatisation.

Unusually for a Journalist Writer working outside an organisation he manages to communicate exactly the many issues surrounding the failure of this project. He must have interviewed the exact right people from the front line within Probation to write such a truthful and excellent insight into the real issues. It was so good I have scanned the Introduction and subject to Copyright being acknowledged I have linked to it below for you to read. This is provided upon a “Book Sample” basis to encourage you to buy the book.

It should be mandatory reading for anyone within Probation, past or present, to fully appreciate how a Government can so quickly destroy a 100 year old service that worked. Yes we were all aware it needed improvements particularly in the high level management organisation structure, for example the removal of multiple Trusts, and the National Standardisation of Business and Computer Systems, but not wholesale destruction from which it is unlikely to ever fully recover. Since this is now unlikely to ever happen in the right way due to it existing within the HMPPS.

Probation is fundamentally a Court Service servicing the needs of HM Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS). Historically it evolved that way for very good reasons that are just as applicable today as they were in the Probation of Offenders Act 1907. Yes. Prisons and Probation needed to work more closely together as defined by the Carter Report 2003 achieving more comprehensive “end to end” pathways. But implanting Probation into the Prison Service creating the HMPPS went organisationally in the wrong direction. If it had to be implanted anywhere it would have been more logical to implant it into HMCTS which is the source of most of its work.

The real danger is as the old original Probation Officers are now retiring and dying so the original culture of true Probation is being lost. This happened in the HM Prisons when the push towards Prison Privatisation was running full pace. All the old school Prison Officers were made redundant. The new “private” workforce didn’t pick up on the culture that always existed between the Prison Officer and Prisoner. So Prison unrest and even riots increased. The only way things could be recovered was by bringing back into play teams of “old school” Prison Officers. This is happening to the Probation Profession. Processes, systems, procedures, documentation and now AI will never work effectively in the social services unless you establish the right culture.

So what do we mean by culture. It encompasses the shared beliefs, values, norms, behaviours, customs and knowledge that characterise a group of people. Those within an organisation like Probation transfer this culture to those that join the organisation and work hard to uphold all these innate principles. Call it “Best Practice” or “What Works” but they only define the most effective methods and strategies for achieving the desired outcomes. It is how people uphold these principles and the culture that under pins them that really matters. Take the time to read this article by Ian Dunt since he really got it spot on and then buy his book.

Banno

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hQ7DRgL1SLzKd23ERJYuru2Oy3dKU5KJ/view?usp=sharing