The Parole Board At 50

A couple of weeks ago Russell Webster published a guest blog by Martin Jones, Chief Executive of the Parole Board for England and Wales and it covered a lot of important ground:- 

The parole board faces up to new challenges

Striving to improve

2017-18 represents the fiftieth anniversary of the creation of the Parole Board. Those fifty years has seen fundamental changes and many improvements in the way our system works, it has also brought enormous new challenges.

Deciding whether it is necessary to keep someone in prison to protect the public is a vital, often difficult, and sometimes unpopular, decision. We need our independent members to show good judgement, to assess, based on all the evidence, whether somebody serving a prison sentence can be safely managed in the community.

The Board has published a strategy: Parole Board Strategy 2016-2020 setting out our plans for ensuring the Board meets our important duties. Our number one priority at present has been to tackle the unacceptable delays to hearings. Delays have a corrosive impact and can cause a loss of hope.

The rise of oral hearings

Whilst fifty years ago, the Parole Board rarely, if ever, saw the person whose liberty they were deciding, in 2016-17 the Parole Board held a historic high of 7,377 hearings. This high, is partly a consequence of increased numbers of people being eligible for a parole review (including the continuing legacy of the discontinued IPP sentence) but most recently the result of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Osborn, which obliged the Board to hold more hearings to ensure fairness. We now hold nearly five times the number of hearings we held a decade ago. Our hard work has now brought down the backlog by 40% over the last two years, bringing down delays; but there remains more to do.



IPPs

The Board’s strategy also commits us to making progress on IPPs. Whilst our role is to look at risk to the public, and I believe there are a small number IPPs who remain a genuine danger to the public; I share the concern of many commentators about the fact that there are still 3,528 IPPs in prison. I fear that for some imprisonment itself and their despair; is not helping. Whilst historically there was justifiable concern about the failure of IPPs to make progress, in recent years the numbers of IPPs progressed has risen significantly as a result of progress in custody and greater confidence. In 2016-17 the Board ordered the release of over 900 IPP prisoners (including the re-release of recalled IPPs); this is 20% more than in the preceding year and I expect us to make further significant progress this year. Despite the progress made, I can understand why IPPs are perceived as creating potential injustice, and believe there is a compelling case to changing the licence arrangements, which have the potential to compound the difficulties seen over the last twelve years.

Recalls a growing challenge

Whilst the Board strives to keep up with growing demand, it is striking to note the range of cases now coming to the Board. When created our primary purpose was to provide to ministers on the release of those serving a life sentence following the abolition of the death penalty. Today we spend significant time dealing with recall prisoners; whose numbers have increased astonishingly over the last twenty years. On average, we receive around one thousand recall cases a month and many of those cases are going to an oral hearing. Whilst it is quite right that prisoners have the right to challenge the lawfulness of their recall, I believe that more could be done to encourage probation officers to exercise their professional judgement to keep people in the community, and fully support efforts being made by Sonia Crozier as head of the National Probation Service to find alternatives to recall and increase confidence.

We are also working with our members to ensure we have a robust, evidence based approach to risk. The recent decision to stop SOTP programmes is salutary. Parole decisions cannot be takes through tick box approaches. Treatment and programmes are not panaceas. Risk can reduce through age; maturity; insight into offending; and a reduction in opportunities to offend. Whatever has happened in the past; the Board is encouraging its members to look at all of the evidence available and to be open and reflective about our decision making. Risk can never be entirely eliminated, but good decisions will identify the risks and how they might be managed in the community. But this needs imagination from all involved. Looking to the future; I am certain that the Parole Board has the opportunity to utilise technology such as alcohol monitoring to better manage offenders in the community; and we are already making use of GPS tracking devices on a small scale.

Balances the rights of prisoners and victims

Finally – our system is not just about processes; it is about people.

Whilst we strive to do the very best we can, there are no crystal balls. If we measured our success only by the number of serious offences committed by those released by the Parole Board the overwhelming majority of our release decisions are sound. However, whilst deeply regrettable, there have always been a tiny number of cases where those released by the Parole Board commit serious offences. We take each such tragic case extremely seriously, as the public would expect. A serious offence can be a hammer blow to the member who makes the decision. We always seek to learn lessons; but we cannot allow these rare cases detract from the fact that most of those in our prisons should have a second chance.

The Board remains committed to making fair and independent decisions, as swiftly as possible, with care, humanity and courage. I know from speaking to victims, prisoners and their respective families how important our decisions are. Losing a member of your family through violent crime, or through imprisonment, is always devastating and the consequences of that loss has an impact down the generations. That is why we must do our very best to make the best decisions we can.

Martin Jones, Chief Executive of the Parole Board for England and Wales.

Reflections

Today we have a couple of musings to reflect on; where we are and what could happen next. The first from Frances Crook of the Howard League:-  

Might it be time to hold ministers to account?

Most businesses and charities assess how effective they are being at delivering their objectives and they hold individuals to account. If staff do not deliver or do work that damages the business they are dismissed. Indeed, in public service, people can be held accountable many years after they have left – look at Hillsborough.

Ministers, however, often get away with it.

Too many ministers are dumped on a department with no expertise or experience in the issue. They are desperate to make a mark to further their career. Some more than others, admittedly. The ones in a hurry push policies through against advice and they can do huge damage to the life of the nation.

Take the Ministry of Justice. There have been five secretaries of state in the last seven years. Some have done lasting damage. One in particular forced through an upheaval to the probation service that is now failing on a scandalous scale. There was no evidence that the restructuring would improve public safety, indeed all experts and staff issued dire warnings that splitting probation would put the public at risk. The reports on the last years of the unified public probation service showed it doing well. HM Inspector of Probation said a couple of weeks ago that the private companies were universally failing so badly that it would make no difference if they weren’t there.

At the same time, this minister was closing prisons, cutting the number of prison officers and doing nothing to reduce the number of people in prison. This meant that more prisoners were crammed into fewer prisons with not enough staff. The consequences are a deteriorating prison system where someone takes their own life every three days, violent assaults are an everyday occurrence, drugs are rife and crime is spilling from prisons into communities.

Despite all this, the secretary of state in question has simply moved on to another department.

Might it be time to hold ministers to account? We could put in place a system for assessing the success or failure of their initiatives. If they cost a lot and hurt people, they would at least have to apologise. That might concentrate the minds of the rest of them. I don’t want to stifle innovation, but I do want to stop vanity projects that damage the fabric of the nation being foisted on us all.

Frances Crook

--oo00oo--

And here is Ian Lawrence writing several weeks ago on the Napo Website:-

Through the Gate but to where?

The report by HM Inspector of Probation Dame Glenys Stacey could not have made it any clearer. The much vaunted Through the Gate service (TTG) that Chris Grayling boasted would revolutionise the world of rehabilitation has been an abject failure.

Of 98 cases observed by inspectors only two prisoners were found accommodation via these services. Save for a few pockets of good practice, and from the feedback reaching us from some rightly exasperated Napo members working within Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) who have doubtless been doing their best to deliver the good intentions of the programme, probation providers are now facing the prospect of some serious directives from HMPPS to start delivering to an agreed standard.

Napo has moved swiftly in the wake of the HMI Probation report (https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/cjji/wpcontent/uploads/sites/2/2016/09/Through-the-Gate.pdf) to alert Parliamentarians to the fact that TTG resettlement services were introduced in 2015 to supposedly bridge the gap between prison and community, but that since then the services offered by CRCs across the whole probation landscape are making little tangible difference to the prospects of prisoners due for release.

As is now refreshingly the case since Dame Glenys Stacey took on responsibility for the inspectorate, the TTG report gets straight to the nub of the problem. It exposes the fact that the strategic priority of CRCs has been about ticking the boxes marked: contractual requirement, instead of sufficiently investing in what is needed to help clients step on to the road marked: recovery.

In a hugely damning indictment, the inspectorate found that prisoners upon release were no better served than eight months ago and worse still, that if Through the Gate services were removed tomorrow the impact would be negligible.

Staff are not to blame

Just after the publication of the report an Early Day Motion (EDM) was laid down by Plaid Cymru MP Liz Saville, who is also the Chair of the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group. This followed three highly critical reports from HMI Probation in the context of growing concerns that CRCs are not achieving the desired results expected under the Transforming Rehabilitation programme (TR).

There is a whole separate debate to be had regarding whose fault that actually is; but the ongoing wrangles between CRC owners and the MoJ over future funding arrangements speak volumes, especially in the context of what Napo has had to say about mis-sold contracts based on unreliable and hugely outdated statistics.

Despite the findings of the TTG report, the EDM does not criticise probation providers individually but calls for a review as to how TR has impacted on the delivery of services. In particular it reflects how Through the Gate has attracted widespread criticism and it also recognises that the whole TR programme has been badly implemented and has left both CRCs and the National Probation Service in an impossible position, which directly impacts on staff and clients.

What next?

Prior to the calling of the General Election, Napo had made promising headway through the Justice Select Committee for the whole TR programme to be reviewed, and there were reasonable grounds to suggest that it was likely that this would have happened.

Napo has been highly critical of the operational shortcomings of the TR programme and for that I make no apologies. Nevertheless, I have had a number of opportunities such as a recent seminar organised by the Public Policy Exchange where I have made it clear that politicians and senior management need to listen more carefully to what the experts (that’s our members) are saying about the post-TR world and how improvements to what is currently going on could still be achieved with the right level of investment and changes to the governance structure which would see failing CRCs revert back to a form of public ownership.

Make no mistake, Napo never had a problem with the concept of Through the Gate, but like many facets of TR, it was the failure to even pilot the programme or to even analyse the potential cost benefits which have led to the taxpayer unwittingly bankrolling a spectacular failure.

The evidence from the government’s own inspectors suggests that politicians need to have a serious rethink before wildly embarking on a prison-centric rehabilitation agenda that will leave massive gaps in community provision.

Through the Gate is as clear a sign as any that grandiose social experiments have a huge price for the public as well as those that they are meant to assist.

Ian Lawrence

The Story Will Out

It's Monday morning and I bet high up on the agenda of the MoJ media management meeting down in London is how to keep a lid on information in the age of blogging.

Basically, the civil servants who get paid handsomely to make sure we don't find out what happens in our prisons are pretty pissed-off because yet again blogger Alex Cavendish got the story out about the the violent incident at HMYOI Aylesbury last Friday. Like many others, I watched the story develop not via the BBC or Sky rolling news channels, but via his twitter feed. This from his blog post:-

YOI Aylesbury: The Inside Story

Although it is common knowledge that our prison system is in deep crisis, the actual details of what is going on behind prison walls are often hidden from public view. Appalling events take place, but these stories are rarely told because of the suffocating blanket of official secrecy from the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) that has come to envelop our jails like a thick mist. Transparency is a pipe dream.

Yesterday (Friday July 21) there was a serious incident of violence at HM YOI Aylesbury. We have learned this not by reading about it in the local or national newspapers or from seeing it on the television news, but only because reliable, professional sources inside the system have passed on the details to a private blogger who has an active interest in the prison crisis. That’s why the news was broken on my Twitter account this afternoon and why you are reading about the incident on this blog.

In a nutshell, a group of over 30 young inmates located on one wing became involved in a mass brawl yesterday morning. Rather than rewriting one of the accounts I’ve received, I’ll simply let the person (who has to remain anonymous for obvious reasons) tell the story for themselves, with their permission. This may be the only accurate account of this incident you’ll ever read, so it’s important the truth is told.

The incident yesterday was horrific. The wing has been brewing for a while. The worst, most difficult wing is being run by new officers. We are 30 staff down and now will be even more.

The wing is over run with problems of gangs and gang violence. There has been a big rise in weapons and drugs in the jail. The governors were warned. The wing in question houses most gangs in the jail on one wing.

A mass brawl broke out yesterday morning, calling on all officers available lots of times. We didn't have the staff. Prisoners were attacking each other with weapons – and staff.

Staff were trying to save their lives and got battered. Some were seriously injured. Another officer was on the landing unconscious. We had ambulances and fire service in trying to help alongside our healthcare department. If anything had happened elsewhere in the jail we wouldn't have been able to cope.

Aylesbury is at breaking point. Eleven officers had to go to hospital and others are injured.

I'm so angry by what has happened to be honest! The government do nothing. The public should know what really happens! I have never seen anything as bad as this in the years that I have worked there. Members of staff are in danger.

I enjoy my job and enjoy working with the lads, but yesterday was different. They had no fear and they didn't care. The staff tried their best and they worked incredibly hard. They put their lives on the line to save the lads’ lives when they seemed to just want to kill each other!

To be fair our number one governor is good and she's trying hard but she's battling against a broken system. We have so many new officers that work hard but they are so young and they just aren't getting the support from their seniors. Older members of staff are burnt out.

We have prisoners who are over 22 stuck in the jail because we barely have any offender supervisors to do the work and no adult jails will take our lads. The wings are rife with spice, cannabis, steroids and weapons.

And we have had a few near miss suicides recently, alongside a serious fight earlier in the year in which a brick was used to smash a lad’s skull in. I don't understand how the MOJ can sit there and justify what they do.

The staff try hard but what's three new staff on a wing of 70 lads mainly gang members? It's unsafe. I know staff are not eating and throwing up after work because they are so anxious to go to work.

I’m dreading going to work, having to try and help the people that have hurt my friends. What worries me now is some of the lads involved I would have put money on them being decent guys. They weren't the 'typical' disruptive prisoners.

So now the truth is out there. It can no longer be covered up by the bureaucrats and press officers down in at the MOJ in Petty France.

--oo00oo--

It's fairly clear to all that the MoJ are no longer able to set the news agenda to suit their interests and that without bloggers like Alex, we would never have heard about this incident. This from the BBC website:- 

Aylesbury YOI prison officers hurt in 'brawl'

Seven prison officers and one prisoner were taken to hospital after "disorder" at a young offender institution, police have said. It happened at HM YOI Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire on Friday morning, Thames Valley Police said. An online prison blog said 30 inmates took part in the "mass brawl".

Police said the injured people had since been released from hospital. The Prison Service said it was investigating the incident with police. Officers were called to "a report of disorder" at the young offender institution in Bierton Road at about 11:00 BST, but "officer deployment was not required at the incident", a spokeswoman said.

Prison UK blog

"Seven prison officers and one prisoner were taken to hospital for treatment." The incident came to light in an online blog on Prison UK. Author Alex Cavendish, a former prisoner, said he was passed the information via "reliable, professional sources inside the system".

"A mass brawl broke out yesterday morning... Prisoners were attacking each other with weapons - and staff," the informant said. He described the incident as "horrific".

Trouble 'brewing'

"Staff were trying to save their lives and got battered. Some were seriously injured. Another officer was on the landing unconscious. We had ambulances and fire service in, trying to help alongside our healthcare department. The wing has been brewing for a while," he added.

A Prison Service Spokesman confirmed that "an incident involving a number of prisoners took place on Friday 21 July". We do not tolerate violence against our hard-working staff. Where incidents like this occur, we will always work closely with the police to push for the strongest possible punishment," he added. The incident is being jointly investigated by the Prison Service and Thames Valley Police.

Where Did It All Go Wrong? 2

Earlier this year I went away for a week and as luck would have it, my absence coincided with an important report published by an outfit called Crest  Where did it all go wrong? A study into the use of community sentences in England and Wales. 

Although I gave it a brief mention here, mostly highlighting the proposals, I regret not having given it a closer look because it rather neatly confirms everything we've previously discussed at some length, including the hugely damaging effect of TR. As this supposedly independent report makes clear, the Probation Service has clearly been thoroughly smashed by utterly inept political involvement over several years and there is now an urgent need for an effective plan 'B' that goes beyond paying the CRCs more money. 

In essence, we have a major and growing crisis in our prisons, coupled with a massive reduction in community sentences and now clear evidence of a significant increase in crime. Interestingly, despite being published only three months ago, the opening line and premise "Despite overall crime falling" has proved to be completely false. 

A long but important read I feel. Here are my selected highlights of the analysis contained in the report - the proposals were covered in the earlier post:- 

Executive Summary

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

Policymakers have long understood that a key part of the solution to an overstretched prison system lies in a more effective regime of community sentences, able to secure the confidence of magistrates and the public. As far back as 2003, Pat Carter (whose review presaged the creation of the National Offender Management Service) was calling for sentences in the community “to be made more demanding” as a way to re-balance the system. And in November 2016, the Lord Chief Justice called for more offenders to be sentenced to “tough” and “visible” alternatives in the community, in order to reduce the numbers sent to prison. 

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

Yet despite their obvious potential, community sentences (community orders and suspended sentence orders) are being used less than at any point over the last 15 years. Since 2004, the numbers sentenced to community orders have halved, and overall numbers of sentences served in the community are down 25%, whilst the numbers sentenced to custody have remained relatively stable. Not only is this fuelling unnecessary pressure on our prisons, it is impacting the financial viability of community rehabilitation companies, who are struggling to cope with a lower than anticipated volume of paid work. 

This report is the first systematic attempt in over a decade to understand what lies behind this phenomenon. It reveals that community sentences: 

● are implemented in a way that bears little resemblance to the evidence of what works: they are neither intensive, swift, nor punitive enough to act as a proper deterrent. Most importantly, offenders are not held properly to account for complying with their sentence. The Probation Inspectorate (HMIP) has found that in a third of cases where the offender breached their order, “insufficient effort was made by the CRC responsible officer to re-engage them” 

● are failing to transform lives, acting as little more than a stepping stone on the path to prison: 35% of those sentenced to custody have received at least five previous community sentences

● have lost the confidence of magistrates: a new survey of magistrates commissioned for this report reveals that over a third of magistrates (37%) are not confident that community sentences are an effective alternative to custody, and two thirds (65%) are not confident that community sentences reduce crime.

These problems are the result of long term structural issues relating to the operation of the criminal justice system, which largely pre-date recent changes to the mix of crimes and government policy reforms. In particular, there appears to have been a long term decline in: 

● the quality/depth of advice provided to the court to guide sentencing decisions - in the form of ‘pre-sentence reports’ (PSR): there has been a transition over the past decade from PSRs being detailed, written reports to speedy, short, written and oral reports. Almost half (42%) of reports in 2015 were delivered orally, with no information recorded, compared to just 5% in 2006

● the level of information/training provided to magistrates: meaning they are unable to make the most effective use of community sentences and/or to take into account probation providers’ capacity to deliver. Over a third (36%) of magistrates do not feel that the training has adequately prepared them for dealing with community sentences and their requirements 

● probation’s ability to deliver personalised sentences that address the underlying causes of an offender’s behaviour and hold the offender to account for compliance: our qualitative research has revealed a deep-seated sense of decline amongst probation staff about the quality of services being provided and the ability to enforce breaches, which has been exacerbated by recent government policy changes. Four in ten magistrates (39%) are not confident that community sentences can be tailored to suit the individual needs of an offender.

These proposals come at a time of significant change to the way offenders are managed in the community. Whilst it is too early to be definitive, there is emerging evidence that the government’s flagship reform programme - Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) - will exacerbate the problems identified above, reducing dialogue between probation and the courts, reducing incentives to deal swiftly with breaches and stifling innovation in the delivery of services to prevent reoffending. There is also little doubt that the fiscal context, with funding having declined since 2010 and set to continue falling, will add to the pressures identified in this report. 

Our report seeks to learn the lessons of the recent past, in order to influence the future of sentencing and probation reform. The research was informed by a large number of interviews with police and crime commissioners, magistrates, probation staff, police and policymakers. We also commissioned a new survey of magistrates through the Magistrates’ Association.

Approach

Various explanations have been postulated about the apparently declining relevance of community sentences: 

● A loss of confidence by sentencers and the public in the effectiveness of community sentences 

● Changes in crime patterns, meaning a more serious mix of offenders is coming before the courts, for whom community sentences are less appropriate 

● Risk aversion within the National Probation Service in recommending community sentences in pre-sentence reports 

● The impact of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, including the design of Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) contracts and the introduction of through the gate support for short term prisoners

History and purpose of community sentences 

Chapter summary: 

● The community sentences (community orders and suspended sentence orders) in use today were introduced in 2005, but subsequent policy reforms since 2010 have affected the way offenders are managed in the community and how community sentences are used in practice. 
● Technically, though both sentences are served in the community, COs are non-custodial sentences and SSOs are sentences of imprisonment served in the community. Both COs and SSOs can be comprised of one or more of 13 possible conditions, or ‘requirements’ to enable the sentence to be tailored to the needs of the offender. 
● Whilst in theory, Community Orders (COs) and Suspended Sentence Orders (SSOs) are identical (in terms of the requirements they can impose) SSOs tend to be less onerous, since the threat of incarceration is deemed a punishment in and of itself. 
● In 2016 just over 100,000 COs and 56,000 SSOs were given out, compared to almost 200,000 COs and 22,000 SSOs in 2006.

The development of community sentences 

The community order (CO) and the suspended sentence order (SSO) as they are recognised today became available in 2005, having been introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and were designed to provide more credible alternatives to short term custodial sentences and a solution to the rising numbers in prison. 

The new CO replaced and standardised the range of pre-existing community sentences (known as community penalties) that had previously developed erratically, and simplified the order by combining all other former community sentences, meaning magistrates and judges could more easily tailor sentences according to the particular nature of the offence and the offender. 

The SSO revived an older style of sentence that was rarely implemented due to stipulations under the former legislation that it could only be used in “exceptional circumstances” . These 17 stipulations were scrapped in the 2003 legislation, giving new life to the suspended sentence. 

Since 2010 the government has introduced a number of reforms to the way we manage offenders in the community. During the last parliament there were three big policy developments:

● 2012 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO), which reformed SSOs 
● 2013 Crime and Courts Act, which reformed COs 
● 2014 Offender Rehabilitation Act, which: a. introduced the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (displacing supervision requirements); and b. introduced the so-called ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ reforms to probation

The general thrust of reforms since 2010 has been to make community sentences more robust and rigorous (thus driving up confidence), whilst making it easier for sentencers to craft an appropriate intervention for a particular offender. However, it is far from clear that they have achieved their intended purpose, as the next sections of this report will show.

Trends in the use of community sentences

Chapter summary: 

● The number of community orders has essentially halved over the past decade, with an increasingly sharp decline from 2011 onwards, whilst custody and fines have remained relatively stable. The rising use of suspended sentence orders has not offset this trend 

● The use of community sentences has declined fastest for theft and drugs offences 

● There appears to be little difference between the makeup of offenders on COs and SSOs, based on their harm and reoffending risk evaluations 

● Unpaid work is typically the most common requirement commenced under a community sentence, and since its introduction in 2015, the RAR has become the second most common 

● Delays are common between sentencing and commencing a requirement, and vary between regions and type of requirement 

● The majority (70%) of offenders undertaking a community sentence go on to complete their sentence, however: 

○ 30% of community sentences fail for the committal of an additional offence, or for breach of sentence stipulations ○ reoffending rates have remained relatively flat over the past decade and vary between disposals: custody stands at 45% (rising to 60% for short custodial sentences); COs at 35%; and SSOs at 31% (which has decreased from 37% a decade ago) 

○ reoffending performance varies between CRCs, with interim reoffending rates ranging from 26% to 43% for community sentences ○ prolific offenders (those with 15 or more previous convictions or cautions) make up an increasing proportion of those sentenced; for community the proportion has risen from 15% in 2005 to 25% in 2015. 

○ 75% of offenders sentenced to immediate custody for an indictable offence in 2014 had previously served at least 1 community sentence

Court sentencing

Trends in court sentencing over the last decade paint a stark picture. Against a backdrop of falling sentences overall, the number of offenders sentenced to community sentences has fallen dramatically (essentially halving), particularly since 2011, whilst those sentenced to immediate custody have remained relatively stable. Just over 100,000 community orders and 56,000 suspended sentence orders were given out in 2016, compared to almost 200,000 COs and 22,000 SSOs a decade ago.

These figures are even more dramatic if we look at the last five years: during which time there has been a staggering 78% decline in the number of community sentences. In 2010, a report by the think tank Policy Exchange described the so-called “unprecedented expansion of community sentences” as “the untold story of the criminal justice system over the last twenty years”. Seven years on, it is their almost disappearance that is the untold story of the CJS.

Trends in the composition of community sentences 

Unpaid work has consistently been, and remains today, the most frequently used requirement commenced under a community order, followed by Supervision (now displaced by the new ‘Rehabilitation Activity Requirement’ - see below) and Curfew. Unfortunately, there is very little publicly accessible data on what constitutes ‘unpaid work’ - the kind of work involved, how intensive it is and where it takes place.

As the National Audit Office (NAO) has noted, the fact that ‘accredited programmes’ represent a falling proportion of requirements commenced has significant implications for the financial viability of CRCs, who are paid according to the number of offenders completing such programmes (as opposed to ‘RARs’, for which they are required to pick up the costs), which CRCs have linked to the declining quality of PSRs. (In response, the NPS and CRCs have begun working on an ‘Effective Sentencing Framework’, which will seek to address this issue by guiding report writers toward the appropriate sentence.) 

Looking in detail at the mix of requirements commenced under community sentences it appears that COs became slightly more punitive between 2012 and 2015 (45% of sentenced included requirements deemed as principally punitive in 2015 compared to 41% in 2012) - 47 following changes introduced through the Crime and Courts Act. However, this is still someway short of the government’s intended ambition that every CO includes a punitive element.

Loss of confidence by magistrates 

Interviews conducted with magistrates for this report found that there is a high confidence in the principle of community sentences and what they are designed to achieve. However, a new survey by Crest shows that magistrates lack confidence in the practical effectiveness of community sentences. Our survey shows that:  

● Over a third of magistrates (37%) are not confident that community sentences are an effective alternative to custody 
● Two thirds (65%) are not confident that community sentences reduce or deter crime 
● 45% are not confident that community sentences effectively rehabilitate offenders 
● Three quarters (76%) are not confident that community sentences protect the public 
● Half (49%) are not confident that community sentences can be tailored to suit the individual needs of an offender 
● Just under a third (30%) are not confident that community sentences provide an appropriate response to the range of low-to-medium level offences they cover.

Drivers of decline

Our key conclusions: 

● The primary driver of is declining confidence in community sentences, which relates to long term structural issues to do with the operation of the CJS 
● In particular, the lack of information accessed by magistrates (pre- and post-sentence) and the declining quality of advice pre-sentencing from probation seem to have been key factors 
● It is possible that the number of community sentences may have fallen due to a change in the cohort of offenders, in particular, with a rise in prolific offenders, but this is unlikely to have been the primary driver of changes in sentencing behaviour 
● These trends pre-date recent policy changes, such as TR, though TR is likely to exacerbate the problems. In particular, the split between CRCs and the NPS, and the structure of CRC contracts is in all likelihood going to reduce confidence even further 
● Longer term, the biggest barrier to confidence is likely to be the continuing evidence (and perception) of low effectiveness

The role of probation

Another possible explanation for the decline in community sentences is an increasing risk aversion within the probation service in recommending community sentences in PSRs.

A growing target-driven culture 

Many of the probation staff we interviewed felt that the move to a more target-driven culture in probation (which began around 2003-04) had had significant implications for the provision and delivery of community sentences. Historically, the stated role of the probation service had been to ‘advise, assist and befriend’ offenders until the establishment of NOMS in 2004, when the emphasis shifted toward a focus on punishment, rehabilitation and public protection. Focus group participants were in agreement that the combined impact of these changes had been to drive an emphasis on process, rather than outcomes, leading to greater risk-aversion across the system and, crucially, reducing the amount of time officers spent with offenders. 

Focus group participants suggested that probation has been heavily influenced by changes in political ideology, meaning that the service provision, at least in the time the participants had been in probation (for most, over a decade), was in constant flux. This, they suggested, meant that offenders were now confused by the system - making it less likely that they would complete their requirements and harder for probation officers to fulfil their duties. 

Reduced quality of advice, pre-sentencing 

Before imposing a custodial or community sentence, the court is required to obtain a PSR unless the court is of the opinion that a report is unnecessary in all the circumstances of the case. PSRs are prepared by probation officers for consideration pre-sentencing, both in the magistrates’ courts and in the Crown Courts. They are designed to give information to the sentencer about the circumstances and context of the case and the offender. Some reports can be prepared on the day by NPS court officers. These reports are for cases already known to the probation service, or if the case is straightforward ('Oral' and 'Fast Delivery' reports). 

Others require a fuller assessment carried out by a probation officer ('Standard Delivery Reports'). Nationally, only 69% of the PSRs that proposed a community sentence are followed by a community sentence being given, compared to 81% of PSRs that propose custody.

The types of report prepared for magistrates have also changed dramatically over the last decade. In 2006, standard written reports made up the majority of PSRs (66%) - in 2015 they made up 11%. By the same token, almost half of reports in 2015 were delivered orally, compared to just 5% in 2006.

This change in PSR is indicative of a conscious policy transition from standard PSRs (which can take up to 15 working days to prepare) toward fast oral reports (which can be prepared in 20 minutes). The guidelines published by the sentencing council recommend that "ideally a pre-sentence report should be completed on the same day to avoid adjourning the case". A 69 recent report into efficiency in the criminal justice system recommended a move to dispense with PSRs where possible or replace them with oral reports in cases which do not require a PSR, i.e. a community order which includes a single requirement that does not necessitate the involvement of probation (e.g. a curfew order). 

Our interviews with probation staff supported these findings. Many held the view that the changing nature of PSRs meant that they now lack detail, which could mean that requirements being handed out as a result of report recommendations are not always appropriately tailored to the individual offender. Some participants felt that these effects had been exacerbated by TR, with NPS staff lacking the time/resources to draft PSRs of the requisite quality and detail. As a result, offenders were increasingly being handed a community sentence that would not address the root causes of their behaviour, would not allow probation to effectively do their job, and result in the offender coming back in front of the courts. Whilst efficiency and speed are to be sought after in the delivery of justice, it is not evident that the appropriate balance with quality has been struck.

The impact of recent policy reform

There is little doubt that the problems surrounding community sentences pre-date the roll-out of TR, and until data on reoffending are compiled in late 2017, judgements about the overall performance of probation services must remain partial. However, evidence compiled by the NAO and from our focus groups suggest that TR may have exacerbated long term problems that have been affecting the system in certain ways. These are set out below: 

Communication between probation and the court 

Under the terms of TR, CRC staff are not allowed in the court, despite retaining responsibility for 70% of offenders serving community sentences. There is emerging evidence that this has reduced levels of communication between sentencers and probation, whilst reducing the quality of the PSR. For example, in our interviews with magistrates and probation staff, nearly all participants felt that the split (between CRCs and the NPS) as a result of TR had increased the distance between magistrates and probation staff, as they no longer had any direct interaction with the people that worked with these offenders. 

“We feel more at arm’s length from probation.” - Magistrate

The range/quality of locally available rehabilitation provision 

The volume of work that CRCs are paid for, as measured by the payment mechanism, has been much lower than expected and promised in the original contracts from the MoJ. This reduced funding, combined with rising caseloads (following the introduction of statutory supervision, which is unpaid) has impacted upon the ability of CRCs to commission innovative/new provision i.e. anything which is not on an agreed ‘rate card’. It is also clear, as indicated in Table 3, that CRCs’ ability to deliver the core requirements of community sentences varies greatly across the country. As far as existing data suggests, in the worst performing CRCs, three in ten programme requirements are not successfully delivered, and one in five unpaid work requirements is not fully completed.

The impact of TR on local delivery 

To understand how TR has impacted on the confidence and perceptions of sentencers and service users, qualitative research was undertaken in Greater Manchester and Norfolk. The aim was to test whether TR has exacerbated existing factors that have contributed to the decline in community sentences, and ascertain whether further decline can be expected. The findings are explored below. 

Inflexibility of the TR model to tailor provision to local needs 

The one-size-fits-all TR model commissioned at the national level is too rigid to be adapted for all offenders and all contexts at the local level: 

● The model doesn’t necessarily fit with Greater Manchester’s vision for managing women offenders, who, according to TR, must be assessed by a probation officer in custody, rather than at a women’s centre 

● Rigid scrutiny from central government, with three separate MoJ teams regularly demanding input/engagement from CRC staff, generates a significant amount of work. The sentiment from CRC staff is that they feel like they are ‘feeding the machine’ rather than actually delivering for local communities. 

Contract specifications and payment schedules are based around processes and volumes, rather than outcomes 

Whilst the MoJ operating model talks about TR as an outcomes-focused programme, with maximum flexibility for providers, the reality, post-award, is that CRCs are being micromanaged and innovation is being stifled: 

● CRCs are measured according to 16 separate service levels (including the number of starts on unpaid work; how many plans are completed in 10 days; timeliness for recalling people to prison etc). There are financial penalties attached for not meeting these service levels. 

● The completion rates for behavioural programmes have generally been much lower than anticipated. Even though the pipeline of participants is not in the CRC’s gift (it is the NPS that makes advice to the court on those programmes), it is the CRC that ends up being financially penalised by the MoJ. This creates a vicious circle whereby the overall fee for service falls, discretionary funds are reduced and the CRC becomes more risk averse about innovating/commissioning new things. 

CRCs are supposed to be rewarded for reducing reoffending through a system of ‘payment by results’ (PbR). However, PbR doesn’t really feature in the CRCs’ day-to-day work as it is simply too far away to drive behaviours. This has led to CRCs chasing the short term fee for service. 

The rate card does not incentivise new services to be commissioned 

There is little evidence of new commissioning, as a result of: 

● The economics – unless the CRC can guarantee a certain volume of referrals, it will not go to the effort of commissioning new services 

● Lack of responsiveness – all CRCs have a standard rate card with a fixed price; there is no mechanism to vary the price and make it more attractive to the purchaser (e.g. a drink and drivers’ programme should cost a tenth of what it costs to deliver a violence reduction programme, yet it costs the same price) 

● Central government control – even when the CRC and NPS have managed to work together in co-commissioning a new discretionary service/product for ex-offenders, they have been unable to progress it to implementation because the MoJ insists on signing off on any new services added to the rate card – a process which has proved to be lengthy and bureaucratic.

Contracts do not incentivise breach enforcement

In addition to the problems identified above, there is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that breaches are less likely to be enforced as a result of TR. It has been suggested to us that the way in which the contracts for CRCs have been designed has created perverse incentives to disengage with an offender if the breach process is triggered. Once an offender breaches their conditions, the MoJ issues a financial penalty on the CRC, as an offender is only eligible for PbR the first time they commence an eligible sentence, meaning that those who breach their sentence are no longer eligible for payment, regardless of the support the CRC may have already provided. 

HM Inspectorate of Probation has found variability in enforcement processes across the CRCs, with some experiencing high rejection rates from the NPS for their breach recommendations. HMIP found that many recommendations were returned because of minor spelling and grammatical errors, and the NAO also identified an “inherent risk that offender managers may avoid ‘breaching’ offenders where this would affect CRC performance against targets for successful completion of orders if the court order is subsequently revoked”. A recent Justice Inspectorate report followed these earlier warnings, and stated “we were disappointed to find, in a third of cases where the individual was breached, insufficient effort was made by the CRC responsible officer to re-engage them and encourage their commitment to continued engagement”.

Prison Boss Rewarded For Failure

With the Prison Service in the state it is, with the suicide rate rocketing, it really does beggar belief that the Civil Servants in charge have been awarded bonuses, but it's true as reported here on the BBC website:-

Prisons boss received 'scandalous' £20,000 bonus

The man in charge of prisons and probation in England and Wales received a bonus of up to £20,000, it has emerged. Michael Spurr was given the payment in 2016-17 on top of his annual salary of around £150,000. The bonus was "awarded" the previous year when the chief inspector of prisons said many jails were "unacceptably violent and dangerous".

The Prison Officers Association (POA) called it "scandalous and shameful". Steve Gillan, general secretary of the POA, told BBC News: "It's absolutely disgraceful that those who are overseeing a crisis in the prison service have been rewarded with performance bonuses. "It's scandalous that they're being rewarded for failure."

'Staggering decline'

In his latest assessment of prisons in England and Wales, released this week, chief inspector of prisons Peter Clarke said he was "appalled" at conditions in many jails and said there had been a "staggering decline" in standards in youth custody centres. Justice Secretary David Lidington also admitted in an open letter that the probation system was "falling short" of expectations and that measures designed to support prisoners on release did not "command the confidence" of the courts.

The bonus payment is disclosed in the annual report from the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), which was published on Thursday. Mr Spurr was chief executive officer of NOMS until April, when the government agency was re-named HM Prison and Probation Service, which he now heads. The report revealed that in 2016-17 the 55-year-old was paid £145,000-150,000 and received a bonus payment of £15,000-20,000, along with pension benefits of £25,000.

Phil Copple, the chief operating officer and interim director of probation, Colin Allars, director of probation, and Ian Porée, director of commissioning, were given bonuses of £10,000-15,000. Claudia Sturt, director of security, order and counter terrorism, was paid a £5,000-10,000 bonus.

The report said bonuses are determined by a committee headed by Richard Heaton, permanent secretary at the Ministry of Justice. It said they are based on "performance levels attained" and are made as part of the "appraisal process". "An individual can only be awarded a bonus if they have exceeded at least one finance and efficiency objective," the report said. Mr Spurr, who has spent his entire career in the prison service, starting out as a prison officer, did not receive a bonus the previous year, 2015-16, though payments were made to Mr Copple, Mr Allars, Mr Poree and Carol Carpenter, a former human resources director.

The annual report also revealed NOMS "breached" government pay policy when it increased overtime pay to prison officers, trained to deal with riots, and raised allowances for other officers to address staff shortages. The report said when the breaches became clear the Ministry of Justice submitted a business case to the Treasury asking them to agree to the payments, but it refused to do so. A review into the pay policy breaches found there had been "failings in governance" but the payments still went ahead and are set to continue, the report found.

Smoke-free prisons

It also emerged in the document that all prisons in England and Wales are expected to become smoke-free by the end of 2018. The phased roll-out of smoke-free jails began last year in Wales and the south-west of England and there is now a complete ban on smoking in 21 prisons across the estate. It is understood a further 40 are in the process of going smoke-free this summer, with the majority expected to be smoke-free by the end of the year. Earlier this week, the Scottish Prison Service said it intended to make all of Scotland's prisons smoke-free by next year.

Peter Clarke said the success of the smoke-free scheme depended on how well prepared prisons, staff and inmates were for the change. He said one prisoner had been so desperate for a cigarette he had mixed nicotine patches with tea leaves and rolled the "tobacco" between pages torn out of a Bible.

--oo00oo--

I must say I have a great deal of sympathy for the sentiment expressed yesterday on here regarding the news above:-

"No doubt much good happens via faith group interventions & support, but the prison system is fundamentally fucked up, not working, understaffed, overpopulated with vulnerable & an often inappropriate prisoner population... and the "openly Christian" man at the helm of this politically sensitive pressure-cooker ready to blow its lid is happy to accept bonus payments on top of an eye-watering salary, whilst frontline staff endure years of pay-freezes & shit working conditions."

Latest From Napo 156

Here we have edited highlights from today's blog post by the Napo General Secretary:- 

Ministers do some window dressing before the summer recess

I don’t suppose for one minute that any of our members will have been surprised to see the statements of intent from the Ministers with responsibility for probation that were issued on Wednesday evening.

Timing is always important but so is quality; and it was clear from the traffic appearing on social media such as ‘Twitter’ and the enquiries that followed my media release yesterday that the open letter from David Lidington and the written Commons statement from Sam Gyimah, were widely being seen as deeply disappointing as well as contradictory in one important respect.

Personally, I have no difficulty understanding why they both wanted to tell the world that more taxpayers money has been thrown at CRC Contracts to enable them to keep their heads above water, but perhaps they should really have stopped there rather than offer the suggestion that the current operational difficulties were ‘unforeseeable’ which was tantamount to taking not just one biscuit but several packets of them.

Let’s face it; this is a glaring example of how the pressure to say something to defend an uncomfortable position merely served to highlight the extent of the problems.

I have had the opportunity to speak over the phone to both Ministers over the last few weeks. They were receptive to what I had to say and we have been promised meetings with them. I have also undertaken to write to them about the state of probation and once I have done so and received a reply I will of course publish the exchanges.

Meanwhile, I have seen that Bob Neill MP has been reappointed as Chair of the Justice Select Committee and I will also be in touch with him to rearrange the appointment that was unfortunately cancelled on account of the general election. I am hopeful that the Committee will press on with considering the need for an enquiry into Transforming Rehabilitation that we have been pressing for.

Napo members in the media

Two recent programmes on probation have appeared: ITV Wales http://www.itv.com/walesprogrammes/wales-this-week scroll down page to the ‘ Why was my son murdered?’ feature and BBC East http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08xcnwd/sunday-politics-east-16072017 (starts at about 41:41) the latter featuring Heidi Allen MP Conservative Cambridge and Sandy Martin MP Labour Ipswich.

Here serious questions have been raised about service standards offered by CRC providers Working Links and Sodexo. I was able to assist the producers in both cases and get a brief slot on both. More important were the anonymised contributions from members and former probation staff about the issues that were featured.

Appreciation to all those who took part in the programmes, and whilst I hope there will be no attempt by employers to investigate who said what and to whom, I will need to be notified immediately if this should happen.

Napo’s future: have you some good ideas to share?

Last week I mentioned the work that is currently underway to look at how Napo can grow and make the necessary changes to prepare itself for the huge challenges ahead of us. At the last NEC meeting it was suggested that we should open up a direct route for individual members who have something useful to say and we have now created the following e-mail conduit:

Innovations@napo.org.uk.

Nothing you say will be published anywhere without your permission and I will personally ensure that all contributors will get a reply.

Can you assist with some important research?

We have been contacted by Sebastian Carro who is an MSc Candidate in Occupational Psychology at Birkbeck College, University of London.

Sebastian is currently conducting extensive research into the general employment relations climate across the UK and is particularly interested in exploring the business attitudes that paved the way for the dreadful Trade Union Act 2016.

I have been asked if I would publicise the link to the survey that Sebastian is running as part of his research project and encourage our members to consider participating

The link to the survey is:

http://bbk.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/a-short-survey-on-business-attitudes

Many thanks to any members who decide to take part.

--oo00oo--

Here's that press release:-

Press Statement
20 July 2017 - Immediate Release

Union accuses Ministers of misleading the public about probation reforms

Responding to last night’s Ministerial statements on probation reform, the leader of the largest probation union accused the Government of misleading the public over the true impact of reforms to the probation service.

Ian Lawrence, General Secretary of Napo said: “The notion that the current difficulties besetting probation were unforeseeable is a gross distortion of the facts, and is an insult to staff who have been put under huge pressure by increased caseloads and the unsafe operational models introduced by many of the 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies.”

He continued: “Napo is especially angry at the contradictory claims by Ministers about 'Through the Gate' support services for offenders after a recent report by HM Inspector of Probation revealed that this much vaunted initiative is in fact a total shambles.”

The union has been campaigning through Parliament for an enquiry into the probation reforms in 2014 which saw a gold standard award service divided into a National Probation Service and 21 companies run by private providers including the catering company Sodexo and facilities management specialists Interserve.

Ian Lawrence added: “While Napo stands ready to work with Ministers to see improved standards of delivery, we believe that failing CRC contracts ought to be returned to public control.

“Our members, whose hard work has at least been acknowledged by Ministers, expect urgent action to alleviate unrealistic workloads, stressful working environments and their pay which has reduced by 21% in real-term value over the last seven years.”

Crime Going Up - Shock!

Well, it's that time of year again when the utterly cynical nature of our political system is on full view and when the government releases a shed-load of bad news in the hope that it goes pretty much unnoticed as kids finish school and the nation heads off on holiday. 

The timing is always precisely stage-managed to fit neatly into the nation's calendar of sporting and other events such as the beginning of the parliamentary summer recess, so with all our elected representatives giddy on free booze and in full 'gate-fever' mode, there's zero chance of holding anyone to account. There's no BBC Question Time either and even the utterly brilliant Channel 4 news is reduced to barely 30 minutes, so the perfect time to announce:- 

1) a further raising of the state retirement pension age 
2) the scrapping of the promised northern rail electrification programme
3) a large increase in reported crime

Of course number three is particularly significant because as Theresa May continued to do battle with the Police over budget and staffing reductions when Home Secretary, she continually pointed to a reduction in crime as a justification. This was always somewhat contentious of course, not least because huge increases in on-line fraud was not included. 

This most unelcome news also goes to the very heart of the Tory political mantra that Tory government = lower crime and even worse, just might be connected to a steadily reducing number of police officers.  

This from the Guardian:- 

Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show

Police-recorded crime has risen by 10% across England and Wales – the largest annual rise for a decade – according to the Office of National Statistics.

The latest crime figures for the 12 months to March also show an 18% rise in violent crime, including a 20% surge in gun crime and knife crime. The official figures also show a 26% rise in the murder rate to 723 homicides, which includes the 96 cases of manslaughter at Hillsborough in 1989.

More alarmingly the official statisticians say the rise in crime is accelerating, with a 3% increase recorded in the year to March 2015, followed by an 8% rise in the year to March 2016, and now a 10% increase in the 12 months to this March.

The accelerating rise in crime comes as Home Office figures show a further fall of 924 in the past year in the number of police officers, to 123,142 in England and Wales. This is the lowest number of officers in England and Wales since 1985. Police numbers have fallen by 20,592 since 2010.

Ministers will also be concerned that the country is becoming increasingly violent in nature, with gun crime rising 23% to 6,375 offences, largely driven by an increase in the use of handguns. Knife crime has also spiked by 20% to 34,703 incidents – the highest level for seven years. The largest increase in knife crime came in London, which accounted for 40% of the rise.

There has been a particular increase in the number of robberies at knife point to nearly 13,000 incidents. Rape or sexual assaults at knife point also show large percentage increases, although the numbers remain low with a total of 142 offences.

The 10% rise in police-recorded crime to nearly 5m offences include increases in burglary and vehicle theft, suggesting that the long-term fall in these higher volume offences may be coming to an end.

In contrast to the ONS figures, the separate official crime survey of England and Wales also released on Thursday, which asked 35,000 households if they had been a victim of crime in the previous year and is not designed to measure high-harm but low-volume offences such as murder and knife crime, shows a 7% fall compared with the previous year excluding fraud and computer misuse offences. If online is included, the number of crimes estimated by the survey rises from 5.9m to 11m.

The policing minister, Nick Hurd, said that crime, as measured by the crime survey, was down by one third since 2010 and by 69% since its 1995 peak.

“The Office for National Statistics is clear that much of the rise in violent offences recorded by police is down to better recording by forces but also believes some of the increases may be genuine and clearly there is more we must do to tackle the violent crimes which blight communities,” said the Home Office minister.

“We recognise that crime is changing and we are determined to get ahead of new and emerging threats to the safety and security of our families and communities. Our latest action, announced in the past week, includes urgent work to bear down on acid attacks and proposals to strengthen the law to get knives off our streets.”

The shadow home secretary, Diane Abbott, said the figures were a damning indictment. “The Tories have cut police officer numbers again in the latest 12 months and now there are well over 20,000 fewer than in 2010,” she said. “The Tories simply aren’t allowing the police to protect the public. Labour in government will tackle rising crime.” She added that Labour would bring back 10,000 officers when in power.

The Liberal Democrats’ Ed Davey said the figures had exposed the Conservative record of failure on crime. “This government is failing in its duty to keep our streets safe,” he said. “The Conservatives have utterly disrespected the police by freezing their wages and cutting their budgets time and again.”

John Flatley, head of crime statistics and analysis at the ONS, said: “The latest figures show the largest annual rise in crimes recorded by the police in a decade. While ongoing improvements to recording practices are driving this volume rise, we believe actual increases in crime are also a factor in a number of categories.

“Some of the increases recorded by the police are in the low-volume, but high-harm, offences such as homicide and knife crime that the crime survey is not designed to measure. If the increases in burglary and vehicle theft recorded by the police continue we would expect these to show up in the survey in due course. We will continue to monitor these trends and investigate the factors driving any changes.”

The 10% rise in police-recorded crime – an increase of 458,021 offences – was largely driven by increases in violence against the person (up 175,000 offences), theft (up 118,000), and public order offences (up 78,000).

There were smaller volume increases in criminal damage and arson (24,000), sexual offences (up 14,000), burglary (up 10,500), and robbery (up 8,000).

The 26% rise in the murder rate to 723 homicides, an increase of 149, cover the 96 cases of manslaughter at Hillsborough in 1989, which were included in the annual figure as the inquests were finally concluded. Without the Hillsborough deaths the number of homicides rose by 9%.

All forces across England and Wales, except Cumbria and North Yorkshire, recorded an annual increase in their latest figures.

Official statisticians say that although police-recorded crime figures lost their national statistics status in 2014 because of quality issues in changes in recording, they say the year-on-year increases represent actual increases in crime. The 10% rise in police-recorded crime contrasts with a 7% fall in the official crime survey.

Alexa Bradley, deputy head of crime statistics at ONS, explained why the CSEW and police records data appeared to show different trends. “It is important to remember that the sources differ in the population and offences they cover,” she said. “At least half of the increase in police-recorded crime series is in offences not covered by the survey, including shoplifting, public order offences and possession of weapons.”

History Lesson For David Lidington

Here is Alan Travis writing in the Guardian of June 24th 2013 and proving that the 'unforeseen challenges' of TR mentioned yesterday by David Lidington were in fact very much foreseen:- 

Privatising probation service will put public at risk, officials tell Grayling

The justice secretary, Chris Grayling, has been warned by his most senior officials that plans to privatise 70% of the probation service lack support, are being pushed through on an aggressive timetable and potentially endanger public safety, leaked documents show.

They also warn that promised cost savings are unlikely to be achieved.

The official internal risk register for Grayling's "rehabilitation revolution", which he has so far refused to publish, warns that there is a more than 80% risk that his proposals will lead to "an unacceptable drop in operational performance" triggering "delivery failures and reputational damage".

The cost of failures in the probation service have been illustrated by cases such as those of Anthony Rice, who sadistically murdered Naomi Bryant in 2005, after being released from prison on a life licence, and Daniel Sonnex, who tortured and murdered two French students in 2008 after blunders in his probation supervision.

The warnings are contained in a document marked "restricted policy", prepared for the Ministry of Justice board responsible for the rehabilitation programme. It also says there is a high risk of insufficient support within the probation service to push through the changes.

Grayling's proposals are the most radical in the probation service's 100-year history. They involve abolishing the existing 35 public probation trusts and replacing them with 21 government companies, which will tender out the supervision of all medium and low-risk offenders on a payment-by-results basis.

But the officials warn that it is likely that the transfer of 70% of probation work to the private and voluntary sectors will fail to deliver the promised scale of savings.

A second leaked document, dated June 2013, on the future of the much smaller public probation service that would be responsible for the remaining 30% of work with high-risk offenders and public protection cases, shows that it faces cuts of 19% by 2017/18.

The shake-up would result in reallocating the supervision of 250,000 offenders, moving 18,000 staff to new employers and the appointment of 22 senior management teams. The plan is to put the changes in place by October, so the new service is up and running by the general election in 2015 – "a complex, large-scale change programme to be completed within an aggressive timetable," the risk register notes.

The disclosures come as peers prepare for a key vote on Tuesdayon Grayling's offender rehabilitation bill which provides the legal framework for the proposals.

Among the concerns expressed by the authors of the risk register are the "considerable challenge" of closing down 2,000 separate computer packages and moving to a single shared services computer system.

The document also reveals that while many probation trusts are continuing to voice concerns about the proposals, nearly all are actively making preparations: "Our concerns focus on some trusts whose senior staff seem less able to make the transition themselves. Although these senior staff recognise their responsibility, as public servants, to manage the process of change, there is a difference between managing change and leading it."

The risk register uses traffic lights to describe the risks facing the programme, coding each risk factor as green, amber, red or black, but makes no assessment of the financial risk of not delivering the programme to the agreed timescale, quality or cost.

It appears that detailed Treasury approval for the proposals will only be secured after the framework bill reaches the statute book.

The senior MoJ officials rate the risk that a campaign against the proposals will delay or block them in parliament as a "code red". They reveal that the bill being debated in the House of Lords this week has deliberately been kept slim to "minimise the dependence of the reforms" on the passing of the legislation. Media messaging is also being used to "keep key elements of reform at the top of the agenda".

The register also makes clear there are anxieties at the highest level that not enough private sector and voluntary organisations will bid for the work (code red) and that once privatised the supervision programmes will be ineffective or fail to meet the required quality.

The highest rated concerns – code black – detailed in the document are:

• There is a more than 80% risk that an unacceptable drop in operational performance will lead to delivery failure and reputational damage. The report says the failures could be caused by industrial action, falling staff morale, staff departures or probation leadership disengaging.

• There is a 51% to 80% risk that insufficient support for the proposals by probation management and staff will lead to failure to implement the changes properly and on time.

• There is a 51% to 80% risk that cost savings will not be met.

Harry Fletcher, a criminal justice expert, said the documents showed that the plans were ill-thought through and potentially dangerous: "Probation's sell-off is being carried out too hastily, there is too much risk. It is highly likely that service delivery will collapse and public protection will be undermined. The government must think again about the future of its successful and efficient probation service."