Recent developments

Enforcement and compliance

This has become increasingly important in regard to community and suspended sentence orders although for both orders, the percentage terminated for breach is decreasing: the figure for community orders dropped from 48 per cent in 2006 to 40 per cent in the second quarter of 2008 (see Mair, G. and Mills,H.(2009) Three years on, The Community Order and Suspended Sentence Order - the views and experiences of probation officers and offenders. London, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, p. 13).

No Winners: The reality of short term prison sentences, by Dr Julie Trebilcock and  published by the Howard League in 2011 in collaboration with the Prison Governors’ Association found that many prisoners prefer a short term prison sentence over a community sentence because it is easier to complete.

The Probation Service

The Howard League for Penal Reform submitted a paper to the Justice Affairs Select Committee’s inquiry on the role of the probation service on September 16th 2010. The Howard League argued as follows:

This submission underscores the fact that the introduction of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) has led to major changes and a large-scale restructuring in the way criminal justice is administered. The changes exacted by NOMS on the probation service have led to the systematic fragmentation and demoralisation of a probation service, whose purpose has been altered beyond all recognition. Instead of being allowed to engage with vulnerable men and women in the community, the probation service and its functions have been warped by NOMS’ framework of mechanistic targets. A bureaucratic managerial model averse to risk and devoid of ambition has replaced the frontline services probation formerly provided to the multi-faceted problems faced by individuals in the community.

This paper calls for a radical overhaul of the probation service. It calls for a shift away from offender management and a shift towards a localised “resolution service” that the public can both see and understand.

The authors of a recent book also argue that ‘the Probation Service has been ignored, misrepresented, taken for granted and marginalized, and probation staff have been sneered at as “do-gooders”’ and that it ‘is currently under serious threat as a result of budget cuts, organizational restructuring, changes in training, and increasingly punitive policies’.

See Mair, G. and Burke, L. (2011) Redemption Rehabilitation and Risk Management.  London, Routledge.

12.1.1 Custodial penalties

Two issues have again become prominent in relation to community sentences: first, concern that there is inadequate supervision of offenders released from custody to community and, secondly, that short prison sentences are both costly and lacking in utility given the lack of rehabilitation programmes and the apparent lack of any deterrent effect. 

In relation to the latter the Howard League has commissioned research in partnership with the Prison Governors Association and led by Dr Julie Trebilcock entitled “No winners: the reality of short sentenced prisoners”.  The website states that the research is looking at short term prison sentences from the perspective of those serving short sentences and those working in prisons. The focus of the study is adult men serving sentences of up to 12 months in local prisons in England and Wales. The Howard League states that:

“[T]here is common agreement that short prison sentences are deleterious to an individual’s prospects of leading a crime free life, to the prison that has to hold them safely but can offer little in the way of activity, and to the community that receives the individual back with no support.

Magistrates’ courts sentenced 51,200 people to prison in 2007, and the average sentence was two and a half months. 32,000 men, women and children were sent to prison for three months or less by magistrates.

Evidence shows that community sentences can reduce crime by up to 22% more than a short prison sentence of up to 12 months”.

The research to be conducted over a 6 month period commencing May 2010 with the final report and briefings completed by November 2010 (http://www.howardleague.org/short-sentence-research/ accessed 1.10.2010)

An interim report of research on the effectiveness of short term sentences draws on some of the quantitative findings of an online survey conducted with members of the Prison Governors’ Association (PGA) to establish their views about short prison sentences (see Trebilcock, J. (2010) Early findings from research with the Prison Governors’ Association, London; Howard League for Penal Reform/Imperial College, London). This is important research because prisoners serving less than six months in prison made up about 40 per cent of the total entries into prison in 2009 and in 2009 50,442 people were jailed for six months or less which is too short a time for rehabilitation programmes. Research shows that at least 61 per cent of those serving sentences of less than 12 months are reconvicted within one year of release, whereas the same is true of only 37 per cent of those given community punishments.

On 14th October 2010, the Howard League for Penal Reform, in collaboration with the PGA, published the following findings on its website. 

“A survey of prison governors has revealed that:

• 81 per cent of all respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement ‘short prison sentences serve to reform and rehabilitate the offender’, with only six per cent of governors agreeing or strongly agreeing
• 59 per cent of all respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed when asked if short prison sentences serve to reduce crime (including by deterrence)
• Three quarters of all respondents (75.8 per cent) reported that they considered the current use of short prison sentences between zero and six months to be ‘excessive’.
…
• Only 13 per cent of respondents thought problems with ‘attitudes, thinking and behaviour’ could be somewhat or very satisfactorily addressed during a short prison sentence
• Only 25.6 per cent of respondents thought problems with ‘mental and physical health’ could be somewhat or very satisfactorily addressed during a short prison sentence
• Only 25.7 per cent of respondents thought problems with ‘education, training and employment’ could be somewhat or very satisfactorily addressed during a short prison sentence
• Only 26 per cent of respondents thought problems with ‘drugs and alcohol’ could be somewhat or very satisfactorily addressed during a short prison sentence
• Only 26.1 per cent of respondents thought problems with ‘children and family’ could be somewhat or very satisfactorily addressed during a short prison sentence
• Only 26.5 per cent of respondents thought problems with ‘finances, benefits and debt’ could be somewhat or very satisfactorily addressed during a short prison sentence
• Only 36.7 per cent of respondents thought problems with ‘housing’ could be somewhat or very satisfactorily addressed during a short prison sentence.”

12.1.3 Why community? pp 391-394

VUW – visible unpaid work initiative

This initiative - announced by the Government in 2005 - has now been rolled out across England and Wales. Home Office Circular 66/2005 to the National Probation Service set out the implications of 'Visible Unpaid Work and Community Engagement' (accessible @ www.probation.homeoffice.gov.uk/files/pdf/PC66%202005.pdf). It states that 'Visible Unpaid Work is an overall approach to delivery and is underpinned by the principle that the work undertaken by offenders should, where appropriate, be marked in such a way that it can be recognized by the local community' (at p.1).

The most recent manifestation of this move to 'visibility' of offenders and 'Payback' work to the community is the Government's order in December 2008 of 10,000 orange vests with 'Community Payback' written on the back in purple to mark out offenders doing manual work. The introduction of such distinctive clothing for offenders has led to considerable criticism, particularly from NAPO, in terms of human rights, personal safety and effectiveness. For academic discussion of this development see:
Bottoms, A. (2008) 'The Community Dimension of Community Penalties' Howard Journal Vol 47(2) pp 146-169

12.2.2. Choosing the community punishment pp 396-7

Three years on: The Community Order and Suspended Sentence Order - the views and experiences of probation officers and offenders, is the final in a series of reports exploring community sentences that have been published by the Centre for crime and Justice Studies, Kings College, London. This most recent report considers the extent to which the orders have had the hoped-for impact on providing an alternative to short-term custodial sentences, as well as their impact on probation practice and the management of community-based orders. (See the Monthly ebulletin March 2009 of the CCJS; the report can be downloaded at:
www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sentenceshreeyearson.html)

12.3.4. National Probation Service pp 403-406

A recent report by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, King's College, London, in association with NAPO details the rise in work loads in relation to assessment, delivering community penalties, and supervising prisoners on release. It focuses on the difficulties of resourcing and staffing the changes. For example it notes that the ratio of offenders to qualified probation officers has risen from 31:1 to 40:1 – an increase of 28 per cent. The Report concludes: 'Our overall impression has been that a period of stability, reflection and objective analysis would be beneficial for the probation service. We are doubtful that this is likely to be the case' (p.5)
See: Oldfield, M. and Grimshaw, R. (2008) Probation Resources, Staffing and Workloads 2001-2008. London, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, King's College in association with NAPO.

12.3.5 The Offender Management Act 2007

Silvestri, A. (June 2009) Partners or Prisoners? Voluntary sector independence in the world of commissioning and contestability, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, Kings College, London) At: www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1646/Partners_or_prisoners_report.pdf

This report on a debate on the voluntary sector's involvement in the criminal justice system concludes as follows:

“Key issues that emerged from the debate included:

• The importance of retaining the values underpinning voluntary organisations: its ethical core will be vital in helping the sector tackle new processes and partnerships without becoming assimilated and subservient

• The need to engage with issues of financial robustness in the part of the sector that is involved in criminal justice

• The undesirability of a ‘one size fits all’ model and the importance of maintaining the diversity and complexity of the voluntary sector, as well as its capacity to campaign, protest and innovate

• The sector’s role in providing a voice for the needs of offenders, who have become ‘one of the most despised groups in society’.”

12.5.1 The Survival of Rehabilitation pp 413-414

Gwen Robinson, in a recent paper, challenges the view that rehabilitation as a penal strategy is dead or irrelevant and considers the ways in which it has adapted to the modern penal context of England and Wales.
See: G. Robinson 'Late-modern rehabilitation: The evolution of a penal strategy', Punishment and Society Vol 10(4) October 2008, pp 429-46.