EFTA01882850.pdf

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology postnote May 2008 Number 308 ALTERNATIVES TO CUSTODIAL SENTENCING There has been considerable recent debate about Table 1 Sentences (England and Wa es, 1996 & 2006)' overcrowding in UK prisons. The system is struggling to Sentences Age accommodate the growing number of young offenders 10-17 18-20 21+ All ages Total 1996 74,507 152.298 1,198.472 1.425.277 being given custodial sentences. This POSTnote sets sentences 2006 93.806 142,694 1 176 440 1.412.940 out the scale of the problem and looks at recent trends Custodial 1996 6,497 14,750 64,002 85,249 in sentencing, with a particular focus on young sentences 2006 6,183 13,897 75,937 96,017 offenders. It examines the factors linked with offending Community 1996 25,123 22.752 84,762 132,637 sentences 2006 61,498 24,879 104,460 190,837 and asks whether better understanding of these can be Fines 1996 16,962 95,330 949,201 1,061,493 used to target early actions aimed at deterring young 2006 11,599 80,910 861,653 954,162 people from offending. Finally, the note examines Other 1996 139,114 measures 2006 134.281 alternatives to custodial sentencing and assesses how successful these have been in practice. the National Offenders Management Service (NOMS) on the 9th May 2008, the total population in custody (male Background and female) was 82,323.2 At the same time, NOMS Trends in sentencing estimates the total useable operational capacity of the Courts have a range of options open to them when UK prison estate to be 82,949. This is defined as the sentencing offenders (Table 1). These include: sum capacity of all establishments on the estate minus • Custodial sentences in prisons, detention centres, 1,700 places to make allowance for operating margins young offender institutions, secure training centres, or such as the need to provide separate housing for males secure children's homes. While the number of and females, different categories of prisoners, etc. offenders sentenced through the courts in England and Wales declined between 1996-06, the proportion A substantial proportion of those in custody are young given custodial sentences increased (from 5.9-6.8%). men: on 31/12/2007, the prison population comprised: • Community sentences. As detailed later, a wider • 2,188 15-17 year olds, 2,128 of whom were male; range of community sentences have been introduced • 9,220 18-20 years olds, 8,790 of whom were male; in the last few years. Since 1996, the overall number • 68,081 adults (21+), 64,242 of whom were male. of community sentences given by the courts has risen, The govemment has increased prison places by nearly particularly for young offenders aged 10-17 (Table 1). 20,000 since 1997 and has begun a new building • Fines and other measures (such as conditional or programme to deliver an additional 8,000 by 2012. absolute discharges or guardianship orders). The Lord Carter's Review of Prisons recommended in number and proportion of offenders given such December 2007 that a further 6,500 new places would sentences has declined since 1996. be needed by 2012? It also advised changes to sentencing legislation to encourage use of alternative The prison population remedies for some low risk offenders and offences, in line The rise in custodial sentencing has resulted in with the government's strategy for reserving custody for considerable pressure on the prison estate, which is the most serious and dangerous offenders. currently running very close to full capacity. According to EFTA_R1_00286817 EFTA01882850 postnote May 2008 Nemec, 308 Alternatives to custodial sentencing Page 2 Alternatives to custodial sentencing The Criminal Justice Act, the Courts Act and the Anti- Box 1 Community orders Social Behaviour Act were all passed in 2003. They The requirements in the generic community sentence can were designed to rebalance the criminal justice system in be applied to offenders age 16 and over in four main ways: favour of the victim and the community. As discussed • Community Rehabilitation Order (CR0) — between 6 below, the new system embraces a number of months and 3 years in length - may include approaches including restorative justice, community requirements such as residence, probation centre sentencing, and electronic monitoring. attendance or treatment for drug, alcohol or mental health problems. • Community Punishment Order (CPO) — unpaid work in Restorative justice the community of between 40 and 240 hours. Restorative justice aims to promote accountability • Community Punishment and Rehabilitation Order through reconciliation and reconnection to the (CPRO) — a combination of the above, with between 1 community. In practice it usually involves direct (face-to- and 3 years probation combined with between 40 and 100 hours community punishment. Like a CRO, it may face) or indirect (through a mediator) communication have additional requirements. between victims and offenders, but can also involve • Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DUO) - requires the financial restitution ordered by a court. A review' of regular testing of drug offenders and compulsory restorative justice in the UK and abroad showed that it: attendance at a specified drug treatment centre for 6 • Substantially reduced repeat offending for some, but months to 3 years. Under Me Community Payback scheme, local residents are not all, offences. In particular, restorative justice able to make suggestions and nominate work that they seemed to work best in reducing re-conviction rates for would like to see offenders carry out in their area. more serious crimes involving personal victims such as violence and, to a lesser extent, property crime. • Reduced re-conviction rates for some, but not all, • exclusion from certain areas (usually monitored offenders. In particular, restorative justice was more electronically); effective than prison in reducing re-conviction rates • residence requirement (such as an approved hostel); among adult offenders, and gave similar re-conviction • mental health treatment; rates as prison for young offenders. • drug treatment and testing; • Delivered benefits to the victims where the process • alcohol treatment; involved face-to-face conferences. Benefits included • supervision (by an offender manager from the reduced post-traumatic stress symptoms in the short- Probation Service); term, and possibly also longer-term health benefits. • attendance at a centre offering structured activities. • Delivered cost benefits when used as an alternative to conventional criminal justice, and in terms of reduced In May 2007, the Ministry of Justice's Penal Policy paper costs of healthcare for victims. outlined the Government's intention to develop higher intensity community orders as an alternative to short The Home Office funded three restorative justice schemes term custody (under 12 months). This approach is being from 2001 through its Crime Reduction Programme. developed initially in Derbyshire for implementation in These included the Connect scheme in Inner London, the March 2008. In January 2008, the Ministry of Justice Justice Research Consortium which operated at three announced an additional £13.9 million over the next sites (London, Thames Valley and Northumbria) and the three years for such projects (see Box 2 for details). Remedi scheme in South Yorkshire. These offered a range of direct and indirect mediation to offenders and victims. An evaluation of the schemes reported higher levels of satisfaction following direct mediation than with Box 2 Pilot on high intensity community orders indirect mediation.5 However, the report noted that The intensive community sentences pilot began in indirect mediation allowed those not wishing a direct Derbyshire in March 2008. The format of these orders includes a combination of unpaid work, electronic meeting with the other party to access restorative justice. monitoring, behaviour programmes, mentoting, and help with resettlement, all under intensive supervision. Overall, Community sentencing the projects funded will test two new approaches: As part of the reform of sentences brought about by the • Intensive Control Sentences: these might include Criminal Justice Act 2003, the generic community supervision, programme and activity requirements, plus other requirements as necessary, such as peer sentence was introduced in 2005. It is used as one of mentoring, judicial monitoring, engagement with the the four orders detailed in Box 1 and is designed to allow police and resettlement work. the sentence to be tailored to the offender/offence • Intensive Punitive Sentences: made up of unpaid work through one or more of the following 12 requirements: and curfew adapted to provide a short, intensive, • compulsory (unpaid) work on community projects; community punishment as an alternative to very short term custody (6 months and under). This could include • participation in specified activities, such as education a supervision requirement and involve a set number of or training; hours of physically demanding unpaid work combined • participation in Offending Behaviour Programmes; with supervision appointments and curfew restrictions to • prohibition from certain activities; last for 3.6 months. • electronic curfew; EFTA_R1_00296618 EFTA01882851  pastnote May 2008 Number 308 Alternatives to custodial sentencing Page 3 Electronic monitoring As well as being used as a condition of bail or to enable Box 3 Rainer's Rapid Action Project (RAP) early release from prison, electronic monitoring can also Rainer's RAP is an early intervention scheme that offers be imposed as a sentence following conviction for an support for young people whom the police have identified offence. Introduced nationally in 1999, community as being 'at risk' of offending or who have committed their orders using electronic monitoring require an offender to first minor offence. Outreach youth workers based in police stay at a particular address during specified times. stations take referrals: a key strength of the project is its usually overnight. Two types of electronic monitoring are early response and support for young people and their families. The project also has the capacity to signpost those currently available, both involve a 'tag' on the ankle: most at risk to specialist services/agencies in order to deal • radio frequency technology alerts a monitoring with any other problems contributing to offending company when offenders go 'out of range' (usually as behaviour. An internal evaluation revealed that 1% of young a result of leaving their house); people who engaged with the project went on to offend' • satellite tracking uses the GPS system to track an offender's whereabouts away from the home address. • are well structured, planned and monitored; A Home Office evaluation of electronic monitoring6 • stay true to the original programme (if the intervention showed that 80% of offenders successfully completed is based on a published model) while allowing their curfew orders but two year reconviction rates were flexibility to adapt an intervention to individual needs; fairly high, at 73% (compared with 66% for those • are designed to intervene across several contexts at serving custodial sentences)! once, which may mean involving people from different domains of the young person's life; Early intervention • are long-lasting and well resourced. The government has launched a number of initiatives in an attempt to tackle the underlying causes of offending ISSUES and to steer young offenders away from crime. These Effectiveness include a new youth justice system and initiatives such There is evidence from studies abroad that community as the Surestart scheme which aims to bring together approaches to sentencing can have positive outcomes. early education, healthcare and family support. A key In the UK, Ministry of Justice research shows that component of the youth justice system is the multi- participation in a group programme can reduce the agency Youth Offending Teams found in local authorities chances of reconviction for some offenders.1° An in England and Wales. These assess specific problems evaluation of adult offenders found that those sentenced that make a young person offend, and the risk an to a Community Punishment Order had the lowest re- offender poses to others, and identify suitable offending rate (40%) compared with those sentenced to interventions to address each young offender's needs prison (66%).7 A crude comparison of Community with the intention of preventing further offences. Punishment and/or Rehabilitation Orders and a comparison sample of those who received a lesser Social and psychological variables associated with sentence (i.e. no supervision from probation services)11 whether or not an individual becomes involved in revealed that those issued with a Community offending are well documented. They include: Punishment Order had a lower reconviction rate than • 'problematic' behaviours of childhood such as bullying those on Community Rehabilitation Orders. and aggressiveness; • 'teenage anti-social behaviours' such as substance Less evidence is available to assess which of the 12 use, sexual activity and gambling; requirements are likely to be most effective in achieving • problems at school; the desired sentence outcomes. A report on the • poor family relationships; supervision of community orders in England and Wales • economic and social factors such as poverty. by the National Audit Office (NAO) recommended that the Ministry of Justice "identify the degree to which the Where such factors are identified, it may be possible to twelve...requirements reduce reconvictions and achieve target those at highest risk of offending through early other sentencing outcomes". It suggested this might be interventions. These may include parental approaches, achieved through a longitudinal study assessing similar where parents are provided with support and advice, or groups of offenders given different types of sentences.12 family-based approaches, such as providing foster care treatment for young people with poor family Costs relationships. Young people with several risk factors may Community sentences are often regarded as a cost- need multi-pronged service provision. There is evidence effective alternative to custodial sentences. However, that such early interventions can be effective (see Box 3 this depends on two main factors. First, there is the cost for an example) in reducing anti-social behaviour and of administering community sentences compared with offending and truancy rates. In general, interventions are the costs of alternatives such as custodial sentences. most effective when they:8 Estimates suggest that the average annual cost per young • match the specific needs of the young person; adult prisoner is over £34,000.13 While the average cost • are targeted to changing specific behaviours and of community sentences is likely to be lower than this, include training in social skills and problem solving; the actual cost of a sentence will vary depending on the EFTA_R1_00296619 EFTA01882852 postnote May 2008 Number 308 Alternatives to custodial sentencing Page requirements it contains. The NA0 has recommended programmes, which means that much of the evidence that the Ministry of Justice should determine the full cost base for UK policy comes from evaluations of North of implementing different types of community orders.' 2 American interventions. Second, there is the value that community sentences add to communities. For instance, in 2007, more than 6 Young adult offenders million hours of compulsory unpaid work were carried out Young men make up a significant proportion of the in communities in England and Wales by offenders who prisoner population; a quarter of all sentenced and un- received a community order. This is estimated to have sentenced receptions to prison are under twenty-one benefited communities by around £33 million. years of age. However, 18-21 year-old prisoners have been described as "a lost generation"" in terms of policy Availability of requirements focus. While recent initiatives and policy developments In its report on the supervision of community orders in such as the Youth Justice Board, Surestart, Child Trust England and Wales'', the NAO concluded that some Funds, Connexions, and Youth Offending Teams target community order requirements are not available, or are the under 18s, resources are less readily available to rarely used, in some areas. In particular, it noted that young people who have passed their 1r birthday. there were long waiting lists for some requirements, such as group programmes dealing with domestic violence. A The wider perspective recent survey by the National Association of Probation This note has focused on the effectiveness of the main Officers also highlighted problems with availability of alternatives to custody for young people. However, there treatment courses used as part of community penalties." is a wider range of issues associated with housing, The NAO has recommended that the Ministry of Justice poverty, and education that are beyond the scope of this work with the Department of Health and other agencies note, but that are important factors in any consideration to increase the provision of mental health and alcohol of the reduction of offending by young people. treatments across all areas. Completion of community orders I vinvtvjustice.gov.uk/docs/populabon-in-custody-dec07.pdf Data on the completion of order requirements are not 2 www.hmprisonservice.gov.uldassets/documents/100039760 routinely compiled. A case file review conducted by the 9052008web_report.doc NA0 suggested that around 6% of offenders were unable 3 www.justice.gov.uk/docs/securing-the-future.pdf 4 www.srnith-institute.org.uk/pdfs/RJ_full_report.pdf to complete an order requirement before their order 5 votew.justice.gov.uk/docsrRestorative-Justice.pdf ended. The NA0 recommended that the Ministry of 6 Sugg D et al, Findings 141.2001 London: Home Office. Justice should require all Probation Areas to report the 7 Shepherd A & Whiting E. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 20/06 percentage of community orders which end before S Adolescence and Antisocial Behaviour. APSA Practitioner Briefing sentence requirements are completed along with the No.1, July 2006 reasons for the non-completion. Reasons might include 9 Howard League for Penal Reform (2008). The Community a breach of the order by the offender, revocation of an Programmes Handbook. London: Howard League for Penal Reform. order by a court or lack of probation capacity to deliver 10 Research Development Statistics NOMS, Reconviction Analysis of the requirement. Interim Accredited Programmes Software, September 2007 11 Using Reconviction Data to Explore the Usefulness of Community Public perception Penalties in West Yorkshire, West Yorkshire Probation Service, 2005 There is some evidence to suggest that the public may 12 The supervision of community orders in England and Wales. NAO, perceive community sentences as being too lenient. The 2007 Lord Chief Justice contrasted such perceptions with the 13 HM Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts 2005.2006. realities of the criminal justice system in a speech in May London: The Stationary Office 2006.79 He stressed that community sentences were not 14 swrw.napo.org.uk/cgi-bin/dbmanklb.cgi?db=defaultguid= used for offenders committing serious crimes or those default&ID=1808viewrecords= 18ww=1 who pose a threat to society. Furthermore, he noted that 15 ummi.judiciary.gov.uk/publicationsmedia/speeches/2006/ community sentences provide a visible demonstration of sp10056.htm reparation to the community in which the offence took 16 Friendship C et al, Legal & Criminological Psychology 8, I. 115- place and that the community is able to influence and to 127.2003 understand the nature and type of sentence performed. 17 Solomon E, A Lost Generation: The Experiences of Young People in Prison. The Prison Reform Trust, London 2004 Research issues The relationship between type of sentence and re- POST IS an office d both Weise of Parliament, charged with prowling offending rates is complex. There is a need for further independent and balanced analysis of public policy issues that have a basis in research on the impact and effectiveness of alternatives science and technology. to prison, along with consideration of why, and under POST is grateful to Rosie Meek for researching this briefing, to the British PaYMMICIpeal Society fa funding her parliamentary fellowship. and to all what circumstances, community sentences work. It has contributors and reviewers. For further information on the subject. please contact been argued that there has been an over-reliance on the co-author, Peter Rader, at POST. reconviction data and that reconviction needs to be Parliamentary Copyright 2008 The Parliamentary Office Of Science and Technology, 7 Milbank, London, considered in relation to other life-style or risk factors." Swl P 3JA; Tel, 020 7219 2840; email: [email protected] There has also been a lack of rigorous evaluation of UK www.parliament.uWparliamentary_offIces/post/pubs2008.dm EFTA_R1_00296620 EFTA01882853