Evidence Digest
June 2009
Impact through insight
Offender Management
S and Sentencing
M
O Analytical Services
OMSAS: driving evidence-based
strategy, policy and delivery
Contents
Page
Introduction
5
What’s new in this edition
7
Additional information
8
Remand decisions
9
Sentencing
10
Trends in numbers sentenced and use of disposals including criminal history
10
Key points – July to September 2008
10
All courts
10
Magistrates’ courts
11
Crown Court
11
Criminal histories
11
First-time offenders
12
Third-time burglars
12
Knife crime
14
Compliance with sentencing guidelines/Factors influencing sentencing
14
Purposes of sentencing
16
Offender Management
19
Pre-Sentence Reports (PSRs) trends
19
Offender management model including caseload by tier
20
Terminations
23
Risk assessment
24
Integrated Offender Management
27
Effectiveness
28
Fines
29
Trends in use of fines
29
Fines enforcement and Fine Payment Pilots
31
Restorative Justice
33
Probation Supervision
35
Local adult re-offending
35
Trends in Community Orders, Suspended Sentence Orders
36
Starts
36
Caseload
36
Criminal histories of offenders on the caseload at the end of 2007
37
Trends in pre- and post-release supervision (starts, caseload)
37
Supervision of high risk offenders
39
Prolific and other priority offenders
42
Adult re-offending
44
2
Prison
45
Trends in prison receptions and population
45
Prison receptions
45
Prison population
47
Criminal histories of offenders on the prison caseload at the end of June 2007 48
Discharges and recalls
48
Adult re-offending
50
Effectiveness
51
Re-offending
52
Adult re-offending
52
Juvenile re-offending
54
Effectiveness
56
Education, training and employment (ETE)
57
Drugs and alcohol
57
Accommodation
60
Family-based interventions
60
Interventions for violent offenders/anger management
60
Domestic violence interventions
60
Programmes for sex offenders
61
Mentoring
61
Interventions aimed at women
61
Interventions aimed at juveniles
61
Interventions causing harm
62
Diversity
63
Juveniles
63
Effectiveness
63
Juveniles in custody
64
Women
64
Research evidence
65
Ethnicity, religion and nationality
68
Trends in numbers relating to the ethnicity and faith of prisoners
68
Ethnicity
68
Religion
68
Nationality
69
Public perceptions
70
International comparisons
72
Prison population
72
Re-offending
75
Future challenges
76
Prison population projections
76
Major new influences on the prison population
77
3
List of figures
Figure 1: NOMM Tiering Framework and Sentence Modalities
21
Figure 2: Receptions of prisoners on indeterminate sentences, 1997 to 2007
46
Figure 3: Long-term trend in prison population
47
List of tables
Table 1: Use of Fast Delivery PSRs
19
Table 2: Persons supervised by the Probation Service by supervision tier
and sex, 2007
22
Table 3: The proportion of fines given in 1997 and 2007 for indictable
offence types
29
Table 4: Average fine amounts (£) at all courts, by offence
30
Table 5: Fine defaulters as a percentage of all sentenced prison receptions
31
Table 6: Re-offending rates for offenders commencing a court order
under probation supervision (England and Wales)
44
Table 7: Re-offending rates for offenders discharged from prison
(England and Wales)
50
Table 8: Adult re-offending rates (England and Wales)
52
Table 9: Juvenile re-offending rates (England and Wales)
54
Table 10: Prison population in EU and main OECD countries, 2007
73
Table 11: Prison population in EU countries, per 1,000 recorded crimes, 2006
74
Table 12: Projected prison population (end June figures)
76
4
INTRODUCTION
Offender Management and Sentencing Analytical Services (OMSAS) aims to provide
insightful, consistent, quality assured intelligence on business issues through building
the evidence base to support the delivery of DSO 3: Protecting the public and reducing
re-offending and PSA 23: Safer communities. The evidence also has a bearing on areas
relevant to DSO 4: Effective, transparent and responsive CJS for victims and the public
supporting PSA 24: CJS for victims and the public.
This Digest brings together the evidence currently available to OMSAS on court decisions;
offender management; re-offending and public protection. It aims to assist policy makers and
practitioners as a quick reference guide to base their policy/intervention designs and delivery
plans/implementation on an evidence base.
We are continually improving the evidence base through our own work, linking with analysts
across the Ministry of Justice and other government departments, as well as the external
research community. Research projects go through rigorous quality assurance processes
such as MoJ Research Quality Assurance (RQA). We also have a capacity building
workstream that aims to build effective links for constructive engagement with our wider
stakeholder community including delivery practitioners and academic researchers.
There are a number of analytical projects currently underway that will build the evidence
base in the short to medium term. These include:
●
Three major cohort studies (one researching prisoners, one on offenders under
community supervision, and one on juveniles). The cohort studies are designed to
provide evidence about which interventions are effective in reducing re-offending for
offenders with different needs and characteristics.
●
A unit cost study aimed at supporting the cohort studies in generating unit cost data on
activities and interventions. This will support further cost effectiveness and cost-benefit
evaluations based on the findings from the cohort studies.
●
Developing the analytical framework to appraise how CJG/NOMS manages offenders
within current resources to achieve maximum improvement to public value (outcomes,
services and trust).
●
Developing our understanding of the relative cost of criminal careers for all offenders,
including: previous criminal careers; what costs different offenders are expected to
generate in the future; and to establish which factors are indicative of different future
cost trajectories. This will help NOMS determine more accurately those offenders
5
who represent “high value” investments and “low value” investments in offender
management.
●
Modelling approaches to assess the effectiveness of different sentences, where all the
necessary data for conventional modelling is not available.
●
Analysis of re-offending rates and criminal histories of offenders given cautions and
penalty notices for disorder to increase our understanding of the impact of these
disposals.
●
Cross government data matching to link MoJ data with other government departments’
databases to develop a holistic understanding of employment/income, health and
educational attainment of offenders with a view to gaining a better understanding of
factors that have an impact on re-offending.
Upcoming versions of this document will highlight the latest evidence gathered from these
projects. For further information on the evidence that OMSAS produce please contact the
Head of OMSAS, Dr Chloë Chitty ([email address]).
6
WHAT’S NEW IN THIS EDITION
Page
Remand decisions
Updated statistics: Remand
9
Diversity
Updated statistics: Prison
65
Effectiveness
Publication of research into Enhanced Thinking
Skills (ETS) programme
57
Fines
Updated statistics: Fine enforcement and fine
payment pilots - fine defaulters in prison
31
Juveniles in custody
Updated statistics
64
Local adult re-offending
New section added
35
Offender Management:
Updated statistics: Pre-sentence report trends
19
Termination
23
Probation supervision
Updated statistics
35
Prison
Updated statistics: Trends
45
Sentencing
Updated statistics: Trends
10
Criminal histories: New section
11
Knife crime: New section
13
7
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Prior to the publication of this Evidence Digest more recent data has been published
which we were unable to include in the main document. This is listed below.
Re-offending
Local adult re-offending 1 January 2008 – 31 December 2008 published 14 May 2009
http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications//local-adult-reoffending.htm
Re-offending of adults: results from the 2007 cohort published 21 May 2009
http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/reoffendingofadults.htm
Re-offending of juveniles: results from the 2007 cohort published 21 May 2009
http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/reoffendingjuveniles.htm
Probation
Probation statistics quarterly brief October to December 2008 England and Wales published
30 April 2009
http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/probationquarterly.htm
Prison
Population in custody monthly tables February to April 2009 England and Wales
http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/populationincustody.htm
End of Custody Licence releases and recalls April 2009 England and Wales published on 29
May 2009
http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/endofcustodylicence.htm
8
REMAND DECISIONS
In 2007, a total of 52,000 persons were remanded in custody by magistrates, three per
cent of all those proceeded against at magistrates’ courts. The figure has fallen steadily since
1999 when there were 98,000 (five per cent of all proceeded against).1
Almost a third (32%) of those committed for trial to the Crown Court in 2007 were
remanded in custody, either at the point of committal or subsequently. This proportion has
been around 30 to 31 per cent in each year from 2001–2006, although it had previously been
lower (25 per cent in 1996 and 1997).2
In 2007 just over half (52%) of those remanded in custody before trial at either
magistrates’ courts or the Crown Court were sentenced to custody; a further 12 per
cent received a community sentence and 15 per cent were acquitted or not proceeded with.3
Over recent months the use of tagging on bail for adults has increased, with 4,724 new
starts in the three months from June to August 2008 compared with 3,744 over the same
period in 2007.
4
Similarly, the caseload of adults tagged on bail has increased by 40% over the last
year, up to 2,735 at the end of August 2008 (compared to 1,955 at the end of August
2007).5
At 29 September 2008, 1,902 defendants or offenders had been released into the
Bail Accommodation and Support Service. By that date, 904 of those released had
successfully completed their periods of bail or Home Detention Curfew (HDC) (including 103
defendants who received a custodial sentence); 670 had breached; 328 remained in the
service.
1 Ministry of Justice and Office for Criminal Justice Reform (2008), Statistics Bulletin: Criminal Statistics:
England and Wales 2007, London: Ministry of Justice
2
ibid.
3
ibid.
4 Monthly tagging starts data
.
5 Monthly tagging caseload data.
9
SENTENCING
Trends in numbers sentenced and use of disposals including
criminal history Key points – July to September 20086
All key points highlighted below are for indictable offences and are comparisons with the third
quarter of 2007.
All courts
●
The number of persons sentenced was 77,700 which was a fall of 0.6 per cent on the
same quarter in 2007. There was a 10.0 per cent increase in the numbers sentenced at
the Crown Court and a fall of 4.0 per cent at magistrates’ courts. The number of male
offenders sentenced fell by 0.2 per cent and female offenders by 2.6 per cent.
●
The number of persons sentenced aged 21 and over was 56,400, a rise of 4.0 per cent
on the same quarter in 2007. For other age groups the numbers sentenced fell, juveniles
by 10.8 per cent and young adults by 11.2 per cent.
●
The number of persons sentenced to immediate custody was 19,700, an increase of 4.8
per cent on the same quarter in 2007. The custody rate for indictable offences was 25.3
per cent. This was a rise of 1.3 percentage points on 2007.
●
The average custodial sentence length for all indictable offences was 16.3 months,
excluding the growing number of life/indeterminate sentences. This was a rise of 1.3
months from 2007 and the highest figure recorded since the third quarter of 2006.
●
The number of persons sentenced to a Suspended Sentence Order (SSO) was 6,800,
a fall of 1.2 per cent on the same quarter in 2007. The use of SSOs changed in this and
the preceding quarter – there was a 15.7 per cent fall in their use at magistrates’ courts
while at the Crown Court their use rose by 10.7 per cent to 4,200.
●
There were increases in the numbers sentenced for sexual offences, burglary, robbery,
theft and handling of stolen goods and drug offences. The biggest increase was for drug
offences, up 20.2 per cent.
●
The biggest decreases were for fraud and forgery, down 25.7 per cent, criminal damage,
down 22.4 per cent, and indictable motoring offences, down 17.4 per cent.
6 Ministry of Justice (2009), Statistics Bulletin: Sentencing statistics quarterly brief July to September 2008,
England and Wales, London: Ministry of Justice.
10
Magistrates’ courts
●
There were 56,700 persons sentenced at magistrates’ courts. This was a fall of 4.0 per
cent on the same period in 2007.
●
The immediate custody rate was virtually unchanged at 13.5 per cent. The suspended
sentence rate fell from 5.3 to 4.6 per cent, the use of fines rose from 19.9 to 21.7 per
cent, while the community sentence rate fell from 38.9 per cent to 37.3 per cent.
●
The average custodial sentence length fell from 2.9 to 2.6 months.
Crown Court
●
There were 21,100 persons sentenced at the Crown Court, an increase of 10.0 per cent.
●
There was an increase in the immediate custody rate up from 56.4 to 57.3 per cent.
●
The suspended sentence rate rose slightly to 19.9 per cent.
●
There was a decrease in the fine rate, down to 1.6 per cent.
●
The community sentence rate fell by 0.5 percentage points to 16.6 per cent.
●
The average custodial sentence length rose from 24.4 months to 25.3 months.
Criminal histories7
●
Of all sentences given for indictable offences, the proportion given to offenders with 15
or more previous convictions or cautions rose steadily from 17 per cent in 2000 to 25 per
cent in 2007.
●
Older offenders tend to have more previous convictions and cautions than younger
offenders. For example, amongst those offenders with only one or two previous
sanctions, juveniles made up the largest proportion in 2007 (33%) whereas offenders
with 15 or more sanctions were most frequent amongst the 25-to-29-year-old age group
(21%).
●
Criminal history varies with the type of offence. In 2007, only five per cent of those
convicted of burglary; seven per cent of those convicted of theft and handling stolen
goods; and eight per cent of those with drugs offences were first-time offenders. This
compared with 36 per cent of those convicted of sexual offences and 40 per cent of
those convicted of fraud and forgery.
7 Ministry of Justice (2008), Statistics Bulletin: Sentencing Statistics 2007, England and Wales, London:
Ministry of Justice
11
●
Those offenders with a substantial previous criminal history are most likely to receive
a custodial sentence. In 2007, 40 per cent of offenders with 15 or more previous
convictions or cautions received a custodial sentence compared with 14 per cent for
those with only one or two previous sanctions.
●
In 2007, seven per cent of juveniles receiving a custodial sentence had no previous
criminal history recorded on the Police National Computer (PNC), compared with 12 per
cent for adult offenders. For both age groups the proportion of custodial sentences given
to offenders with 15 or more previous sanctions has risen steadily since 2000.
First-time offenders
●
For juveniles with no previous convictions or cautions sentenced in 2007 more than
half had committed violence, theft or robbery; the proportion sentenced for robbery rose
steadily from eight per cent in 2000 to 18 per cent in 2007. For adults, the most frequent
first offences involved violence, theft or fraud and forgery.
Third-time burglars
●
PNC data enable us to identify 581 third-time burglars in 2007 and 491 of these (85%)
were given a custodial sentence. Where a custodial sentence was given in 2007 about a
quarter received a sentence of three years or more.
12
SENTENCING
Knife crime8
Statistics published by the Ministry of Justice in the first quarterly knife crime sentencing
bulletin (on Thursday 12 March 2009) showed that:
●
More offenders were sent to jail (23%): the number of offences resulting in immediate
custody rose from 1,125 in the last quarter of 2007 to 1,386 in the same period of 2008.
On average there was a 40 per cent increase in the number of prisoners serving a
sentence for possession of an offensive weapon between the same periods.
●
Fewer cautions were issued: the number fell by 31 per cent over the same period (1,706
in the last quarter of 2008 compared with 2,455 in the same period of 2007).
●
There was more use of tougher community sentences: the number of offences resulting
in community sentences rose by 16 per cent (from 1,861 in the last quarter of 2007 to
2,151 in the same period of 2007).
●
Sentences were longer: the average immediate custodial sentence rose by 38 per cent
(from 133 days in the last quarter of 2007 to 184 days in the same period of 2008)
The proportion of all possession offences resulting in immediate custody rose to 21 per cent
in the last quarter of 2008 from 17 per cent in the same period of 2007. The proportion of
offences resulting in a caution decreased from 36 per cent in the last quarter of 2007 to 25
per cent in the last quarter of 2008.
The statistics also show a decline in the total number of offences involving possession of
a knife or other offensive weapon (6,704 offences were dealt with between October and
December last year, compared to 6,808 in the same period of 2007).
8 Ministry of Justice (2009), Statistics Bulletin: Knife Crime Sentencing Quarterly Brief October to December
2008, England and Wales, London: Ministry of Justice
13
SENTENCING
Compliance with sentencing guidelines/Factors influencing
sentencing
The Sentencing Commission Working Group recently commissioned and published a
Sentencing Survey9 exploring the feasibility and practicalities of capturing information on
factors that influence sentence outcomes. The survey comprised a one-month data col ection
exercise in ten Crown Court centres. Sentencers were asked to provide information on the factors
associated with sentencing four offence categories: assault, sexual assault, robbery and burglary.
Conclusions on sentencing on a national scale cannot be drawn from these results due to the
non-random sample. However, the survey successful y captured the key factors that influenced
sentencing decisions for the courts and offences surveyed. It demonstrated that this type of data
col ection is possible and provided a model for col ecting information more widely.
The survey provided some insight into how sentencers consider previous convictions
in relation to sentencing decisions. Sixty-six per cent (n=198) of offenders in the survey
had previous convictions relevant to the offence being sentenced. Of these, around half were
said to have aggravated the sentence. An escalating pattern of offending was commonly
associated with upward movement (a more stringent sentence than that recommended)
from the sentence starting point recommended in the guidelines. Previous convictions were
discounted as being relevant to the sentencing decisions in 21 per cent of cases. The most
commonly cited reason for this was lack of relevance to the offence being sentenced.
The survey provided some insight into the use and application of aggravating and
mitigating factors. It found that relatively few aggravating and mitigating factors (including
personal mitigation) were commonly cited. The most commonly cited factor was not necessarily
key in influencing movement from the sentence starting point recommended in the guidelines.
The survey provided insight into the factors commonly associated with sentences
that fall outside the guideline ranges for the level of offence seriousness described
in Sentencing Guideline Council (SGC) guidelines. In 46 per cent of cases where SGC
guidance had been issued, sentencers imposed a sentence outside the guideline ranges
for the level of offence seriousness described (sentences that fall outside the range do
not necessarily constitute departures from the guidelines). There was some inconsistency
in sentencers’ interpretation of the guidance on the use of Suspended Sentence Orders
(SSOs). Thirty-one of the 61 SSOs (49%) given for all offences were above the range, while
nine (15%) were below the range.
9 Harris, J., Mason, T., Moreton, K. and de Silva, N. (2008)
Sentencing Commission Working Group: Crown
Court Sentencing Survey. Addendum to ‘Sentencing Guidelines in England and Wales: An Evolutionary
Approach’. Available online at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/crown-court-sentencing-survey.pdf
14
In order to understand better how sentencing guidelines are applied, it is necessary to
monitor a wider range of sentencing factors (e.g. time served on remand, the application
of the totality principle, previous convictions, personal mitigation, and other aggravating and
mitigating factors).
The survey results provided a basis for further work on sentencing decisions. This
included the provision of guidance to sentencers on aggravating and mitigating factors; the
need to have a shared understanding amongst sentencers, the SGC and data analysts of
when a sentence can be imposed outside the ranges for the levels of offence seriousness
described in SGC guidelines; and the need for clear guidance from the SGC on the use of
SSOs.
15
SENTENCING
Purposes of sentencing
There are five purposes of sentencing
(a) the punishment of offenders;
(b) the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence);
(c) the reform and rehabilitation of offenders;
(d) the protection of the public; and
(e) the making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences.
[Section 142, Criminal Justice Act 2003]
There is a range of evidence on the effectiveness of each of these purposes. However, some
of the purposes (e.g. punishment) are more difficult to quantify and measure in terms of
effectiveness than others (e.g. rehabilitation).
There are a range of rehabilitative interventions/programmes for offenders (including
Offending Behaviour Programmes, education and employment). There is some good
evidence showing that offending behaviour programmes for general offenders10,11,12,13,14
anger management/ violence reduction programmes15; sex offender programmes16,17,18,19;
and some drugs interventions20 are effective in reducing reconvictions. There is promising
evidence (mainly international) about resettlement programmes such as education and
employment21,22. There is a lack of evidence about other key needs, e.g. lifestyles and
10 Landenberger, N. A. and Lipsey, M.W. (2005) ‘The Positive Effects of Cognitive-Behavioural Programs for
Offenders: A Meta-Analysis of Factors Associated with Effective Treatment.’
Journal of Experimental Criminology.
Wilson, D. B., Bouffard, L. A. and MacKenzie, D. L. (2005) ‘A quantitative review of structured, group-orientated,
cognitive-behavioural programs for offenders’.
Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 32(2), 172-204.
11 McGuire, J. (2002). ‘Criminal Sanctions Versus Psychologically-Based Interventions with Offenders: A
Comparative Empirical Analysis’.
Psychology, Crime and Law, 8, 183-208.
12 Pearson, F. S., Lipton, D. S., Cleland, C. M. and Yee, D. S. (2002) ‘The effects of behavioural/cognitive-
behavioural programs on recidivism’.
Crime and Delinquency, 48 (3) 476-496.
13 Lipton, D. S., Pearson, F. S., Cleland, C. and Yee, D. (1998) How do
Cognitive-behavioural Programmes
for offenders compare with other modalities: A meta-analytic perspective. Presented at the Stop and Think
conference 9-11 March 1998. York: UK.
14 Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2006)
Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works
and What Does Not. –Washington State Institute for Public Policy. [Available online at: www.wsipp.wa.gov].
15 Jol if e, D. and Farrington, D. (2007) -
A systematic review of the national and international evidence on the effectiveness
of interventions with violent offenders. Ministry of Justice Research Series 16/07. London: Ministry of Justice.
16 Lösel, F. and Schmucker, M. (2005) ‘The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: A comprehensive
meta-analysis’.
Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 117-146.
17 Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2006)
Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works
and What Does Not. –Washington State Institute for Public Policy. [Available online at: www.wsipp.wa.gov]
18 Friendship, C., Mann, R. E. and Beech, A. R. (2003) Evaluation of a National Prison-Based Treatment
Program for Sexual Offenders in England and Wales.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(7), 744-759.
19 Wilson, R. J., Picheca, J. E. and Prinzo, M. (2007) ‘Evaluating the Effectiveness of Professionally-
Facilitated Volunteerism in the Community-Based Management of High-Risk Sexual Offenders: Part Two – A
Comparison of Recidivism Rates’.
The Howard Journal Vol 46(4) 327-337
20 Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2006) Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs:
What Works
and What Does Not. –Washington State Institute for Public Policy. [Available online at: www.wsipp.wa.gov]
21 Stewart, D. (2005)
An evaluation of basic skills training for prisoners. Home Office Research Findings 260.
London: Home Office.
22 Hurry, J., Brazier L., Parker M. and Wilson A. (2006)
Rapid evidence assessment of interventions that
promote employment for offenders. London: Department for Education and Skills.
16
associates, alcohol misuse and the impact of offender management (however, there is a
programme of research in OMSAS to build this knowledge). There is also evidence that
some interventions (e.g. Scared Straight23) do not work.
There is partial evidence24 on the effect of deterrence on reducing crime. There is good
UK evidence that visible policing has a deterrence effect25. For offence types that have low
detection rates, increasing the likelihood of prosecution or increasing the use of custody for
cases convicted are likely to be ineffectual and costly.
‘Public protection’ includes the incapacitating effect of imprisonment. Analysis of criminal
careers26 shows that the primary benefits of public protection/incapacitation are the delay
in the resumption of an offending career and a curtailment in the length of an offending
career for persistent offenders. Benefits of incapacitation increase for more harmful offenders
and with increased sentence length. Short sentences can generate additional cost (over and
above community sentences) and offer little benefit in terms of the incapacitation of offenders.
Short sentences also potential y involve an opportunity cost as they prevent offenders from
accessing interventions. The public protection benefits of indeterminate sentences are likely to be
highly variable and, on public protection grounds, may not necessarily justify the costs of lengthier
periods in prison. Further work is needed examining the incapacitation impact of community
public protection initiatives such as Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA).
Analysis of incapacitation suggests that punishment is likely to be the only source of
‘added value’ from a short period of imprisonment. Punishment could be considered as
custody, unpaid work and fines. There is a lack of evidence on the value of fines and unpaid
work as a means of punishment. Punishment will depend on individual circumstances; for
example, fines are more of a punishment to offenders who are less well off financially, and
unpaid work is more of a punishment for offenders who have limited time.
Reparation involves making amends to victims or the community. There is some
evidence on the effectiveness of reparation. For example, restorative justice has proven
itself as a way of increasing victim satisfaction with the criminal justice process. It may also
help to reduce re-offending27,28. Unpaid work is likely to have a reparatory effect for the
community but further work will be required to measure this.
23 Petrosino A., Turpin-Petrosino, C. and Buehler, J. (2003) “‘Scared Straight’ and other juvenile awareness programs
for preventing juvenile delinquency” (Updated C2 Review). In:
The Campbel Col aboration Reviews of Intervention
and Policy Evaluations (C2-RIPE), November, 2003. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Campbel Col aboration.
24 E.g. Von Hirsh
et al., (1999); Doob and Webster (2003); Farrington
et al., (1994); Healey (2007) unpublished
analysis of police effectiveness.
25 E.g. Von Hirsh
et al., (1999); Doob and Webster (2003); Farrington
et al., (1994); Healey (2007) unpublished
analysis of police effectiveness.
26 OMS Analytical Services analysis of costs of criminal careers and sentence length.
27 Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Chapman, B., Dignan, J., Howes, M., Johnstone, J., Robinson,
G. and Sorsby, A. (2007)
Restorative justice: the views of victims and offenders: the third report from the
evaluation of three schemes. Ministry of Justice Research Series 3/07.
28 Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Dignan, J., Edwards, L., Hibbert, J., Howes, M., Johnstone,
J., Robinson, G. and Sorsby, A.
Does restorative justice affect reconviction? The fourth report from the
evaluation of three schemes. Ministry of Justice Research Series 10/08.
17
Future work is underway to measure public preferences over a range of sentencing
disposals and criminal justice outcomes.
There is a wide evidence base on public attitudes towards the criminal justice system and
sentencing (for example, the public often express a desire for longer sentences and more
prison places etc.). However, this study seeks to examine:
●
the specific elements/variables that drive public preferences (understanding the extent
to which preferences for different criminal justice disposals are dependent on the nature
of the offence, the characteristics of the offender, the characteristics of the victim, the
level of information given on the costs and effectiveness of each disposal option, and the
characteristics and attitudes of the respondent);
●
the extent to which the public are prepared to make trade-offs with respect to the
multiple purposes of sentencing (for example, reduced re-offending through effective
rehabilitation, deterrence or incapacitation, punishment of offenders, reparation to
victims and the community and delivery outcomes that are viewed as fair and just); and
●
the amount the public are willing to pay for different disposals (when considering
different combinations of the variables listed above).
18
OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
Pre-Sentence Reports (PSRs) trends29
The total number of court reports30 written by the Probation Service in 2007 was
215,360, fewer than the number written in 1997 (228,400). Since 2003 the number of
reports written has been steadily increasing.
Fast Delivery PSRs31 were introduced in 2000 and their use has increased year on year.
Table 1:
Use of Fast Delivery PSRs
Report type
Year
All court reports
All PSRs
Fast Delivery PSRs
1997
228,402
228,402
-
1998
236,828
236,828
-
1999
237,456
237,456
-
2000
219,952
204,981
14,971
2001
213,431
191,622
21,809
2002
213,768
185,275
28,493
2003
201,871
163,265
38,606
2004
204,821
161,525
43,296
2005(1)
189,600
142,997
46,603
2006
209,525
154,250
55,275
2007
215,358
147,016
68,342
(1)
In 2005 there was a drop in the number of court reports recorded due to a change in the data
collection method.
In the latest quarter of data available the number of written Standard Delivery Pre-
Sentence Reports (PSRs) has fallen. In quarter three of 2008 the number of Standard PSRs
produced dropped by 8 per cent compared to the third quarter of the previous year. However,
the number of Fast Delivery PSRs (both written and oral) increased overal by 16 per cent.
The proportion of Fast Delivery PSRs from the combined total of Fast Delivery and
Standard PSRs has increased. In the third quarter of 2008 it was 38 per cent compared
with 33 per cent in quarter three of 2007.
The level of concordance between sentences given and proposed for the 12 months
ending September 2008 was highest for custodial sentences at 87 per cent, compared to
71 per cent for community sentences and 53 per cent for Suspended Sentence Orders.
29 Ministry of Justice (2008), Statistics Bulletin: Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2007, England and
Wales, London: Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice (2009), Statistics Bulletin: Probation statistics quarterly
brief July to September 2008, England and Wales, London: Ministry of Justice
30 Includes Standard and Fast Delivery (both written and oral) pre-sentence reports, court review and deferred
sentence reports.
31 These were known as specific sentence reports until April 2005 when the CJA 2003 Act introduced revised
definitions of pre -sentence reports.
19
OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
Offender management model including caseload by tier
Offender Management Model
The National Offender Management Model (NOMM) is consistent with the best
available evidence on what works in reducing re-offending. It draws on learning from the
North West Offender Management Pathfinder. The Offender Management Community Cohort
Study will provide further evidence of how offender management works in practice and
OMSAS is providing further advice to NOMS as necessary on work on the NOMM.
The evidence surrounding what works in offender supervision broadly supports what
is proposed in the NOMM. Further research is required to assess how far supervision
practices can reduce re-offending. However, the strongest evidence available shows that the
following principles of offender supervision are effective in reducing re-offending or changing
offending behaviour, all of which are features of the NOMM.
●
Resources should follow risk32 the evidence suggests that we should focus efforts on
those offenders who are at medium-high risk of re-offending.
●
Supervisory practices should incorporate elements of pro-social modelling where the offender is actively engaged in the sentence and is motivated, supported and
encouraged to change their offending behaviour.33
●
The relationship between the offender and offender manager is critical, with
consistent supervision promoting a trusting working relationship.34,35,36,37,38
32 Although note that the criminal careers analysis focuses on enabling the system to determine more accurately
those offenders who represent:
“High value” investments in offender management – i.e. high future cost trajectories and responsiveness to
intervention – higher social returns from intervention;
“Low value” investments – e.g. unresponsive to change, those on a trajectory towards or on the cusp of
natural desistence – lower social returns from intervention.
33 Brown, I. (1999)
Effective one-to-one supervision. Produced for West Yorkshire Probation Service:
Unpublished research.
34 Barry, M. (2000)
The Mentor/Monitor Debate in Criminal Justice: ‘What Works’ for Offenders. British Journal
of Social Work, 30, 575-595.
35 Burke, L., Mair, G. and Ragonesse, E. (2006)
An evaluation of service provision for short-term and remand
prisoners with drug problems. Probation Journal, 53 (2), 109-123.
36 Underdown, A. and Ellis, T. (1998)
Strategies for Effective Offender Supervision. London: Home Office.
37 Partridge, S. (Ed.) (2004). Examining case management models for community sentences. London: Home
Office.
38 Coker, J. B. and Martin, J. P. (1985) Licensed to Live. Oxford: Blackwell. In: J. Winstone and F. Pakes (Eds.)
(2005)
Community Justice: Issues for Probation and Criminal Justice, p.16-32.
20
●
Supervision and referrals to other agencies for interventions should vary
according to the assessed risk levels and needs of the offender.39 40 41 42
●
Referrals to partner agencies can benefit offenders with multiple needs and
offenders who would otherwise not have received community supervision. However, the
evidence is mixed and some negative as well as positive aspects were identified.43 44
●
A four tier framework guides decisions about allocation of resources under the
offender management model, see Figure 1 below. Al sentences for convicted offenders
include an element of ‘punishment’. Offenders convicted of less serious offences and
those deemed to be at low risk of re-offending and low risk of harm to others are likely
to be categorised as tier 1. This attracts straightforward punishment sentences such as
fines, curfew and unpaid work. OASys assessments are not general y completed for these
offenders. Tier 2 offenders are likely to be those offenders who meet the less serious and
risk criteria but need help to reduce their risk of re-offending – for example, help with health
problems, accommodation, employment and learning skil s. Tier 3 and tier 4 offenders
are typical y those convicted of more serious offences. (It should be noted that sentencer
discretion affects this: for example someone who is low risk and has low needs could be
given a sentence associated with a higher tier, depending on the circumstances of the case.)
Figure 1: NOMM Tiering Framework and Sentence Modalities
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
Mode = punish
Mode = punish
Mode=Tier2 +
Mode = Tier3 +
monitor, signpost
monitor, signpost,
personal change
restrict/control
help, broker, support
CONTROL
CHANGE
HELP
Resource allocation increasing in time
Increasing complexity of sentence and risks posed by offender
Source: Grapes, T. (2006) The NOMS Offender Management Model, London, Home Office.
39 Durrance, P. and Williams, P. (2003) Broadening the agenda around what works for Black and Asian
offenders. Probation Journal 50(3), 211-224.
40 Calverley, A., Cole, B., Kaur, G., Lewis, S., Raynor, P., Sadeghi, S., Smith, D., Vanstone, M. and Wardak, A.
(2004) Black and Asian offenders on Probation. London: Home Office.
41 Beaumont, B., Caddick, B. and Hare-Duke, H. (2001) Meeting Offenders’ Needs. Nottinghamshire Probation
Service: Unpublished research.
42 Burnett, R. (1996) Fitting supervision to offenders: assessment and allocation decisions in the Probation
Service. London: Home Office.
43 Mille, A. and Erol, R. (2006) Rehabilitation and Resettlement: A study of Prolific Offender Case Management
in Birmingham, United Kingdom.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,
50(6), 691-710.
44 Cinamon, K. and Hoskins, J. (2006) The Prolific and other Priority Offender Initiative in practice.
The Journal
of Community and Criminal Justice 53(2), 154-166.
21
At the end of December 2007 about half (47%) of those supervised by the Probation
Service on Community Orders were in Tier 3 or Tier 4 and about one fifth (21%) were in
Tier 1, as shown in the table below.
Table 2:
Persons supervised(1) by the Probation Service by supervision
tier and sex, 2007
Community order – England and Wales, 31st December 2007
Male and female
offenders
Male offenders
Female offenders
Tier 1
21%
21%
22%
Tier 2
32%
30%
42%
Tier 3
42%
43%
34%
Tier 4
5%
5%
1%
Not stated
1%
1%
1%
All
100%
100%
100%
101,858
86,952
14,906
(1)
Each person is counted only once in the total even if they started several types of supervision in the
year.
Source: Ministry of Justice (2008), Statistics Bulletin: Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2007, England
and Wales, London: Ministry of Justice
22
OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
Terminations45
More than 60 per cent of Community and Suspended Sentence Orders ran their full
course or were terminated early for good progress in the third quarter of 2008.
Of the 31,540 Community Orders terminated in the third quarter of 2008, 61 per cent had
run their full course or were terminated early for good progress, compared with 29 per cent
terminated for negative reasons (failing to comply or conviction of a further offence). The
equivalent percentages for quarter three of 2007 were 56 and 33 respectively.
Of the 10,900 Suspended Sentence Orders (SSOs) terminated in the third quarter of 2008,
61 per cent had run their full course or were terminated early for good progress, compared
with 31 per cent terminated for negative reasons. The equivalent percentages for quarter
three of 2007 were 51 and 39 respectively.
45 Ministry of Justice (2009), Statistics Bulletin: Probation statistics quarterly brief July to September 2008,
England and Wales, London: Ministry of Justice.
23
OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
Risk assessment46
Definition:
“
The systematic collection of information to determine the degree to which harm (to self and
others) is likely, at some future point in time.”47
Risk assessment underpins sentence planning, resource allocation, targeting
of interventions designed to reduce re-offending and community supervision of
offenders. It is a central tenet of the Offender Management Model48 and forms a core
element of public protection managed through prison, probation and police services. For all
involved in offender management, from Parole Board release decisions to treatment and
community supervision, making a full and accurate assessment of risk is crucial to decision
making. In understanding the boundaries of risk assessment, however, it must be recognised
that this is not an exact science, and that no environment is risk free. Assessment includes
predicting future re-offending (in the UK this is usually measured by reconviction) and
predicting the harm, to both an offender and their victim, that re-offending is likely to cause.
Risk assessment typically measures two kinds of risk factor, ‘static’ and ‘dynamic’,
and methods of assessment are ‘actuarial’ or ‘clinical’ in nature. Static factors are
unchangeable historical characteristics of an offender (e.g. gender, age and previous criminal
convictions) associated with higher rates of re-offending, and ‘actuarial’ risk prediction relies
on assessing these factors. It calculates the probability that an individual will re-offend, a
probability based on the average re-offending rate calculated from a sample of offenders who
match that individual on relevant static factors. ‘Clinical’ risk prediction, in contrast, is less
structured and relies on interviews and observations of social, behavioural, environmental
and personality factors related to previous offending. These factors are considered ‘dynamic’
in nature rather than static as they are amendable to change via treatment and offender
management more generally and as such can help in identifying appropriate provision in
these areas.
Both actuarial and clinical approaches are limited when used alone. For example,
actuarial assessment cannot identify which offenders will go on to re-offend, merely into
which category an individual falls (e.g. high or low risk), nor can it indicate risk of harm or
identify how risk might be reduced for a particular individual. Clinical assessment, however,
can be more open to bias than actuarial approaches as it relies upon judgement and can be
influenced by an assessor’s opinion of the relative importance of different risk factors.
46 Adapted from Cann, J. and Harper, G. (2008) Recidivism Prediction. In: G. J. Towl, D. P. Farrington, D. A.
Crighton and G. Hughes (Eds).
Dictionary of Forensic Psychology. Willan Publishing.
47 O’Rourke, M. (2008) Risk Assessment. In: G. J. Towl, D. P. Farrington, D. A. Crighton and G. Hughes (Eds).
Dictionary of Forensic Psychology. Willan Publishing.
48 Home Office (2006)
The NOMS Offender Management Model. London: Home Office.
24
A number of tools are available, many of which have been validated on UK
populations and are used as part of risk assessment processes within the National
Offender Management Service (NOMS). Some are actuarial, some clinical and others
a combination of the two. This dual approach is the now widely accepted method of most
reliably, and usefully, assessing risk. A number of tools predict specific types of re-offending
(e.g. sexual or violent); others are designed for general application.
The most prominent tool used to assess adult offenders in England and Wales is the
Offender Assessment System (OASys). This is applied to offenders given a custodial
sentence of 12 months or longer and used to assess risk of general offending,
likely degree of harm caused by any re-offending, and degree of need posed by an
offender in a range of areas. OASys calculates (using an actuarial measure) a likelihood
of reconviction score based upon static (i.e. criminal history) and dynamic factors (e.g. an
offender’s accommodation situation, degree of substance misuse, attitudes, education status
and emotional well-being). It also enables an (unstructured) clinical judgement to be made
about the risk of serious harm likely to be caused if an individual goes on to re-offend. The
likelihood of reconviction score and the judgement regarding risk of serious harm, along with
individual scores on the range of dynamic factors assessed, are used to inform sentence
planning, needs assessment and risk management.
The Risk Matrix 2000 (RM2000) is used to predict the risk of future sexual offending
and the Structured Assessment of Risk and Need (SARN) is used for offenders going
through prison-based treatment programmes. The RM2000 comprises three actuarial
scales which assess the risk of sexual re-offending, non-sexual violent re-offending and a
combination of sexual and other violent re-offending from a range of static factors. It is used
across NOMS with offenders sentenced for sexual or violent offences.
The SARN enables a structured clinical assessment of dynamic risk factors for sexual
offenders, and also encompasses the RM2000, thus covering both actuarial and clinical
methods. The structured nature of this tool helps ensure that a range of risk factors are
addressed and so the bias inherent in less structured assessments can be reduced.
Currently, however, use of the SARN is limited to offenders undergoing a sex-offender
treatment programme as its primary purpose is to identify treatment needs and monitor
progress. Systematic dynamic risk assessment for offenders not accessing treatment is not
currently widely available.
Other tools are used to predict the risk of future violent offending in England and
Wales. The risk of violent re-offending can be measured by the Historical Clinical Risk-
20 (HCR-20) tool, a clinical tool that considers dynamic risk factors only (the historical,
or static, factors are scored according to professional judgement rather than an actuarial
scoring scale). Other tools incorporate both actuarial and clinical approaches and include
25
the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) and the Violence Risk Scale (VRS). The
Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), while primarily a tool to identify psychopathy
among forensic patients, can be used to help measure psychopathy as a risk factor in
predatory violence.
Risk assessment in England and Wales is undergoing substantial development. From
summer 2009, the OASys General re-offending Predictor (OGP) will become the common
tool for assessing the likelihood of proven re-offending (including convictions, formal
cautions, reprimands and final warnings). This actuarial measure incorporates calculation of
static risk (measured using the Offender Group Reconviction Scale v.3, OGRS3) and scores
on dynamic factors which research using OASys data has shown to be most predictive of
non-violent reconviction., (i.e. drug misuse, accommodation, employability, lifestyle, thinking
and behaviour, and attitudes which in addition to criminal history as measured using OGRS3
were the best individual predictors of non-violent reconviction). A separate actuarial predictor
of violence (OASys Violence Predictor, OVP) will also be included from July 2009, and
practitioners will be directed to this score as a basis for further judgements on risk of serious
harm. (A Research Summary describing the development of both measures has been
published by the OASys Data, Evaluation & Analysis team in NOMS49).
NOMS is also piloting a risk assessment tool to examine dynamic risk factors for sexual
offenders managed in the community, regardless of whether or not they are taking part in a
sex-offender treatment programme. The Stable and Acute 200750 tool, developed in Canada,
provides a structured method of assessing dynamic risk factors which are both ‘stable’ (i.e.
potentially changeable but enduring factors related to re-offending, such as attitudes tolerant
of sexual offending) and ‘acute’ (i.e. factors which can change over weeks, days or even
hours such as access to victims and substance misuse). Scores resulting from this can
help identify particular areas of risk and treatment need. They can also be used to assess
the degree to which risk factors have been alleviated following treatment, and an offender’s
adherence to their supervision and management plans. The pilot will be completed in spring
2009 and a parallel programme of research examining implementation is due to report by
early summer 2009. This report will include recommendations to NOMS on a national roll-out
of the tool to the police and probation services.
49 Howard, P. (2009)
Improving the prediction of re-offending using the Offender Assessment System. Ministry
of Justice Research Summary 2/09. London: Ministry of Justice
50 Hanson, R. K., Harris, A. J. R., Scott, T. L. and Helmus, L. (2007)
Assessing the risk of sexual offenders on
community supervision: The Dynamic Supervision Project. Public Safety Canada 2007-05.
26
OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
Integrated Offender Management
●
Integrated Offender Management (IOM) is a new initiative, aiming to reduce
re-offending.
●
Integrated Offender Management approaches target offenders in the community (both
those on statutory supervision and those who are not, both youth and adult) who
present the highest risks to their communities, especially those short sentence offenders
released from prison under no statutory supervision.
●
It is targeted at persistent offenders and includes those who may not otherwise be
supervised by the Offender Management Services, including those sentenced to less
than 12 months’ imprisonment, a known high re-offending group.
●
The initiative is being piloted in five areas: West Yorkshire, West Midlands, Lancashire,
Nottinghamshire and London. The London IOM project is known as the Diamond
initiative. Lambeth, Lewisham and Newham have been selected for the London
Diamond Initiative, to be piloted over two years from Autumn 2008. The Home Office
and MOJ are building research into the pilots to evaluate the IOM. The research design
is currently being agreed. The Diamond Initiative will be evaluated by the Metropolitan
Police Service’s Strategic Research and Analysis Unit.
●
The schemes will be multi-agency partnerships, including the police, the National
Offender Management Service, local authorities and voluntary organisations, who will
jointly plan and deliver a package to help offenders desist. This will include help finding
homes, work, support for their children and families and access to mainstream services.
●
OMSAS is providing advice to policy col eagues on how best to build the evidence on IOM.
●
Home Office research51 supports a positive assessment of the Prolific and other Priority
Offender (PPO) programme and while no firm conclusions can be drawn at this stage
about the specific impact of the PPO scheme on levels of offending the results are
nonetheless encouraging, particularly given the fact that the different elements of the
evaluation all suggest movement in the same direction.
Note: a reduction in convictions of 62 per cent was found among the first PPOs put into the
PPO programme over their first 17 months. The results of the PPO evaluation support a
positive assessment of the programme, but no firm conclusions can be drawn around the
specific impact of the PPO scheme on levels of offending at this stage.
51 Home Office (2007) An impact assessment of the Prolific and other Priority Offender programme. On-line
report 08/07. London: Home Office. http://uk.sitestat.com/homeoffice/homeoffice/s?rds.rdsolr0807pdf&ns_
type=pdf&ns_url=%5Bhttp://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/rdsolr0807.pdf%5D
27
OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
Effectiveness
●
The offender management community cohort study (OMCCS) is one of three
cohort studies (one on prisoners, one assessing offenders on community orders
under community supervision, and one on young offenders i.e. 10–17 years old).
●
These cohort studies are designed to provide evidence about which interventions and
combinations of interventions reduce re-offending for offenders with different needs
and characteristics. The Unit Costs of Criminal Justice project (UCCJ) will contribute to
evidence about the unit costs of offender management activity. It also aims to provide
the basis for the continued future generation of unit-cost information based on consistent
and transparent methodologies and using sound economic principles. The UCCJ project
is essential for supporting planned evaluations of the cost-effectiveness of offender
management activities as part of the on-going OMSAS adult and juvenile cohort studies.
Over the medium/longer term it will add value to existing NOMS agency work on costing
and specification benchmarking and will also enable the wider application of cost-benefit
analysis as a tool for informing strategic and operational policy decisions.
●
Criminal careers analysis within the juvenile and adult offender populations
(ongoing to April 2010)
OMSAS is using external evidence sources and existing data systems (internal and
potentially external) to identify offenders who are more likely to represent:
●
“High value” investments – offenders who in the future follow relatively high-cost
criminal career trajectories and who are more likely to respond to activities that seek to
reform and rehabilitate. These are the types of offender where the greater social returns
from commissioned services will be concentrated.
●
“Low value” investments – offenders who are more likely to follow low-cost trajectories
in the future – e.g. offenders already on the cusp of, or, who are close to naturally
desisting from further re-offending.
Why is this work important? It will help establish whether there is scope for improving the
evidence used in existing offender assessment processes with a view to achieving a more
socially beneficial targeting of resources (e.g. there may currently be significant opportunity
costs in the system – “high value” offenders being displaced by “low value” offenders in terms
of receiving interventions).
28
FINES
Trends in use of fines52
The number of offenders fined for
all offences dropped from 998,700 in 1997 to 941,500 in
2007, a decrease of six per cent.
Magistrates’ courts recorded the lowest figure for the number of offenders fined for
indictable offences during the last decade, at 47,728 in 2007.
The proportion of offenders fined for indictable offences at magistrates’ courts was 20 per
cent in 2007. The number sentenced for indictable offences at magistrates’ courts has
declined over the last ten years.
Fines are mostly given for summary offences; in 2007 summary offences accounted for 95
per cent of the fines given at all courts. Of the remaining five per cent given for indictable
offences the breakdown is shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3:
The proportion of fines given in 1997 and 2007 for indictable
offence types
1997
2007
Violence against the person
13.6%
4.8%
Sexual offences
8.2%
2.7%
Burglary
4.7%
2.0%
Robbery
0.4%
0.4%
Theft and handling stolen goods
25.7%
13.1%
Fraud and forgery
18.0%
11.3%
Criminal damage
19.2%
9.6%
Drug offences
46.4%
31.9%
Other (excluding motoring offences)
46.5%
31.3%
Indictable motoring offences
56.8%
23.1%
The average fine amounts (£) at all courts, by offence, is shown in the table below.
These
figures have not been adjusted for inflation.
52 Ministry of Justice (2008), Statistics Bulletin: Sentencing Statistics 2007, England and Wales, London:
Ministry of Justice
29
Table 4:
Average fine amounts (£) at all courts, by offence
Indictable offences
1997
1996
2007
Violence against the person
171
218
239
Sexual offences
220
216
285
Burglary
143
162
161
Robbery
79
461
73
Theft and handling stolen goods
106
108
105
Fraud and forgery
176
241
286
Criminal damage
110
121
126
Drug offences
101
112
112
Other (excluding motoring offences)
413
879
1,159
Motoring offences
175
286
319
Summary offences
Summary offences (non-motoring)
104
126
130
Summary motoring offences
163
170
175
All offences
146
165
172
Fines in individual cases are set by the courts in accordance with:
●
the maximum provided by Parliament for the particular offence (applies to magistrates’
courts only; the Crown Court has an unlimited power to fine);
●
sentencing guidelines, which take account of:
–
the seriousness of the particular offence as compared with typical versions of that
offence; and
–
the ability of the offender to pay.
Courts are assisted in determining amounts by the Sentencing Guidelines Council’s
Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines. The approach is as follows:
●
the fine should first reflect the seriousness of the offence;
●
it will then be adjusted to take into account the financial circumstances of the offender.
“The aim is for the fine to have an equal impact on offenders with different financial
circumstances; it should be a hardship but should not force the offender below a
reasonable ’subsistence‘ level”;
●
it should normally be possible for an offender to pay off a fine within a year;
●
individual offence guidelines have one or more starting points and a range of potential
penalties to which the court should have regard. For fines, these are divided into three
levels:
30
–
Fine Band A – starting point of 50 per cent of relevant weekly income with a range
of 25–75 per cent;
–
Fine Band B – starting point of 100 per cent of relevant weekly income with a range
of 75–125 per cent;
–
Fine Band C – starting point of 150 per cent of relevant weekly income with a range
of 125–175 per cent;
Fines enforcement and Fine Payment Pilots
There were 1,475 sentenced prison receptions of fine defaulters in 2007 (two per cent
of the total number of sentenced prison receptions for 2007). This figure decreased from
6,336 in 1997 (seven per cent of the total number of sentenced prison receptions for 1997).53
Table 5 shows the number of fine defaulters received into prison between 1997 and 2007 and
the percentage of the total number of prison receptions for each year.54
Table 5:
Fine defaulters as a percentage of all sentenced prison
receptions
Annual percentage of
Total number of prisoner
prisoner receptions as fine
receptions under sentence
Fine defaulters
defaulters
1997
87,168
6,336
7%
1998
91,282
5,374
6%
1999
93,965
3,727
4%
2000
93,671
2,476
3%
2001
91,976
1,453
2%
2002
94,807
1,192
1%
2003
93,495
1,250
1%
2004
95,161
1,835
2%
2005
92,452
2,038
2%
2006
90,038
1,904
2%
2007
91,736
1,475
2%
The Courts Act 2003 enacted proposals to improve fine enforcement set out in
the White Paper, Justice for All. The Act introduced a package of measures aimed at
significantly increasing payment rates, diverting fine defaulters from prison and restoring the
reputation of the fine as a credible sentencing option.55
53 Ministry of Justice (2008), Statistics Bulletin: Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2007, England and
Wales, London: Ministry of Justice.
54 Please note that as data for fine enforcement are collated in terms of the value of the fine it is not possible
to compare these to the number of fines issued on an annual basis. The decline in prison receptions for fine
default displayed in Table 5 may therefore be related to a decrease in the number of fines issued and should
therefore be treated with caution.
55 Department of Constitutional Affairs (2003)
Regulatory Impact Assessment: Courts Bill: Proposals to Improve
Fine Enforcement (July 2003).
31
Since 2003, there has been a steady year-on-year rise in payment rates of fines,
from 73 per cent in 2003–2004 to 90 per cent in 2006–2007. The Courts Act 2003 also
promoted better informed and more rational sentencing practices to reduce the number
of fines imposed in cases where the offender would have significant problems in paying.
This combined with the earlier and more accurate use of ‘means forms’ is likely to have
contributed to the improved year-on-year collection rates following the introduction of the Act
in 2003.
Fine Payment Work is one of a range of fine collection tools created by the Courts Act
2003. Others include:
●
automatic deductions from benefits;
●
automatic deductions from earnings; and
●
50 per cent fine increase.
The Fine Payment Pilots began in five Court Service areas in 2004 (later extended to
two additional areas in 2008). The aim of the scheme was to provide offenders who
‘couldn’t’ pay their fines with the opportunity to convert their fines into voluntary work
through a statutory conversion rate (£6 per hour). A process study of the pilots has been
carried out and is due to be published in Summer 2009.
32
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
Restorative justice has been defined as “a process whereby parties with a stake in a
specific offence collectively resolve how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and
its implications for the future.”56
Restorative justice has a number of different aims including victim satisfaction and
reducing re-offending.
Evidence suggests that restorative justice effectively satisfies victims. Internationally,
and in a recent large-scale study in the UK, rates of satisfaction with the restorative justice
process amongst victims that participate are high, typically 75 per cent or more.57,58
The evidence on whether restorative justice reduces re-offending is more mixed.
A review
of research on restorative justice schemes in the UK and abroad59 suggested that it
reduced re-offending for some but not all offenders. However, there are limitations
in generalising international schemes to wider populations of UK offenders. Up until
recently UK studies found no significant effects of restorative justice on reconviction
rates.60,61
A recent Ministry of Justice study62 evaluated three restorative justice schemes
(running since 2001). It assessed the impact of restorative justice on reconviction
and reported some effect (although this appeared to be to reduce rather than to stop
re-offending). This evaluation also found that restorative justice can provide value for
money. The research did not show any statistically significant results against the traditional
measure of the likelihood of re-offending over two years save for one of the 13 groups where
the re-offending rate of the control group was unusually high. Overall, there was some
indication of an effect but this may be extremely limited. The research found strong evidence
(statistically significant) that restorative justice reduces the frequency of further offending but
no evidence that it reduces the severity of re-offending. One of the three restorative justice
schemes evaluated showed a lower
cost of convictions versus a control group. Results
56 Marshall, T. (1999)
Restorative Justice: an overview. Home Office Occasional Paper. London: Home Office.
57
ibid
58 Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Chapman, B., Dignan, J., Howes, M., Johnstone, J., Robinson,
G. and Sorsby, A. (2007) Restorative justice: the views of victims and offenders: the third report from the
evaluation of three schemes. MoJ Research Series 3/07.
59 Sherman, L. and Strang, H. (2007) Restorative Justice: The Evidence – A report to the Smith Institute,
University of Pennsylvania, Jerry Lee Centre of Criminology and the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation.
60 Miers, D., Maguire, M., Goldie, S., Sharpe, K., Hale, C., Netten, A., Uglow, S., Doolin, K., Hallam, A., Enterkin,
J. and Newburn, T. (2001)
An Exploratory Evaluation of Restorative Justice Schemes. London: Home Office
Dignan, J. (1989)
Repairing the Damage: An evaluation of an Experimental Adult Reparation Scheme in
Kettering, Northamptonshire..
61 Wilcox, A. and Hoyle, C. (2004)
Restorative Justice Projects: The National Evaluation of the Youth Justice
Board’s Restorative Justice Projects. London: Youth Justice Board.
62 Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Dignan, J., Edwards, L., Hibbert, J., Howes, M., Johnstone, J.,
Robinson, G. and Sorsby A. (2008)
Does restorative justice affect reconviction? The fourth report from the
evaluation of three schemes. Ministry of Justice Research Series 10/08.
33
for the other two restorative justice schemes were not statistically significant. Costs of
convictions included the costs to potential future victims and to the criminal justice system.
In terms of cost-benefits, one of the schemes produced a net benefit in terms of reconviction
(the sums saved in decreased reconviction were greater than the costs of running the
scheme), whilst the other two schemes produced a net cost.
34
PROBATION SUPERVISION
Local adult re-offending
The local adult re-offending measure is based on adult offenders on the probation caseload
at the end of each quarter and considers re-offending over a three-month period. It is based
on combining four quarters of data to give a rolling four-quarter report. It differs from the
National Statistics on re-offending in the following respects:
●
the sample of offenders;
●
the measure of re-offending;
●
the time allowed for re-offending; and
●
the types of sentences which mean an offence is counted.
Details on these differences can be found in the publication from which the following key
points were taken63. All key points refer to the period 1 October 2007 to 30 September 2008.
●
The three-month re-offending rate of all offenders on the probation caseload in England
and Wales who were at risk of re-offending was 9.88 per cent.
●
Four Government Office Regions had a statistically significant increase64 in re-offending
compared to the baseline65 (East of England; North West; South West and Wales). No
other Government Office Region had a result that was statistically significant.
●
Of the 42 probation areas, six had a statistically significant increase66 in re-offending,
while two areas showed a statistically significant reduction67 in re-offending.
●
Sixteen local authorities had a statistically significant increase68 in re-offending, while 12
local authorities showed a statistically significant reduction69 in re-offending.
●
Re-offending by offenders on licence from custodial sentences increased70 by 4.24 per
cent compared to the baseline, although the actual rate of re-offending remained lower
(at 8.63%) than the rate of re-offending for offenders on court orders under probation
supervision (at 10.12%).
63 Ministry of Justice (2009), Statistics Bulletin: Local Adult Re-offending 1 October 2007 – 30 September 2008,
England and Wales, London: Ministry of Justice
64 Increases or decreases in re-offending refer to rates that have been adjusted to control for changes in the
characteristic of offenders on the probation caseload. Further information on this can be found in reference 64.
65 The baseline used is 1 April 2007 – 31 March 2008.
66 Increases or decreases in re-offending refer to rates that have been adjusted to control for changes in the
characteristic of offenders on the probation caseload. Further information on this can be found in reference 64
67
Ibid
68 Increases or decreases in re-offending refer to rates that have been adjusted to control for changes in the
characteristic of offenders on the probation caseload. Further information on this can be found in reference 64.
69
Ibid
70
Ibid
35
PROBATION SUPERVISION
Trends in Community Orders, Suspended Sentence Orders71
Starts
The number of offenders starting Community Orders remained relatively stable
between quarter three of 2007 and quarter three of 2008, with between 33,000 and
33,900 offenders starting these in each of the last five quarters.
The number of male offenders starting Community Orders increased by three per cent (up
from 27,800 to 28,500), whereas female offenders increased by four per cent (up from 5,230
to 5,430).
The number of offenders starting Suspended Sentence Orders (SSOs) decreased by a
percentage point (down from 11,570 to 11,470).
The number of male offenders starting SSOs decreased by two per cent (down from 9,990 to
9,820) and female offenders increased by five per cent (up from 1,570 to 1,650).
Fifty per cent of all Community Orders starting in quarter three of 2008 had just one
requirement, compared with 49 per cent one year earlier. Fourteen per cent had three or
more requirements, compared with 15 per cent a year earlier.
Thirty-eight per cent of all SSOs starting in quarter three of 2008 had just one requirement,
compared with 36 per cent one year earlier. Twenty per cent had three or more requirements,
compared with 21 per cent a year earlier.
Caseload
Offenders supervised under Community Orders on 30 September 2008 fell slightly by
a percentage point on one year earlier (down from 101,670 to 100,360).
There was a two per cent decrease in the Community Order caseload for male offenders,
compared with a one percentage point increase for female offenders (up from 14,660 to
14,840).
Nine per cent more offenders were being supervised under SSOs on 30 September 2008.
This reflected an eight per cent increase in male offenders and a 14 per cent increase in
female offenders.
71 Ministry of Justice (2008), Statistics Bulletin: Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2007, England and
Wales, London: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice (2009), Statistics Bulletin: Probation statistics quarterly brief July to September 2008,
England and Wales, London: Ministry of Justice
36
Criminal histories of offenders on the caseload at the end of 2007
Thirteen per cent of offenders on the probation caseload had no previous convictions
or cautions, while 18 per cent had 15 or more.
Sixteen per cent of offenders serving Community Orders had 15 or more previous convictions
or cautions compared with 20 per cent for Suspended Sentence Orders and 25 per cent for
those under pre- and post-release supervision.
Male offenders are more likely to have previous convictions or cautions than female
offenders; 23 per cent of female offenders on the caseload had no previous recorded
convictions or cautions compared with 11 per cent for males.
Offenders with the most substantial criminal history are likely to be those with the most
requirements associated with their court orders. Of offenders with one requirement, 18 per
cent had no previous convictions or cautions. In contrast, only three per cent of offenders
with five or more requirements had no previous convictions or cautions.
Trends in pre- and post-release supervision (starts, caseload)
The number of offenders starting pre- or post-release supervision by the Probation Service
increased by four per cent (up from 11,370 to 11,870 between quarter three of 2007 and
quarter three of 2008).
The number of male offenders starting pre- or post-release supervision increased by four per
cent, whereas the number of female offenders increased by 15 per cent (up from 760 to 880).
A total of 97,080 offenders were supervised either before or after release from prison at the
end of March 2008, a six per cent increase from a year before.
The number on pre-release supervision increased by two per cent (from 66,350 to 67,540)
whereas the number on post-release supervision (in the community) increased by 16 per
cent (from 26,110 to 30,270).
For male offenders, the percentage increases in both pre- and post-release supervision
mirrored those for all offenders.
For female offenders, the total on either pre- or post-release supervision increased by three
per cent; those on pre-release supervision decreased by three per cent and those on post-
release supervision (in the community) increased by 17 per cent.
37
Longer-term trends show that the number of offenders supervised either before or
after release from prison increased by 22 per cent between 31 December 2002 and 31
December 2007 (up from 77,240 to 94,560). The number under pre-release supervision
increased by 19 per cent (from 55,730 to 66,380) whereas the number under post-release
supervision increased by 31 per cent (from 22,000 top 28,720). These increases (in particular
the latter) are due partly to changes brought in by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which mean
that offenders now spend longer on licence than in the past.
38
PROBATION SUPERVISION
Supervision of high risk offenders
●
MAPPA (Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements) is the term used to
describe the arrangements set up locally to assess and manage offenders who
pose a risk of serious harm. National MAPPA Guidance (2007) indicates the use of
three levels of management:
●
Level 1: involves ordinary agency management;
●
Level 2: where the active involvement of more than one agency is required to manage
the offender. Most offenders assessed as high or very high risk of serious harm can
be effectively managed at Level 2 where the management plans do not require the
oversight and commitment of resources at a senior level; and
●
Level 3: where it is determined that the management issues require active conferencing
and senior representation from the agencies.
The few cases referred to Level 3 are for those offenders whose management is so
problematic that multi-agency cooperation and oversight at a senior level is required,
together with the authority to commit significant resources.
There were 12,806 MAPPA Level 2 and 3 Registered Sexual Offenders (RSO), Violent
Offenders (VO), and Other Offenders (OO) in the 2007/08 reporting year in England
and Wales72. During this period 79 Serious Further Offences (SFO) were committed by
Level 2 and 3 MAPPA nominees73.
Two research studies have been conducted into the use of MAPPA for managing those
offenders convicted of sexual offences against children. The first examined operations
within and experiences of MAPPA; the second the extent of third-party discretionary
disclosure which takes place in the management of these offenders.
(i) Operation and experience of MAPPA74
The aim of this study was to examine (qualitatively) the operational practices for sex
offenders managed at Levels 2 and 3 within the MAPPA arrangements.
72 LondonNational Statistics for Multi-Agency .Public Protection Arrangements Annual reports 07/08.
www.probation.homeoffice.gov.uk/output/page30.asp
73
Ibid.
74 Wood, J. and Kemshall, H.,
The operation and experience of Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements
(MAPPA), Home Office Online Report 12/07.
39
●
Practitioners, including MAPPA and Strategic Management Board (SMB)
representatives, identified the primary aim of MAPPA as “public protection”,
with inter-agency cooperation key. Rehabilitation, however, was not spontaneously
identified by practitioners as a core aim. Offenders themselves were less well able to
define the aims of MAPPA except in terms of the individuals and agencies with whom
they came into contact through supervision.
●
Staff were positive about the contribution of MAPPA to the supervision of sex
offenders convicted of offences against children, suggesting it helped with:
information exchange; responses to changes in risk; social welfare of offenders;
discretionary disclosure; extending supervision past licence, and victim liaison.
(ii) Extent of discretionary disclosure under MAPPA75
The aim of this study was to examine of the extent to which third-party discretionary
disclosure was used with child sex offenders managed under MAPPA. This practice enables
details about offenders to be made known to third parties following an identified risk to
children.
●
Disclosures were usually made by the offender under close MAPPA management
and supervision. Follow-up checks by supervising officers were made to ensure
they took place. The nature of the convicted offence was the most usual detail
disclosed, followed by an offender’s exact residence and their licence requirements.
●
Disclosure occurred most frequently to school staff, followed by employers, new/
ex-partners and their family members, and staff in community services.
●
The key positive outcome was reported as enhanced child protection through
limiting offenders’ access to potentially risky situations.
●
Reported negative outcomes included loss of intimate relationships, jobs, and
access to sporting and social facilities.
●
Forty (out of 43) Police/Probation Areas in England and Wales responded to self-
completion questionnaires exploring the use of disclosure during January to June
(inclusive Twenty-nine Areas had disclosed information on MAPPA nominees during this
time.
75 Cann, J.
Assessing the extent of discretionary disclosure under the Multi-Agency Public Protection
Arrangements (MAPPA), Home Office Online Report 13/07.
40
The use of polygraphy with sex offenders
A Home Office funded pilot with sex offenders76 suggested polygraph testing might
contribute to the effective treatment and supervision of sex offenders. It should be
noted that limitations of the pilot (including its voluntary nature) and accompanying research
mean that robust conclusions about the effectiveness of polygraphy as a risk management
tool could not be drawn.
In the study, over 90 per cent of case managers who provided feedback stated that
they had found the test to be somewhat or very helpful. Examiners and case managers
reported that new disclosures relevant to supervision and treatment had been made in
the majority of polygraph examinations. However, as noted above, it is not possible to
attribute these disclosures to the polygraph.
Using provision in the Offender Management Act 2007, a mandatory trial of polygraph
testing began in April 2009. Thorough research is planned to examine whether or not
polygraph testing is a useful and effective risk management tool for offender managers.
In general, the current evidence base in relation to the polygraph, and its use with
offenders, is neither extensive nor of good quality.
76 Grubin, D. (2006),
Polygraph Pilot Study: Final Report, National Probation Directorate.
http://www.probation.justice.gov.uk/files/pdf/Polygraph%20Pilot%20Report%20-%20July%202006.pdf
41
PROBATION SUPERVISION
Prolific and other priority offenders
The Prolific and other Priority Offender (PPO) programme, implemented from 6 September
2004, targets those offenders who commit most crime in the area, or whose offending causes
the most damage to the local community.
The three strands of the PPO programme aim to:
●
Catch and Convict offenders who commit most crime in their locality, or whose
offending causes most harm to their community. There is no standard, national definition
of PPOs. Local areas devise their own selection criteria, based on key principles set out
in national guidance. PPOs are subject to intense police supervision;
●
Rehabilitate and Resettle PPOs, working with them to stop their offending by offering a range
of supportive interventions. These address identified needs and risks of further offending. The
opportunity to rehabilitate is backed by a swift return to court if offending continues;
●
Prevent and Deter to stop the most active young offenders escalating into tomorrow’s
prolific offenders through youth justice interventions and continued post-sentence support.
The programme features a joined-up multi-agency offender management model, involving
criminal justice agencies, local authorities and other partners, based on a shared vision of
objectives, priorities and outcomes.
Research evaluation77 supports a positive assessment of the PPO programme. While no
firm conclusions can be drawn around the specific impact of the PPO scheme on levels of
offending at this stage, the results are nonetheless encouraging, particularly given the fact
that the different elements of the evaluation all suggest movement in the same direction.
More specifically:
●
a comparison of total convictions in the 17 months before and 17 months following the
programme showed a 43 per cent reduction in PPO offending; and
●
a comparison from the start of the scheme to 17 months after the start showed a 62 per
cent reduction in convictions and a sharp reduction in PPO offending following entry
onto the scheme.
77 Home Office (2007)
An impact assessment of the Prolific and other Priority Offender programme. Online
Report 08/07. http://uk.sitestat.com/homeoffice/homeoffice/s?rds.rdsolr0807pdf&ns_type=pdf&ns_
url=%5Bhttp://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/rdsolr0807.pdf%5D
42
The reduction in recorded convictions cannot necessarily be attributed to the PPO
programme, as we do not know what would have happened to these offenders had the
scheme not been introduced.
The PPO research concluded that the comparison group was not a valid representation of
what would have happened without the scheme. This ultimately limited the conclusions that
could be drawn about the specific impact of the PPO programme.
43
PROBATION SUPERVISION
Adult re-offending78
In the six years to 2006 there was a 23 per cent reduction in the number of offences
committed by offenders within one year of commencing a court order under probation
supervision79.
In 2006, offenders commencing court orders under probation supervision committed
on average 1.2 offences80 each within a year. This was down from 1.6 in 2000.
In 2006, 36% per cent of offenders commencing a court order under probation
supervision committed at least one offence in the following year. This was down from
40 per cent in 2000.
Between 2000 and 2006 there was no change in the average number of most serious
offences81 committed within a year by offenders commencing court orders under
probation supervision. For every 100 offenders in the 2006 cohort, there was less than one
serious offence in the following year.
Table 6:
Re-offending rates for offenders commencing a court order
under probation supervision (England and Wales)
Percentage of offenders
Number of offences per 100
committing at least one
Number of most serious
Year
offenders
offence
offences per 100 offenders
2000
158.8
39.5%
0.6
2001(1)
2002
175.1
40.9%
0.7
2003
174.1
42.1%
0.7
2004
148.6
39.0%
0.7
2005
138.1
37.9%
0.8
2006
121.7
36.1%
0.6
(1)
Data for 2001 are not available due to problems with historical data for this year.
In 2006, offenders sentenced to community orders or suspended sentence orders with
one requirement82 had in general lower re-offending rates than offenders with more
than one requirement. However, the number of requirements with the sentence is based on
the characteristics and needs of the offender, and, in general, offenders with more needs are
more likely to re-offend.
78 Ministry of Justice (2008), Statistics Bulletin: Re-offending of adults: results from the 2006 cohort, England
and Wales, London: Ministry of Justice
79 Court orders under probation supervision include Community Orders, Suspended Sentence Orders and
Community Sentences (prior to the introduction of Community Orders in April 2005).
80 Where the offence was ‘proved’ by a court conviction.
81 Most serious offences include: murder and offences resulting in death, serious violence (GBH) and serious
sexual offences.
82 A combination of one or more (of 12) requirements can be attached to a community order, from unpaid work,
to supervision, to accredited programmes, to drug and alcohol treatments etc.
44
PRISON
Trends in prison receptions and population
Prison receptions83
First receptions
●
There were 125,880
first receptions84 in 2007, a decrease of two per cent compared
with 2006 and five per cent lower than 2005. This was the lowest figure recorded for first
receptions since 1997 (124,170; 1998 was 130,960).
Remand receptions
●
79,700 prisoners were
received on remand in 2007, five per cent fewer than in 2006,
reflecting a fall in both untried and convicted unsentenced receptions (down one per
cent and nine per cent respectively).
●
Almost a quarter of all
untried receptions in 2007 were for violence against the person
offences, with a further 14 per cent for theft and handling and 12 per cent for burglary.
These proportions were similar to those seen in 2006 but showed a change over the
longer term. In 1997 theft and handling was the largest offence group (23%) followed by
burglary and violence against the person (19 and 15% respectively).
Sentenced receptions
●
There were 90,260
receptions under sentence (excluding fine defaulters) in 2007, up
two per cent on the previous year and 12 per cent higher than in 1997.
●
Receptions of prisoners on indeterminate sentences (either a life sentence or
an Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection (IPP))
increased by six per cent from 2,160 in 2006 to 2,280 in 2007. This rise was due to an 11 per cent increase
in IPP receptions (from 1,570 in 2006 to 1,750 in 2007) while receptions of all other
indeterminate sentences fell by ten per cent to 530 (of which 360 were mandatory lifers).
83 Ministry of Justice (2008), Statistics Bulletin: Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2007, England and
Wales, London: Ministry of Justice
84 First receptions provide an indication of the number of new prisoners in a time period. A person received into
prison to serve a sentence may previously have been received on remand after conviction prior to sentence,
and before that as a remand prisoner awaiting trial. First receptions will count that prisoner only once in the
relevant time period in which they were first received.
45
Figure 2: Receptions of prisoners on indeterminate sentences, 1997 to 2007
2,500
2,000
Life sentences
IPP
1,500
1,000
500
0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
●
The number of sentenced receptions increased between 2006 and 2007 in all sentence
length bands except those for four years or more (excluding indeterminates) which fell
by 180 (3%) reflecting the switch from long determinate sentences to IPPs (which rose
by 180).
●
Receptions of non-criminal prisoners fell by 18 per cent between 2006 and 2007
following a rise of 51 per cent between 2003 and 2006. The majority (86%) were being
held under the 1971 Immigration Act with a further eight per cent committed for contempt
of court.
●
In 2007, 10,740
prisoners of a foreign nationality were received under an immediate
custodial sentence, an increase of nine per cent from the previous year and continuing
an upward trend which saw a 29 per cent rise between 2004 and 2007. By comparison,
immediate custodial sentenced receptions of British nationals rose by two per cent from
2006 but fell by six per cent compared to 2004.
●
Europeans represented the largest group of male foreign national receptions in 2007
(35%), followed by those from Africa (28%) and Asia (21%). Whereas among female
foreign national receptions the largest group was Africans (38%) followed by those from
Europe (30%) and Asia (19%).
46
Prison population85
●
As of 31 January 2009, the
overall population in custody was 82,487, one per cent
higher than a year earlier. The population in prison was 82,075, in Secure Training
Centres 228, and in Secure Children’s Homes (SCHs) 184.
The male population in prison increased by two per cent to 77, 812 and the female prison
population fell by four per cent to 4,263 in January 2009.
Figure 3: Long-term trend in prison population
600
Males
500
Males and females
400
Females
300
200
100
0
19001905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Remand population
●
The
remand prison population increased by one per cent to 12,908 in January 2009
compared to January 2008. Within this, the untried population increased four per cent to
8,341 and the convicted unsentenced population fell five per cent, to 4,567.
●
Compared with January 2008, the largest percentage increases were in burglary,
robbery and sexual offences, up by eight, six and three per cent respectively.
Sentenced population
●
At the end of January 2009 there were 67, 473 sentenced86 prisoners, an increase of
two per cent from a year earlier.
●
The largest proportional increase since January 2008 was for those serving
indeterminate sentences (Life sentences and Indeterminate Sentences for Public
Protection) which increased by 14 per cent.
85 Ministry of Justice (2009), Statistics Bulletin: Population in custody monthly tables January 2009, England
and Wales, London: Ministry of Justice
86 Includes recalls and excludes fine defaulters.
47
●
Among the sentenced population, the largest percentage increases were seen in
violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery, up by 6.5 and three per cent
from January 2008. The number of people serving sentences for motoring offences saw
a drop of 19 per cent since January 2008.
Age
●
The
adult prison population was 70,424 at 31 January 2009, an increase of two per
cent from a year earlier. Over the same time period, the young adult prison population
was 9,429 and those aged 15 to17 fell one per cent to 2,222.
Criminal histories of offenders on the prison caseload at the end of June 200787
Of those offenders on the caseload and under sentence in 2007, 13 per cent had no
previous convictions or cautions compared with 14 per cent in 2002. A much higher
proportion of these offenders had 15 or more previous sanctions (30 per cent in 2007
compared with 25 per cent in 2002).
Offenders serving short custodial sentences are more likely to have a substantial criminal
history than those serving the longest sentences. Forty-two per cent of offenders serving
sentences of six months or less had 15 or more previous convictions or cautions; for those
serving four years or more the figure was 25 per cent.
Discharges and recalls
Trends in numbers leaving prison and under the parole, home detention curfew and
end of custody licence schemes, and recalls to prison.88
●
The total number of adults and young offenders discharged from determinate
sentences in 2007 was 65,000 and 12,000, respectively a fall of one per cent and
four per cent compared with 2006. Between 2003 and 2007, the total number of
discharges decreased by six per cent.
●
In 2007, discharges from sentences of up to six months accounted for 50 per
cent of all discharges from determinate sentences. Sentences between six and 12
months accounted for 12 per cent of discharges. Sentences between one and four years
accounted for 29 per cent of discharges. Determinate sentences between four years and
less than life accounted for ten per cent of discharges.
●
The average sentence length for adults discharged from determinate sentences
in 2007 was around 18 months; in 2003 the average sentence length was 16 months.
87 Ministry of Justice (2008), Statistics Bulletin: Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2007, England and
Wales, London: Ministry of Justice
88
ibid.
48
The average time served (including remand) for adults discharged from determinate
sentences was ten months in 2007 compared with nine months in 2003.
●
In 2007/08, a total of 11,756 prisoners serving determinate sentences were recalled
to custody, an increase of five per cent on 2006/07. In 2000/01, 2,457 prisoners
serving determinate sentences were recalled.
●
Around 36 per cent of prisoners considered for parole in 2007/08 were released.
This was the same rate as 2006/07. Around 6,000 determinate sentence prisoners
were considered for parole in 2007/08, a decrease of 13 per cent compared with
2006/07. Of those prisoners considered for parole, around 2,150 were released. The
release rate in 1997/98 was 38 per cent. The highest release rates in the last ten years
were between 2002 and 2004, at 53 per cent.
●
In 2007/08, 926 parolees were recalled, a decrease of 24 per cent from 2006/07 and
the first drop in numbers recalled following ten years of year-on-year increases. The 926 represented 27 per cent of all prisoners on parole.
●
Around 21 per cent (11,428) of potentially eligible prisoners were released on
Home Detention Curfew (HDC) in 2007. The rate in 2006 was 26 per cent. The highest
release rates to date on HDC were in 2002 and 2003, at 37 per cent.
●
In 2007, there were 1,654 decisions to recall from HDC, representing a decrease of
24 per cent on 2006. The most common reason for recall, which accounted for nearly
75 per cent of all recalls, was breaching HDC conditions. Nine per cent of recalls were
on the grounds of being charged with a new offence.
●
In 2007, 146 life sentence prisoners were released for the first time. This was 11
more than those first released in 2006 and 26 more than those released in 1999. In the same year, 134 offenders on life licence were recalled to prison. This was 30
fewer that those recalled in 2006 and 100 more than in 1999. The average time served
for mandatory lifers first released from prison in 2007 on life licence was 16 years, an
increase of two years on the previous three years. For other lifers the mean time served
was nine years in 2007, an increase of two years from 2006.
●
Between the start of the scheme (29 June 2007) and the end of January 2009, there
were 49,807 releases on End of Custody Licence (ECL89). Of these, 70 per cent were
serving sentences of up to six months. Around 11,300 were serving sentences for theft
and handling (23%); 9,700 (19%) were serving sentences for violence against the person.
In the same period, there were 1,665 decisions to recal prisoners while on ECL.
89 Ministry of Justice (2009), Statistics Bulletin: End of Custody Licence releases and Recalls January 2009,
England and Wales, London: Ministry of Justice
49
PRISON
Adult re-offending90
In the six years to 2006 there was a 15 per cent reduction in the number of offences
committed by offenders within one year of discharge from prison.
In 2006, offenders discharged from prison committed on average 2.1 offences91 each
within a year. This was down from 2.5 in 2000.
In 2006, 46 per cent of offenders discharged from prison committed at least one
offence in the following year. This was down from 51 per cent in 2000.
Between 2000 and 2006 there was a decrease in the number of most serious offences92
committed within a year by offenders discharged from prison. For every 100 offenders
in the 2006 cohort, there was less than one serious offence in the following year.
Table 7:
Re-offending rates for offenders discharged from prison
(England and Wales)
Percentage of offenders
Number of offences per
committing at least one
Number of most serious
Year
100 offenders
offence
offences per 100 offenders
2000
245.5
51.4%
1.1
2001(1)
2002
288.2
55.0%
1.2
2003
279.1
53.9%
1.2
2004
253.1
51.9%
1.0
2005
228.5
49.1%
1.1
2006
208.4
46.5%
0.9
(1)
Data for 2001 are not available due to problems with historical data for this year.
Offenders sentenced to less than one year in prison have much higher re-offending
rates than those sentenced to more than one year. In 2006 the number of offences
committed in a year after discharge was 2.8 each for those sentenced to less than a year and
1.0 each for those sentenced to between one and two years. However, the length of prison
sentence is based on the type of offence committed, as well as the criminal history and
needs of the offender. Furthermore, offenders who receive a short prison sentence are more
likely to have committed a large number of acquisitive crimes which is linked to a greater
likelihood of re-offending.
90 Ministry of Justice (2008), Statistics Bulletin: Re-offending of adults: results from the 2006 cohort, England
and Wales, London: Ministry of Justice
91 Where the offence was ‘proved’ by a court conviction.
92 Most serious offences include: murder and offences resulting in death, serious violence (GBH) and serious
sexual offences.
50
Between 2000 and 2006, the greatest reductions (over 40 per cent in terms of the
number of offences committed) were among offenders sentenced to more than one
year in prison.
We are investigating the possibility of producing re-offending rates by individual
prisons, but there are a number of issues to resolve in order for the data to be
comparable between prisons. Feasibility work is underway with the NOMS Agency.
Effectiveness
Short prison sentences will only have minor benefits (in terms of costs of crime avoided),
even for the most prolific segments of the offender population93.
●
The main source of value for short sentences is linked to punishment and reparation.
Rehabilitation through accredited activities is currently unlikely for short-sentence
prisoners and to this extent a period in prison could impose an opportunity cost for those
offenders who would have been motivated to complete a programme had they received
a Community Order (CO).
●
Nevertheless, the value of a short prison term could be increased if a period spent in
custody was used to effectively resettle offenders (though there is no direct evidence
that resettlement programmes increase desistence).
●
Longer sentences for offenders who are at risk of more serious offending on release will
be more beneficial in this regard, though this needs to be balanced against the costs of
public protection through longer sentences.
●
Increasing sentence severity (sending more offenders to prison or directing judges to
hand out longer sentences) is unlikely to generate a general deterrent against further
re-offending, particularly for types of crimes that only have comparatively low detection
rates.
93 OMSAS internal analysis, 2008.
51
RE-OFFENDING
Adult re-offending94
In the six years to 2006 there was a 23 per cent reduction in the number of offences
committed by offenders within one year of discharge from prison or commencement
of a court order under probation supervision95.
In 2006, offenders96 committed on average 1.5 offences97 each within a year. This was
down from 1.9 in 2000.
In 2006, 39 per cent of offenders committed at least one offence in the following year.
This was down from 44 per cent in 2000.
Between 2000 and 2006 there was a decrease in the number of most serious offences98
committed within a year by offenders. For every 100 offenders in the 2006 cohort, there
was less than one serious offence in the following year.99
Table 8:
Adult re-offending rates (England and Wales)
Percentage of offenders
Number of offences per 100
committing at least one
Number of most serious
Year
offenders
offence
offences per 100 offenders
2000
189.4
43.7%
0.8
2001(1)
2002
214.6
45.9%
0.9
2003
207.5
45.8%
0.9
2004
183.3
43.3%
0.8
2005
167.9
41.6%
0.9
2006
146.1
39.0%
0.7
(1)
Data for 2001 are not available due to problems with historical data for this year.
The reduction of 13 per cent between 2005 and 2006 is a very positive start towards
the PSA23 target (to reduce re-offending100 by ten per cent between 2005 and 2011).
The challenge now will be to maintain this level of reduction across the rest of the PSA
period.
94 Ministry of Justice (2008), Statistics Bulletin: Re-offending of adults: results from the 2006 cohort, England
and Wales, London: Ministry of Justice
95 Court orders under probation supervision include Community Orders, Suspended Sentence Orders and
Community Sentences (prior to the introduction of Community Orders in April 2005).
96 Discharged from prison or commencing court order under probation supervision.
97 Where the offence was ‘proved’ by a court conviction.
98 Most serious offences include: murder and offences resulting in death, serious violence (GBH) and serious
sexual offences.
99 For the 2006 results, of the 74,716 offences committed only 354 were most serious.
100 As measured by the number of offences committed per 100 offenders within a year.
52
Offenders sentenced to prison have higher re-offending rates than those sentenced to
court orders under probation supervision. In 2006, the number of offences committed in
a year after discharge from prison was 2.1 each and 1.2 each for those sentenced to court
orders. However, the sentence is based on the type of offence committed and the criminal
history and needs of the offender, and, in general, offenders who receive a prison sentence
are more likely to have committed a large number of previous offences and have needs
which are linked to a greater likelihood of re-offending.
Between 2000 and 2006, the greatest reductions (over 40 per cent in terms of the
number of offences committed) were among offenders sentenced to more than one
year in prison.
Male offenders re-offend at a higher rate than female offenders. In 2006, male offenders
committed 1.5 offences each compared with 1.2 for female offenders.
Young offenders re-offend at a higher rate than older offenders. In 2006, offenders aged
18–20 committed 1.8 offences each compared with 0.7 for offenders aged 50 or over.
Offenders sentenced for offences of an acquisitive nature have higher re-offending
rates than offenders sentenced to other offence types. In 2006, offenders sentenced for
theft committed 2.9 offences each compared with the average of 1.5 offences.
Offenders with no previous offending history have much lower re-offending rates than
those who have committed a large number of previous offences. In 2006, offenders
with no prior offences committed 0.2 offences each compared with 2.3 offences for those
offenders with more than ten previous offences.
53
RE-OFFENDING
Juvenile re-offending101
In the six years to 2006 there was a 19 per cent reduction in the number of offences
committed by offenders within one year of discharge from prison or sanction102.
In 2006, offenders103 committed on average 1.2 offences104 each within a year. This was
down from 1.5 in 2000.
In 2006, 39 per cent of offenders committed at least one offence in the following year.
This was down slightly from 40 per cent in 2000.
Between 2000 and 2006 there was a decrease in the number of most serious
offences105 committed within a year by offenders. The rate for the most serious offences
was 0.8 per 100 offenders in 2006. Put another way, of the offences committed by this group
within a year, 0.7 per cent were in the most serious category.106
Table 9:
Juvenile re-offending rates (England and Wales)
Percentage of offenders
Number of offences per 100
committing at least one
Number of most serious
Year
offenders
offence
offences per 100 offenders
2000
151.4
40.2%
0.9
2001(1)
2002
142.1
38.5%
0.9
2003
141.5
39.0%
1.0
2004
132.4
38.6%
1.0
2005
125.0
38.4%
0.9
2006
146.1
39.0%
0.7
(1)
Data for 2001 are not available due to problems with historical data for this year.
The reduction of 1.5 per cent between 2005 and 2006 is a start towards the PSA23
target (to reduce re-offending107 by ten per cent between 2005 and 2011).
101 Ministry of Justice (2008), Statistics Bulletin: Re-offending of adults: results from the 2006 cohort, England
and Wales, London: Ministry of Justice.
102 Sanction includes court convictions other than prison, and out-of-court disposals such as reprimands and final
warnings (penalty notices for disorder and ASBOs are not included).
103 Discharged from prison or sanctioned.
104 Where the offence was ‘proved’ by a court conviction or out-of-court disposal.
105 Most serious offences include: murder and offences resulting in death, serious violence (GBH) and serious
sexual offences.
106 For the 2006 results, of the 60,245 offences committed only 407 were most serious.
107 As measured by the number of offences committed per 100 offenders within a year.
54
Offenders given out-of-court108 disposals have much lower re-offending rates than
offenders given court disposals. In 2006, the number of offences committed in a year
after an out-of-court disposal was 0.6 each, whereas the average for offenders given court
sentences varied from 1.6 for low-level court sentences109 to 4.0 for prison sentences.
However, the sentence is based on the type of offence committed and the criminal history
and needs of the offender, and, in general, offenders who receive an out-of-court disposal
will have committed very few, if any, previous offences and will not have been assessed as
having many needs – this is linked to a much lower likelihood of re-offending.
Male offenders re-offend at a higher rate than female offenders. In 2006, male
offenders committed 1.4 offences each compared with 0.7 for female offenders.
Young juvenile offenders re-offend at a lower rate than older juvenile offenders. In
2006, offenders aged 10–12 committed 0.9 offences each compared with 1.3 for offenders
aged 16–17.
Offenders with no previous offending history have much lower re-offending rates than
those who have committed a large number of previous offences. In 2006, offenders
with no prior offences committed 0.5 offences each compared with 4.4 offences for those
offenders with more than ten previous offences.
108 Reprimands and final warnings.
109 Such as referral orders, fines, discharges and reparation orders.
55
EFFECTIVENESS
We are confident that
General Offending Behaviour Programmes (also referred to as
Cognitive Skills or Cognitive Behavioural Programmes), currently run in custody and the
community are likely to be effective in reducing re-offending.
We have
strong international evidence on the effectiveness of some interventions in
reducing re-offending but
research in the UK to date has been more limited and is mixed.
●
There is considerable international evidence, from various systematic reviews and
meta-analyses analysing a large number of general offending behaviour/cognitive
behavioural programmes, to support the effectiveness of these programmes in reducing
re-offending110.
●
A recent international review found that, on average, cognitive behavioural programmes
for general offenders reduced recidivism by four percentage points111.
●
A recent meta-analysis suggested that positive effects of cognitive behavioural
programmes are associated with treatment of higher-risk offenders, high-quality
treatment implementation, and a cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) programme
that includes anger control and interpersonal problem-solving but not victim impact or
behaviour modification components112.
●
The evidence from research in England and Wales on the effectiveness of general
offending behaviour programmes is mixed113,114,115. However, these findings may be
due to implementation failure or the research designs used which makes it difficult to
attribute the outcomes directly to the impact of the intervention116.
110 McGuire, J. (2002). ‘Criminal Sanctions Versus Psychologically-Based Interventions with Offenders: A
Comparative Empirical Analysis’.
Psychology, Crime and Law, 8, 183-208. Pearson, F. S., Lipton,
D. S., Cleland, C. M. and Yee, D. S. (2002) ‘The effects of behavioural/cognitive-behavioural programs on
recidivism’.
Crime and Delinquency, 48 (3) 476-496. Lipton, D.S., Pearson, F.S., Cleland,
111 Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2006)
Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works
and What Does Not. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. [Available online at: www.wsipp.wa.gov].
112 Landenberger, N. A. and Lipsey, M. W. (2005) ‘The Positive Effects of Cognitive-Behavioural Programs
for Offenders: A Meta-Analysis of Factors Associated with Effective Treatment.’
Journal of Experimental
Criminology.
113 Friendship, C., Blud, L., Erikson, M. and Travers, R. (2002)
An evaluation of cognitive behavioural treatment
for prisoners. Home Office Research Findings 161. London: Home Office.
114 Falshaw, L., Friendship, C., Travers, R. and Nugent, F. (2003).
Searching for ‘What Works’: an evaluation of
cognitive skills programmes. Home Office Research Findings 206. London: Home Office.
115 Cann, J., Falshaw, L., Nugent , F. and Friendship, C. (2003).
Understanding What Works: accredited cognitive
skil s programmes for adult men and young offenders. Home Office Research Findings 226. London: Home Office.
116 Debidin, M. and Lovbakke, J. (2004) ‘
Offending behaviour programmes in prison and probation’. In: Harper,
G. and Chitty, C. (eds.)
The impact of corrections on re-offending: a review of ‘what works’. Home Office
Research Study 291. London: Home Office.
56
●
March 2009 saw the publication of research evaluating the (short-term) effectiveness
of the Enhanced Thinking Skills (ETS) Programme – a cognitive-behavioural (offender-
behaviour) programme widely used in HM Prisons. The study demonstrated positive
results. More specifically, it revealed that ETS programmes were effective in reducing
both self-reported impulsivity (the main outcome measure – known to be linked to re-
offending) and the incidence of prison security reports117.
Education, training and employment (ETE)
●
The emerging evidence on
basic skills training in prison suggests that basic skills
courses can improve prisoners’ skills118 and prison-based employment interventions are
effective in helping offenders gain and retain employment119.
●
Key findings from the Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR) survey120 indicate
that prisoners started their sentence with a range of substantial health and social
problems including unemployment and a lack of qualifications. Prisoners’ problems
tended to be more severe if they were adult (aged 21 or over), female, or sentenced
to less than 12 months. Nearly half (48%) of the sample reported needing help finding
employment. Help getting qualifications and improving work-related skills were reported
by 42 per cent and 41 per cent respectively. Around a third wanted help with housing
and their offending behaviour.
Drugs and alcohol
●
NOMS has in place a comprehensive drug treatment framework, based on the
National Treatment Agency’s revised Models of Care, to address the different needs of
drug-misusers in prison. The interventions comprise:
–
Clinical services, detoxification and/or maintenance prescribing –
CARATs (Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare service) – specialist
support and advice services that, following assessment, deliver psychosocial
interventions. Treatment and support CARATs are available in all adult prisons in
England and Wales and take the lead Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) role in
prisons.
–
Drug Rehabilitation Programmes – there are 114 drug rehabilitation programmes
running in 99 establishments.
117 http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/enhanced-thinking-skills-programme.htm
118 Stewart, D. (2005)
An evaluation of basic skills training for prisoners. Home Office Research Findings 260.
London: Home Office.
119 Hurry, J., Brazier L., Parker M., and Wilson A. (2006). Rapid evidence assessment of interventions that
promote employment for offenders. London: Department for Education and Skills.
120 The problems and needs of newly sentenced prisoners: results from a national survey, Stewart D. (2008)
Ministry of Justice Research Series: 16/08 http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/research-problems-
needs-prisoners.pdf
57
●
The CARATs provide the framework for treatment delivery consistent with the Models
of Care infrastructure. Evidence shows that Models of Care are effective and the
CARAT service is modelled on this. However, in terms of assessing the effectiveness
of CARATs, the fact that it is based on individual need makes it difficult to assess its
effectiveness and there is limited research on the service.
●
Mandatory drug testing (MDT) provides the best information on drug misuse and
levels of drugs in prisons. There are two types of MDT – random and targeted. The
random MDT positive rate is one of the prison service’s Key Performance Indicators.
Initially, ten per cent of every prison’s population was tested each month under the
random programme, but since 1999 prisons with a population of 400 or above have
tested five per cent.
The rMDT (random Mandatory Drugs Test) positives level shows drug use in custody
declining since 1996/97 – down from 24.4 per cent to 9.1 per cent in 2007/08121. For a
number of reasons, MDT results cannot be a complete measure of the prevalence of
drugs misuse in prisons. However, MDT results do provide a reliable and statistically
valid way of measuring patterns and trends of drug misuse122.
●
Evidence exists to support the effectiveness of certain treatments in reducing
substance misuse. Treatments which can be effective in addressing substance misuse
have been shown to include pharmacotherapies (e.g. methadone); psychological
treatments; residential rehabilitation; 12-step treatment; and therapeutic communities.123
Recent international systematic reviews analysing large numbers of evaluations of
drug treatment programmes concluded that, on average, drug treatment programmes
reduce re-offending124125. Drug interventions shown to be effective included methadone
treatment, heroin treatment, therapeutic communities, psycho-social approaches (CARATS is
an example of such an approach) and drug courts. The most effective interventions to reduce
drug-related crime seemed to be therapeutic communities and drug courts. More intensive
interventions were more likely to bring about reductions in criminal behaviour than less
intensive programmes. One of the most consistent findings from the drug treatment
121 NOMS Interventions and Substance Misuse Group.
122 Office for National Statistics (2005) ‘The impact and effectiveness of mandatory drug testing in prisons’, by
Nicola Singleton, Elizabeth Pendry, Tracy Simpson, Eileen Goddard, Michael Farrell, John Marsden and Colin
Taylor. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/r223.pdf
123 Gossop, M. (2006). Treating drug misuse problems: evidence of effectiveness. London. NTA
124 Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2006)
Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works
and What Does Not. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. [Available online at: www.wsipp.wa.gov]
125 Hol oway, K., Bennett, T. and Farrington, D. (2005)
The effectiveness of criminal justice and treatment programmes
in reducing drug-related crime: a systematic review. Home Office Online Report 26/05. London: Home Office
58
literature is that outcomes for prisoners are most favourable for offenders who participate in,
and complete aftercare.126
Many international evaluations of drug treatment to date have been of residential in-prison
treatment (usually therapeutic communities). These have shown that prisoners who complete
their treatment are less likely than untreated offenders to use drugs or to re-offend after
release.127 However, it should be borne in mind that there may be systematic differences
between completers and non-completers (for example, they may be motivated and
unmotivated participants respectively).
●
The evaluations to date of drug treatment programmes in prisons in the UK
is limited, but suggest that these programmes can reduce re-offending128,129.
Prisoners who completed the 12-step RAPt programme had statistically significantly
lower rates of reconviction after two years than a comparison group (40% versus 50%) –
although there may be selection bias here130, for example, motivation to participate.
●
One study on self-reported behaviour of offenders on Drug Treatment and Testing
Orders (DTTOs) (comparing the month before arrest and during the first four to six
weeks of the order), found that on average offenders reported committing fewer offences
and also reduced their spending on drugs by over 90 per cent. The two-year reconviction
study of offenders from the DTTO pilots found that offenders who commenced the order
were less likely to be reconvicted (80%) than a comparison group (91%). Offenders who
completed the DTTO (30% of the sample) were significantly less likely to be reconvicted
(53%) than offenders whose order was revoked (91%). However, the sample size for
this study was small (174 offenders), and because of selection effects the reconviction
rate for completers is not a reliable indicator of programme effectiveness. Therefore, it
was not possible to determine to what extent these changes were due to the DTTO or
whether other factors also contributed. We don’t yet have anything comparable for Drug
Rehabilitation Requirements (DRRs).131,132
126 Prendergast, M. L., Hall, E. A., Wexler, H. K., Melnick, G. and Cao, Y. (2004) Amity Prison-Based Therapeutic
Community: 5-Year Outcomes.
The Prison Journal, 84(1), 36-60. Wexler, H. K., Melnick, G., Lowe, L. and
Peters, J. (1999). ‘Three-year re-incarceration outcomes for in-prison therapeutic community and aftercare in
California’.
The Prison Journal, 79(73), 321-336.
127 Bullock, T. (2003). Key findings from the literature on the effectivenss of drug treatment in prison. In Ramsay,
M. (ed)
Prisoners’ Drug Use and Treatment: Seven Research Studies. Home Office Research Study 267.
London: Home Office
128 Martin, C. and Player, E. (2000)
Drug Treatment in Prison: An Evaluation of the RAPt Treatment Programme.
Winchester: Waterside Press.
129
ibid
130 Ramsay, M. (ed) (2003).
Prisoners’ Drug Use and Treatment: Seven Research Studies. Home Office
Research Study 267. London: Home Office.
131 Hough, M., Clancy, A., McSweeney, T. and Turnbull, P. (2003).
The impact of Drug Treatment and Testing
Orders on Offending: two year reconviction results. Home Office Research Findings 184. London: Home
Office.
132 Turnbill, P., McSweeney, T., Webster, R., Edmunds., M and Hough, M (2000)
Drug treatment and testing
orders: Final Evaluation Report. Home Office Research Study 212. London: Home Office
59
●
A community-based research study, NTORS (National Treatment Outcome Research
Study) showed that, for every additional £1 spent on drug treatment, there was a return
of at least £9.50 in the cost savings associated with victim costs of crime and reduced
demands being made on the CJS133. However, that figure is not specific to one form of
drug treatment and refers to
community–based treatment only.
Accommodation
●
Around a third of prisoners about to leave prison have no accommodation arranged for
their release134. There is very little evidence on the impact of different forms of help in
finding accommodation on re-offending.
Family-based interventions
●
There is limited research evidence on
family-based interventions that reduce re-
offending. A review of the evidence135 found that family-based interventions in general
(i.e. interventions which focus on improving relationships and parenting skills within the
family) were effective in reducing re-offending.
Interventions for violent offenders/anger management
Evaluations in other countries of
anger management programmes or programmes
designed specifically for violent offenders have shown mainly positive effects
but the results are inconclusive, often due to the methodological quality of the
evaluations136,137,138,139,140. A systematic review for the Ministry of Justice found that, overall,
interventions with violent offenders were successful at reducing re-offending141.
133 Godfrey C., Stewart D, Gossop, M. (2004)
Economic analysis of costs and consequences of the treatment
of drug misuse: two year outcome data from the National Treatment Outcome Research Study (NTORS).
Addiction 2004; 99 (6):697-707.
134 Niven, S. and Stewart, D. (2005)
Resettlement outcomes on release from prison in 2003. London: Home
Office.
135 Petrosino, A. and Derzon, J. (2006)
The role of the family in crime and delinquency: evidence from prior
quantitative reviews and new analyses. Unpublished report for the Home Office.
136 Howells, K., Day, A., Bubner, S., Jauncey, S., Williamson, P., Parker, A. and Heseltine, K. (2002)
Anger
management and violence prevention: Improving effectiveness. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal
Justice. Australian Institute of Criminology.
137 Goldstein, A. P and Glick, B. (2001) ‘Aggression Replacement Training: Application and evaluation
management’. In: Bernfeld, G. A., Farrington, D. P. and Leschied, A. W. (Eds)
Offender Rehabilitation in
Practice: Implementing and evaluating effective programs. New York: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
138 Polaschek, D. L. L. and Dixon, B.G. (2001) ‘The violence prevention project: The development and evaluation
of a treatment programme for violent offenders’.
Psychology, Crime and Law, 7(1), 1-23.
139 Dowden, C., Blanchette, K. and Serin, R. (1999)
Anger management programming for federal male inmates:
An effective intervention. Research Branch: Correctional Services Canada..
140 Bush, J. (1995)
Teaching Self-risk Management to Violence Offenders in McGuire, J. (Ed)
What Works:
Reducing Re-offending. Guidelines from Research and Practice. England: John Wiley and Sons.
141 Joliffe, D. and Farrington, D. (2007)
A Systematic Review of the National and International Evidence on the
Effectiveness of Interventions with Violent Offenders. London: Ministry of Justice.
60
Domestic violence interventions
Evaluations of
domestic violence treatment programmes, on average, have yet to
demonstrate reductions in recidivism.142
Programmes for sex offenders
●
US reviews of evaluations showed that cognitive-behavioural treatments for
sex
offenders in both prison and community settings are on average effective at reducing
offending143.
●
Participants in the UK prison-based Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP) in
prison and probation demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in sexual and/or
violent offence reconviction within two years of release, in comparison to offenders who
have not undergone the programme144. However, the small sample size in the probation-
based element of the study means that the findings should be viewed with caution.
Mentoring
●
A review of
mentoring of adult offenders145 found that the evidence of the
effectiveness of such programmes in reducing re-offending is promising.
Interventions aimed at women
There is a scarcity of good quality studies carried out on
interventions aimed at women in
the UK. However, international and UK studies show that targeting anti-social attitudes and
anger, self-control, family processes, anti-social associates, educational and vocational skills
may be associated with reductions in women re-offending146.
142 Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2006)
Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works
and What Does Not. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. [Available online at: www.wsipp.wa.gov]
143 Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2006)
Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works
and What Does Not. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. [Available online at: www.wsipp.wa.gov]
144 Friendship, C., Mann, R. E. and Beech, A. R. (2003) Evaluation of a National Prison-Based Treatment
Program for Sexual Offenders in England and Wales. J
ournal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(7), 744-759.
Allam, J. (1998)
Effective practice in work with sex offenders: A reconviction study comparing treated and
untreated offenders. West Midlands Probation Service Sex Offender Unit.
145 Joliffe, D. and Farrington, D. (2007) A rapid evidence assessment of the impact of mentoring on re-offending:
a summary. Online Report 11/07. London: Home Office.
146 Lart
et al. (2008).
Ministry of Justice Research Series 08/08 – Interventions aimed at reducing re-offending in
female offenders: a rapid evidence assessment. London: Ministry of Justice.
61
Interventions aimed at juveniles
There is also a scarcity of good quality studies carried out on interventions aimed at juveniles
in the UK. However, international studies show that rehabilitative treatment reduces re-
offending by at least five per cent on average147. In general, the more effective programmes
include employment, vocational education, multi-modal, behavioural and cognitive-
behavioural programmes148,149,150.
Interventions causing harm
Programmes like
‘Scared Straight’, which involve organised visits to prison facilities by
juvenile delinquents or children at risk for becoming delinquent are designed to deter
participants from future offending by providing first-hand observations of prison life and
interaction with adult inmates. Research evidence indicates that
not only does this type of
intervention fail to deter crime but it actually leads to more offending behaviour.151
Strong evidence on the relationship between interventions to address particular needs and
outcomes is difficult to establish because of the challenges of conducting robust studies (for
example, identifying programmes that are soundly implemented; the practicalities of using
randomised designs; issues over adequate matching where matched control group studies
are tried; and sample size). It is therefore often a case of using evidence from a range of
sources and different types of studies to draw inferences about impact of interventions rather
than having clear cause and effect data.
147 Lipsey, M. and Cullen, F. (2007) The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: a review of systematic
reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, volume 3.
148 Lipsey, M. (1992) Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In: T.
Cook
et al. (Eds).
Meta-analysis for exploration: A casebook. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation; and
Sherman, L. W.
et al. (Eds.). (2002)
Evidence-Based Crime Prevention. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
149 Lipsey, M., Chapman, G. L., and Landenberger, N. A. (2001) Cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders.
The Annals [of the American Academy of Political and Social Science], 578 (November), 144-157.
150 Landenberger, N. A and Lipsey, M. (2005) The positive effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders:
A meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment.
Journal of Experimental Criminology.
151 Petrosino A., Turpin-Petrosino, C. and Buehler, J. (2003) “‘Scared Straight’ and other juvenile awareness
programs for preventing juvenile delinquency” (Updated C2 Review). In:
The Campbell Collaboration Reviews
of Intervention and Policy Evaluations (C2-RIPE), November, 2003. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Campbell
Collaboration.
62
DIVERSITY
Juveniles
Effectiveness
International studies show that
rehabilitative treatment reduces re-offending among
juveniles by at least five per cent on average152.
In general, the most effective programmes include: employment, vocational education, multi-
modal, behaviour and cognitive-behavioural programmes153,154,155.
Programmes that attempt to reform offenders, through a ’tough love‘ approach i.e.
‘boot
camps’ (intensive regimes of training, drilling, and some treatment) and
‘Scared Straight’ (programmes involving organised visits to prison and interaction with adult prisoners)
do not
reduce re-offending and in some cases
may cause harm by increasing offending156.
The international evidence comes mainly from the US and Canada and is based largely on
males and offenders aged 14–17. Cultural and socio-political differences in national criminal
justice systems will affect how well international findings apply in the UK.
There have not been many good quality studies in the UK evaluating the impact of
interventions to reduce juvenile re-offending. Youth Justice Board research found indicative
support for employment, training and education schemes, cognitive skills, multi-modal
programmes and intensive interventions157,158,159,160. Much of this research did not include
a suitable comparison group so we cannot be sure that changes were caused by the
programmes.
152 Lipsey, M and Cullen, F. (2007) The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: a review of systematic
reviews.
Annual Review of Law and Social Science, volume 3.
153 Lipsey, M. (1992) Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In: T.
Cook
et al. (Eds).
Meta-analysis for exploration: A casebook. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation; and
Sherman, L. W.
et al. (Eds.). (2002)
Evidence-Based Crime Prevention. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
154 Lipsey, M and Wilson, D. (1998) Effective interventions for serious juvenile offenders: A synthesis of research.
In: R. Loeber and D. P. Farrington (Eds).
Serious and violent juvenile offenders: risk factors and successful
interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
155 Lipsey, M., Chapman, G. L., and Landenberger, N. A. (2001) Cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders.
The Annals [of the American Academy of Political and Social Science], 578 (November), 144-157.
156 Petrosino A., Turpin-Petrosino, C. and Buehler, J. (2003) “‘Scared Straight’ and other juvenile awareness
programs for preventing juvenile delinquency” (Updated C2 Review). In:
The Campbell Collaboration Reviews
of Intervention and Policy Evaluations (C2-RIPE), November, 2003. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Campbell
Collaboration.
157 Hurry, J. and Moriarty, V. (2004)
The national evaluation of the Youth Justice Board’s education, training and
employment projects. London: Youth Justice Board.
158 Youth Justice Board (2004)
Cognitive Behaviour Projects (Summary). London: Youth Justice Board.
159 Hammersley, R.
et al. (2004)
Drug and Alcohol Projects: The National Evaluation of the Youth Justice Board’s
Drug and Alcohol Projects. London: Youth Justice Board.
160 Gray, E., Taylor, E., Roberts, C., Merrington, S., Fernadez, R. and Moore, R. (2005)
ISSP the final report on
the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme. London: Youth Justice Board.
63
OMSAS has commissioned the Juvenile Cohort Study which will track a representative
sample of 10,000 young offenders subject to community and custodial sentences throughout
their sentence. The study will provide evidence on which interventions reduce re-offending
for young people with different needs and characteristics.
Juveniles in custody161
On 31 January 2009 there were 2,634 juveniles in custody in England and Wales
including 176 females. The majority were held in juvenile units in prison establishments
(2,222) with a further 184 in Secure Children’s Homes and 228 in Secure Training Centres.
Of the juveniles held in prison establishments, 62 per cent were aged 17, 29 per cent aged
16 and nine per cent aged 15.
The number of juveniles in custody fell slightly over the last year (down two per cent
from January 2008 to January 2009).
161 Ministry of Justice (2009), Statistics Bulletin: Population in custody monthly tables January 2009, England
and Wales, London: Ministry of Justice
64
DIVERSITY
Women
Women form a minority both within the population in prison (4,263 out of a total of
82,487 on 31 January 2009)162 and among those starting community sentences (19,347
out of a total of 125,369 in 2007)163.
Around three-quarters of women prisoners given custodial sentences in 2007 were
sentenced to less than 12 months164.
There was an approximately 66 per cent increase in sentenced receptions into custody for women
between 1997 and 2007, compared with an approximately eight per cent increase for men165.
Between 1997 and 2007 the women’s prison population increased by 60 per cent
compared with a 28 per cent increase for men, but has levelled off since 2002166.
Women’s rates of re-offending are lower than men’s (a one-year re-offending rate of
33.1 per cent compared with 39.9 per cent for men, for a cohort released from prison
or starting a court order under probation supervision in the first quarter of 2006.)167.
Research evidence
Women recently released from custody are 36 times more likely than the general
population to die as a result of suicide, whilst men are only eight times more likely,
based on a large sample (250,000) cohort study168. Women in custody are more than five
times more likely to have mental health problems than women in the general population, with
78 per cent exhibiting some level of psychological disturbance compared with 15 per cent of
the general population, based on 505 women given surveys (82% response rate) in 2004169.
The educational attainment of women prisoners is lower than that of women
in the community170. Only three in ten women prisoners were in work at the time of
162 Ministry of Justice (2009), Statistics Bulletin: Population in custody monthly tables January 2009, England
and Wales, London: Ministry of Justice.
163 Ministry of Justice (2008), Statistics Bulletin: Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2007, England and
Wales, London: Ministry of Justice
164
ibid
165
ibid
166
ibid
167 Ministry of Justice (2008), Statistics Bulletin: Re-offending of adults: results from the 2006 cohort, England
and Wales, London: Ministry of Justice
168 Pratt D., Piper M., Appleby L., Webb R. and Shaw J. (2006)
Suicide in recently released prisoners: a
population-based cohort study, The Lancet vol. 368, issue 9530, July 2006.
169 Plugge, E., Douglas N., and Fitzpatrick, R.
The Health of Women in Prison, University of Oxford, Department
of Public Health, 2006.
170
Strategy and Resource Guide for the Resettlement of Women Prisoners. Her Majesty’s Prison Service
(HMPS), Spring 2006.
65
imprisonment. This finding is from a sample of 567 women interviewed in 14 of the 17 female
establishments in Britain in October/November 1998171.
There is a scarcity of good quality studies of re-offending interventions carried out in the UK
(but see ‘Together Women’ below).
However, international and UK studies show that
targeting anti-social attitudes and anger, self-control, family processes, anti-social
associates, educational and vocational skills may be associated with reductions in
women re-offending172.
Implementing services for women offenders and those ‘at risk’ of offending: action
research with ‘Together Women’173:
The Together Women Project (TW) aims to address the needs of women offenders to
reduce their offending and the needs of women ‘at risk’ of offending to prevent them
becoming involved in crime. It began operating between late 2006 and early 2007 in the North
West and Yorkshire and Humberside National Offender Management Service (NOMS) Regions.
The action research, managed by OMSAS, found that:
●
TW was seen by local stakeholders as filling an important gap in provision, and
providing a holistic response to the needs of service users through working
closely with other agencies. Most respondents believed women had at least some
different needs to men, and all 40 stakeholders and staff interviewed believed that
women responded to a different approach than men.
●
TW staff were able to identify cases in which they believed diversion from custody
occurred, but interviews with legal advisors and sentencers suggested that this
was rare. All but three stakeholders and staff interviewed concluded that making TW
enforceable would be unhelpful and ineffective.
●
Service users reported that TW was different from other services in that staff
seemed genuinely interested in them as individuals, but provided a mixed picture
regarding the effect of the project on their re-offending behaviour.
●
The report states that the project is currently over-reliant on key workers’ unvalidated
judgements of change. More objective measures have been identified to assess need
and impact, but the feasibility of replacing existing measures with these alternatives
remains to be assessed.
171 Hamlyn, B. and Lewis D. (2000)
Women Prisoners: A survey of their work and training experiences in custody
and on release. Home Office Research Study 208, London: Home Office.
172 Lart
et al. (2008)
Interventions aimed at reducing re-offending in female offenders: a rapid evidence
assessment (REA), Ministry of Justice Research Series 8/08, 2008.
173 Hedderman
et al. (2008)
Implementing services for women offenders and those ‘at risk’ of offending: action
research with Together Women, Ministry of Justice Research Series 12/08 London: Ministry of Justice.
66
DIVERSITY
Ethnicity, religion and nationality174
Ethnicity, religion and nationality of prisoners is self-declared.
Trends in numbers relating to the ethnicity and religion of prisoners
The method for classifying ethnicity changed in 2004 so direct comparisons with previous
years is not possible. In 2004, nearly ten per cent of prisoners were classified under the old
1991 Census categories.
Ethnicity
●
In 2007, nearly three-quarters of the prison population was White. Black or Black
British prisoners accounted for 15 per cent of the population, Asian or Asian British
prisoners accounted for seven per cent of the prison population.
●
Of British national prisoners in 2007, 81 per cent were White. Black or Black British
prisoners accounted for 11 per cent of the population, Asian or Asian British prisoners
accounted for five per cent of the prison population.
●
In 2007, White British males were serving sentences for sexual offences, burglary
and theft in greater proportions than all other ethnic groups for British nationals.
●
In 2007, around 22 per cent of Black British male prisoners were in prison for
robbery. In contrast, around ten per cent of Black foreign male prisoners were serving
sentences for the same offence.
●
In 2007, around 42 per cent of Black foreign male prisoners were serving
sentences for drugs offences. In contrast, around 21 per cent of Black British male
prisoners were serving sentences for the same offences.
●
In 2007, around 58 per cent of foreign female prisoners were serving sentences for
drugs offences. Around 24 per cent of British females were in prison for the same offence.
Religion
●
Between 1997 and 2007, the prison population rose by 38 per cent from around 58,000
to 79,700. In the same period the religious make-up of prisoners changed considerably.
174 Ministry of Justice (2008), Statistics Bulletin: Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2007, England and
Wales, London: Ministry of Justice
67
●
In 2007, the largest grouping of prisoners was those expressing no religion,
accounting for around one-third of the population. This increased by 64 per cent
between 1997 and 2007.
●
In 2007, the next largest grouping was Anglicans, accounting for nearly 30 per
cent of all prisoners. The proportion of Anglicans decreased by seven per cent over
the last ten years.
●
All Christians (Anglicans, Roman Catholics and others) accounted for over half
the prison population in 2007. This increased by 12 per cent over the last ten years.
●
In 2007, Muslim prisoners accounted for 11 per cent of the population, around
8,900 prisoners. The Muslim prison population in 1997 was 3,700.
●
Prisoners belonging to the Buddhist faith increased from around 200 in 1997 to around
1,600 in 2007.
Nationality
●
Foreign nationals made up around 14 per cent of the prison population in 2007. 168 different nationalities were represented. In 1997, foreign nationals made up around
eight per cent of the prison population.
●
In 2007, around 29 per cent of foreign national prisoners came from African
countries. Prisoners from European countries accounted for around 28 per cent.
Prisoners from Asian and West Indian Countries accounted for 18 and 15 per cent
respectively.
●
Prisoners from three countries made up over a quarter of the foreign prisoner
population in 2007. These countries are: Jamaica with 1,372, Nigeria with 1,028 and
the Republic of Ireland with 637 prisoners.
●
Between January and December 2008, around 5,400 foreign prisoners were
removed from the UK. This builds on the 4,200 foreign prisoners sent home by the
agency in 2007.175
175 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/immiq408.pdf and
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/newsarticles/immandasylumstats
68
PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS
The general public has little understanding of the work of the correctional services,
or of the justice system as a whole. The general public thinks about the work of the
correctional services less than they do about the work of the police. In a MORI survey from
2003,176 74 per cent of people reported knowing a great deal/a fair amount about the police,
30 per cent of respondents reported knowing a great deal/a fair amount about prisons, 23 per
cent of respondents reported knowing a great deal/a fair amount about the probation service.
Knowledge has a bearing on confidence. Those with the least knowledge of crime and
sentencing practice were the most critical of the system177. Providing information on the CJS
has been shown to lead to increased levels of knowledge and of confidence in the CJS178.
It has also been found that those CJS institutions with which the public was most familiar
tended also to be the institutions which the public consider most effective (and vice versa)
(i.e. familiarity and perceived effectiveness were highly correlated).179 People who felt more
informed about how crime was being tackled tended to be more confident in the CJS180.
The public has lower confidence in the correctional services than it does in the police. The British Crime Survey 2006/07181 found that police are the most highly rated CJS agency,
but none was very highly rated (51 per cent of people thought the police were doing a good
or excellent job, compared with 29 per cent for magistrates, 28 per cent for the CPS, 27 per
cent for judges, 23 per cent for prison and 23 per cent for probation).
There is evidence that Minority Ethnic groups feel they would be treated worse
than other ethnic groups by the correctional services. Ten per cent of Minority Ethnic
groups felt they would be treated worse than people of other races by the probation service
compared to three per cent of White respondents. The equivalent figures for the prison
service were 17 and two per cent respectively182.
176 MORI (2003) Survey of Public Confidence in Criminal Justice, London: MORI.
177 Chapman, B., Mirrlees-Black,C. and Brawn, C. (2002)
Improving public attitudes to the Criminal Justice
System: the impact of information. Home Office Research Study 245. London: Home Office.
178
ibid
179 MORI (2008) Closing the Gaps: Crime and Public Perceptions, London: MORI.
180
Ibid.
181 Allen, J., Edmonds, S., Patterson, A. and Smith, D. (2006)
Policing and the criminal justice system – public
confidence and perceptions: findings from the 2004/05 British Crime Survey Home Office Online Report
07/06. London: Home Office.
182 Murphy, R., Wedlock E. and King, J. (2005)
Early Findings from the 2005 Home Office Citizenship Survey
2nd Edition. Home Office Online Report 49/05. London: Home Office.
69
The public thinks that sentences are too lenient. Three-quarters of BCS respondents in
2004/05 felt that sentences given out by the court were too lenient183. However, the public
underestimated the severity of sentencing and use of custody184.
Research suggests that there is a lot of support for treating, as well as punishing,
underlying problems (for example, through rehabilitation)185.
Confidence in the CJS is strongly linked to perceptions of the effectiveness of the
police. The police are the largest contingent of the CJS and have by far the most contact
with the public. (MoJ Research Series 7/07). The actions of the police – and information
about them – had a greater impact on confidence than is the case with other CJS
agencies186.
183 Allen, J., Edmonds, S., Patterson, A. and Smith, D. (2006)
Policing and the criminal justice system – public
confidence and perceptions: findings from the 2004/05 British Crime Survey Home Office Online Report
07/06.
184 MORI (2003) Survey of Public Confidence in Criminal Justice, London: MORI.
185 MORI (2003) Survey of Public Confidence in Criminal Justice, London: MORI.
186 Hough M. and Roberts, J.V (2004)
Confidence in justice: an international review. Findings 243. London:
Home Office.
70
INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS
Prison population
At the end of August 2007, England and Wales had 149 prisoners per 100,000
population, the second highest rate in Western Europe. The highest was in Luxembourg
(155), and other high rates were in Spain (148) and Scotland (142).187
Higher rates were recorded in five of the new EU member states: Estonia (322), Latvia (287),
Lithuania (239), Poland (237) and the Czech Republic (182), and also in two other European
countries: the Russian Federation (613) and Ukraine (332).
The lowest rates in Western Europe were in Iceland (37), Denmark (62), Finland (64) and
Slovenia (66).
The Russian Federation is one of 15 countries with prison population rates of 400 or above;
this includes the USA whose rate of 762 in mid-2007 was the highest in the world.
Over the period 2001 to 2007, the prison population rose by 20 per cent in England and
Wales compared with five per cent across all the 27 European Union countries. The
largest percentage increases were seen in Luxembourg (up 109%), Cyprus (up 82%) and
Northern Ireland (up 61%). The largest percentage decreases were seen in Romania (down
41%), Latvia and Republic of Korea (both down 26%) and Ukraine (down 23%).
In 2003, excluding Eastern European countries, England and Wales had one of the
highest number of prison receptions per head of population. England and Wales had
256 receptions per 100,000 population compared with France (129), Italy (144) and Sweden
(120). Higher rates were found in Switzerland (727), Scotland (742) and Northern Ireland
(742).188
In 2004, England and Wales had the lowest proportion of untried prisoners in Europe: 11 per cent of the prison population in England and Wales were untried prisoners compared
with 32 per cent in France, 21 per cent in Sweden, and 20 per cent in Germany.189
In 2004, 17 per cent of the prison population in England and Wales were serving sentences
of ten years and over compared with 23 per cent in France, nine per cent in Sweden and five
per cent in the Netherlands and Germany.190
187 Ministry of Justice (2008), Statistics Bulletin: Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2007, England and
Wales, London: Ministry of Justice.
188 European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics 2006.
189 Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics 2005.
190 Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics 2005.
71
In 2001, England and Wales had a lower rate of prison population per recorded crime
than other European countries: a ratio of 12.1 prisoners per 1,000 recorded crimes
compared to an average of 16.9 for al EU countries.191 However, simple comparisons between
the prison population and crime rates are considered misleading because of differences
between countries in both the way that crimes are recorded and their legal definitions.
Table 10: Prison population in EU and main OECD countries, per 100,000
population, 2007
Rate per 100,000 population in
Country
Prison Population
2007
England and Wales
80,692
149
Northern Ireland
1,468
83
Scotland
7,291
142
Austria
8,887
107
Belgium
10,008
94
Cyprus
673
85
Czech Republic
18,901
182
Denmark
3,406
62
Estonia
4,327
322
Finland
3,370
64
France
60,677
95
Germany
75,719
92
Greece
10,700
96
Hungary
14,353
143
Iceland
115
37
Ireland (Eire)
3,325
76
Italy
48,693
82
Latvia
6,548
287
Lithuania
8,079
239
Lithuania
8,079
239
Luxembourg
745
155
Malta
387
95
Netherlands
18,103
110
Norway
3,280
69
Poland
90,199
237
Portugal
11,587
109
Slovakia
7,986
148
Slovenia
1,336
66
Spain
66,400
148
Sweden
6,770
74
Switzerland
5,715
76
Turkey
85,865
122
Australia
27,224
130
Canada
35,110 (2006)
108 (2006)
Japan
81,255
63
New Zealand
7,959
188
South Africa
161,639
339
USA
2,299,116
762
Source: Ministry of Justice, Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2007
191 Home Office, International Comparisons of Crime 2001, HOSB 12/03.
72
Table 11: Prison population in EU countries, per 1,000 recorded crimes,
2006
Prisoners per 1,000
Country
Prison Population
Recorded crimes
recorded crimes
EU Average(1)
16.9
England and Wales
79,085
5,428,273
14.6
Northern Ireland
1,501
121,144
12.4
Scotland
7,183
419,257
17.1
Austria
8,780
589,495
14.9
Belgium
9,573
1,012,004
9.6
Denmark
3,957
425,093
9.3
Finland
3,477
324,575
10.7
France
59,522
3,725,588
16.0
Germany
77,166
6,303,223
12.2
Greece
10,280
463,750
22.2
Ireland (Eire)
3,053
103,178
29.6
Italy
39,005
2,771,490
14.1
Luxembourg
738
25,913
28.5
Netherlands
16,230
1,218,447
13.3
Portugal
12,446
398,959
31.1
Spain
64,215
2,267,114
28.3
Sweden
7,175
1,224,958
5.9
Source: Crime and Criminal Justice, Statistics in Focus 19/2008, Eurostat
(1)
EU average unweighted
73
INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS
Re-offending
Making robust international comparisons on re-offending is difficult. This is due to the
lack of an international standard for measuring re-offending, as well as the complication of
each country having different judicial systems.
Where comparisons have been made, the figures for England and Wales come out
as broadly comparable with other countries (such as USA, Sweden, New Zealand,
Scotland, Germany) once assumptions are made to account for likely sources of
difference.
Work is underway, with England and Wales and the Netherlands leading the way, to
try to devise a standardised way to compare re-offending rates across countries that
would remove some of the difficulties encountered in making valid comparisons.
General points that countries have in common include younger male offenders and
offenders who commit acquisitive crime having higher re-offending rates.
74
FUTURE CHALLENGES
Prison population projections
The Home Office for some years published projections of the prison population in England
and Wales. This was continued by the Ministry of Justice from 2007. The projections are an
essential basis for HM Prison Service and NOMS planning and for the Spending Reviews, as
well as helping to inform NOMS strategy and sentencing policy development.
The projections cover a period of seven years, with the most recent published projections
covering the period from September 2008 to June 2015192. The projections are based on
assumptions about future criminal justice trends (e.g. sentencing) and incorporate the
anticipated impacts of policy and process initiatives that have agreed implementation
timetables.
Three scenarios (High, Medium and Low) have been projected based on assumptions about
future sentencing trends. The Medium scenario assumes no increases or decreases in
custody rates or determinate sentence lengths. The High/Low scenarios reflect a one per
cent per annum increase/decrease in custody rates and a 0.5 per cent per annum increase/
decrease in the average (determinate) custodial sentence lengths.
Other impacts included in the projections, such as those of new legislation and processes,
are applied equally to all scenarios (for example, the End of Custody Licence (ECL) scheme,
or the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act (CJIA) 2008.) However, they do not include
impacts for any future measures for which implementation timetables are not yet known, or
measures for which the effect cannot be projected with reasonable confidence.
Projected prison populations for the three scenarios are given in the table below. By the end
of June 2015 the demand for prison spaces is projected to increase to between 83,400 and
95,800.
Table 12: Projected prison population (end June figures)
Year
High
Medium
Low
2009
85,100
84,300
83,300
2010
88,100
86,400
84,400
2011
90,500
87,900
85,100
2012
92,100
88,700
85,000
2013
93,000
88,600
84,100
2014
94,200
89,000
83,600
2015
95,800
89,700
83,400
192 Ministry of Justice (2008), Statistics Bulletin: Prison Population Projections 2008-2015, England and Wales,
London: Ministry of Justice
75
Two main caveats should be borne in mind.
●
The projections assume that the CJIA measures designed to reduce the prison
population achieve the expected results. (There is ongoing monitoring to evaluate
the impacts that these measures have had so far. Although it is difficult to assess the
impacts of the Act so soon after commencement, early indications are that it is producing
the expected reductions in prison population.)
●
The projections do not include the effects of the new Sentencing Guideline Council
guidelines and Tackling Knives Action Plan programmes on the number and length
of custodial sentences given for possession of a knife. (Although at present we have
several alternative scenarios for the effects of this, we do not yet have sufficient
evidence on how the measures are working in practice to estimate with reasonable
confidence the size and timing of their impact on the prison population.)
Major new influences on the prison population
Reform of IPPs
●
Remove the statutory presumption of risk and allow full judicial discretion over whether
to give an IPP where a case merits a tariff of two years or greater and is a specified
violent or sexual offence;
●
Remove the option of an IPP where the tariff is less than two years and allow a choice of
an extended sentence for public protection (EPP) or a standard determinate sentence;
●
Reform EPPs so that they no longer require Parole Board involvement, but instead have
a fixed custodial sentence followed by an extended period on licence.
Application of 50 per cent release rule to those sentenced under the 91 Act
Convert sentences of four years or more given under the CJ Act 1991 to comparable
sentences under the CJA 2003. In practice, this means releasing property, drugs and other
non-violent, non-sexual offenders at the 50 per cent point, with the remaining 50 per cent
served on licence, rather than requiring them to be released by the Parole Board at between
the 50 per cent and two-thirds point, followed by licence to the 75 per cent point.
Fixed-term recalls
Revise release arrangements for offenders subject to recall, so that there is a presumption
that those on determinate sentences who have not committed a sexual or violent offence nor
are assessed as presenting serious harm are released automatically after 28 days rather
than having to be considered by the Parole Board.
76
Presumption of no remand for summary-only offences
Introduce a statutory presumption (which can be overruled by the judge) that those
committing summary offences be bailed unless they have: (a) previously breached bail in the
same case and risk absconding, offending or interfering with witnesses; (b) absconded in
previous proceedings and risk doing so again; (c) require custody for their own protection.
Credit against sentence for time on curfew
Allow offenders to receive a half a day’s credit against their custodial sentence for every day
they have spent bailed on tagged curfew, as long as they have been compliant.
Total impact from the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
Because of interactions between the measures, the total impact is less than the sum of the
individual impacts. The total impact ranges from a reduction of just over 1,000 prisoners in
June 2009 to over 3,000 in 2014.
Impact of new driving offences
The Road Safety Act 2006 introduced new offences: ‘Causing death by careless driving’,
‘Causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs’ and ‘Causing
Death by Driving: Unlicensed, Disqualified or Uninsured Drivers’. Also the maximum
sentences for other driving offences have been increased. These are expected to increase
the prison population.
Knife crime
Current changes to the way knife crimes are sentenced will increase the prison population.
This is a result of:
●
the expectation to prosecute rather than caution;
●
the increase in sentence tariffs in the SGC guidelines (in response to the Court of
Appeal judgement); and
●
increased police activity in this area as a result of Tackling Knives Action Plan (TKAP)
initiatives.
Three scenarios have been calculated. Note that the calculations are provisional and will be
updated whenever new data are available.
77
