1st Report - Cutting crime: better community sentences

The government's response

What the committee recommended 200

1. 1
   Community sentences can be particularly flexible. Conclusion · paragraph 21
2. 2
   While we were conducting our inquiry, prisons reached their operational capacity. Conclusion · paragraph 42
3. 3
   Custody is sometimes necessary, but it is expensive and fuels reoffending. Conclusion · paragraph 43
4. 4
   Being homeless makes it difficult to comply with the requirements of a community order. Conclusion · paragraph 44
5. 5
   The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities should recognise the importance of housing to... Conclusion · paragraph 45

See all 200 recommendations and conclusions

Sources

• 1st Report - Cutting crime: better community sentences ↗The committee's report, parliament.uk
• Government response to the Committee’s report: Cutting crime: better community sentences ↗The government's response, 1 March 2024, parliament.uk

Recommendations and conclusions 200

1. 1
   Community sentences can be particularly flexible. Conclusion · paragraph 21 Conclusion (the committee's words)

   Community sentences can be particularly flexible. When passing a community order, judges and magistrates can select from a range of requirements. This allows them to tailor the sentence to the individual case, setting out how to punish and rehabilitate the offender. This meets the objectives of sentencers, helps the offender, and protects society.
2. 2
   While we were conducting our inquiry, prisons reached their operational capacity. Conclusion · paragraph 42 Conclusion (the committee's words)

   While we were conducting our inquiry, prisons reached their operational capacity. The Government is building new prisons, originally driven by the need to replace old prisons whose condition is extremely poor and which incur considerable running costs. The focus now is on expanding the number of prison places rather than replacing old prisons.
3. 3
   Custody is sometimes necessary, but it is expensive and fuels reoffending. Conclusion · paragraph 43 Conclusion (the committee's words)

   Custody is sometimes necessary, but it is expensive and fuels reoffending. Community orders are a sound alternative in many cases. They can take various forms, giving judges and magistrates the ability to tailor sentences to individual circumstances. They are demanding on the offender and help them stop committing crime, thereby protecting the public. Breach mechanisms mean that offenders are being held to account.
4. 4
   Being homeless makes it difficult to comply with the requirements of a community order. Conclusion · paragraph 44 Conclusion (the committee's words)

   Being homeless makes it difficult to comply with the requirements of a community order. For those sent to prison, perhaps after the breach of a community order, custody can make their situation worse. They are likely to lose their accommodation—having stable housing is crucial to being in employment, and to access support networks. Without these, it is more likely that an offender will reoffend. Community sentences do not cut offenders from their support network or employment, which may enable maintaining suitable accommodation.
5. 5
   The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities should recognise the importance of housing to... Conclusion · paragraph 45 Conclusion (the committee's words)

   The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities should recognise the importance of housing to the success of community orders . It should be careful not to undermine the efforts of the Ministry of Justice to rehabilitate people serving community orders .
6. 6
   Increasing the use of community orders is likely to result in a decline of reoffending,... Conclusion · paragraph 46 Conclusion (the committee's words)

   Increasing the use of community orders is likely to result in a decline of reoffending, which would result in long-term savings. While the most intensive types of community orders are expensive to deliver, they typically cost less than custody.
7. 7
   We welcome problem-solving courts, including specialised pilot ‘intensive supervision courts’. Conclusion · paragraph 47 Conclusion (the committee's words)

   We welcome problem-solving courts, including specialised pilot ‘intensive supervision courts’. By taking a holistic approach and tailoring sentences to individual circumstances, and by holding offenders accountable for their progress through regular court hearings, we believe that problem-solving approaches can be effective solutions against repeat offending.
8. 8
   Despite all the advantages of community orders, their use has been declining in recent years. Conclusion · paragraph 66 Conclusion (the committee's words)

   Despite all the advantages of community orders, their use has been declining in recent years. Various explanations were brought forward. The negative impact of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms persists—sentencers lost confidence in the ability of Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs, to whom the management of low-risk offenders was outsourced) to enforce community orders. Trust in community sentences is progressively being restored after the Probation Service unified in 2021, putting an end to the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms.
9. 9
   Community orders should be used more frequently. Conclusion · paragraph 67 Conclusion (the committee's words)

   Community orders should be used more frequently. While it is the responsibility of the independent Judiciary to decide what sentence is appropriate in each case brought before Courts, it is the role of the Government to make sentences available to the Judiciary.
10. 10
    The Government should invest in the services that underpin community orders to satisfy sentencers of... Recommendation · paragraph 68 Recommendation (the committee's words)

    The Government should invest in the services that underpin community orders to satisfy sentencers of their efficiency and availability. The emphasis should be put on intensive treatment, the effectiveness of which is established.
11. 11
    Pre-Sentence Reports produced by the Probation Service should include relevant information about the content, effectiveness... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Pre-Sentence Reports produced by the Probation Service should include relevant information about the content, effectiveness , and availability of community sentences in the local area (see further conclusions and recommendations on Pre-Sentence Reports starting at paragraph 255 in Chapter 5). Such information should be updated regularly to keep sentencers informed. (Paragraph 69) Tailoring sentences to the individual Scaling up the use of treatment requirements (paragraphs 71 to 91)
12. 12
    Many people on probation suffer from mental health issues and from addiction to alcohol or... Conclusion · paragraph 89 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Many people on probation suffer from mental health issues and from addiction to alcohol or drugs, which fuels their offending behaviour. Few of them are referred to a Community Sentence Treatment Requirement (CSTR). And yet, referrals exceed the availability of treatment, which may in itself deter sentencers from making referrals.
13. 13
    A greater proportion of people on probation should be served one or more treatment requirement(s). Conclusion · paragraph 90 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    A greater proportion of people on probation should be served one or more treatment requirement(s). This could be achieved by implementing our recommendations on Pre-Sentence Reports (see paragraphs 255—259) and on ‘integrated’ sentences (see paragraphs 123—127), and through a greater emphasis on treatment requirements in sentencing guidelines .
14. 14
    Current efforts to improve treatment services and increase their availability should be sustained. Conclusion · paragraph 91 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Current efforts to improve treatment services and increase their availability should be sustained. Further investment in Community Sentence Treatment Requirements is required and should be a priority. CSTRs are key to reducing reoffending, putting offenders on a path away from crime and protecting the public.
15. 15
    Women entering the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales are often the victims of... Conclusion · paragraph 102 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Women entering the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales are often the victims of abuse and discrimination, or suffering from trauma, addiction, and mental health issues. Many of them have caring responsibilities. These issues, acknowledged by the Government in its Female Offenders Strategy, have been explored in depth by others, notably by Baroness Corston and recently by the National Audit Office.
16. 16
    We note that the Ministry of Justice shares these concerns and has commissioned some specialised... Conclusion · paragraph 103 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    We note that the Ministry of Justice shares these concerns and has commissioned some specialised women’s services. This model, in which offenders receive tailored, wraparound rehabilitative support from a single provider in a single location, is proving effective—it is dignified, drives down reoffending, and costs less than custody.
17. 17
    The Government should provide additional funding for the various rehabilitative services provided by women’s centres... Recommendation · paragraph 104 Recommendation (the committee's words)

    The Government should provide additional funding for the various rehabilitative services provided by women’s centres and explore options for wraparound support to be made available to all people who would benefit from it, giving them the best opportunity to stop committing crimes. This could include the expansion of one-stop-shops and co-located services .
18. 18
    The rehabilitative needs of low-level, repeat offenders are not being met. Conclusion · paragraph 123 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    The rehabilitative needs of low-level, repeat offenders are not being met. Increasing the tariff of their punishment, be it in an individual case or through a revision of sentencing guidelines, is not the solution—it would set people up to fail, further criminalising them rather than encouraging their path to rehabilitation. The solution is to increase the intensity of the rehabilitative support offered to them.
19. 19
    The better approach is to incentivise offenders. Conclusion · paragraph 124 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    The better approach is to incentivise offenders. Deferred sentencing can be used to encourage offenders to engage with probation, rewarding positive behaviour in the deferred sentence. Various initiatives have been or are being piloted to create incentives for low-level, repeat offenders to engage with more intensive rehabilitative activities.
20. 20
    These pilots should be properly monitored and evaluated to determine whether any of them should... Conclusion · paragraph 125 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    These pilots should be properly monitored and evaluated to determine whether any of them should be made more widely available. A plan for evaluation is essential to the launch of any new pilots . Best practices should be shared and scaled up.
21. 21
    An interesting approach is being tested in Ireland. Conclusion · paragraph 126 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    An interesting approach is being tested in Ireland. While their efficacy remains to be confirmed, the mechanisms of the ‘Integrated ’ Community Service Orders are intended to create incentives for people on probation to engage with rehabilitation and in a range of activities that is meaningful to them. They also save time before courts.
22. 22
    The Government should create incentives for low-level, ‘prolific’ offenders to engage with rehabilitation. Recommendation · paragraph 127 Recommendation (the committee's words)

    The Government should create incentives for low-level, ‘prolific’ offenders to engage with rehabilitation. It could find inspiration in the principles underpinning ‘Integrated’ Community Service Order from Ireland, also addressing upfront the operational challenges identified in Ireland. Offenders should be given the opportunity to select an intensive rehabilitative activity of their choice, such as residential treatment. The Probation Service should guide them in their choice . If they complete the activity they have opted for, the length of their sentence should be reduced by up to one third, without the individual having to reappear before a court.
23. 23
    Initiatives for mentoring should be scaled up . Recommendation · paragraph 128 Recommendation (the committee's words)

    Initiatives for mentoring should be scaled up . Mentors can be people who have previously been on probation themselves or volunteers from the community. The Government should launch a national campaign to recruit mentors from the community. Charitable organisations should be commissioned to train and manage large numbers of mentors. Offenders should be offered the opportunity to be matched with a mentor, who would guide them through their sentence.
24. 24
    There is a ‘cliff edge’ in the response to offending when a young person transitions... Conclusion · paragraph 146 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    There is a ‘cliff edge’ in the response to offending when a young person transitions from Youth Justice Services to the adult Probation Service. Moving the age at which an offender undergoes this transition is unlikely, in itself, to bear positive results.
25. 25
    However, lessons can be learnt from Youth Offending Services about the management of the probation... Conclusion · paragraph 147 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    However, lessons can be learnt from Youth Offending Services about the management of the probation population in general, and of young adults in particular. YOSs do not only work with smaller caseloads and with more experienced staff, but are also embedded in local communities and more effective at communicating with offenders.
26. 26
    The Probation Service should learn best practices from Youth Offending Services, especially about how to... Conclusion · paragraph 148 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    The Probation Service should learn best practices from Youth Offending Services, especially about how to communicate with offenders to ensure they understand the sentences that are imposed on them. It should also encourage the local delivery of rehabilitative services and multiagency cooperation .
27. 27
    Age-appropriate solutions should be found to smooth the transition of those moving from Youth Offending... Conclusion · paragraph 149 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Age-appropriate solutions should be found to smooth the transition of those moving from Youth Offending Services to the adult Probation Service. These solutions should be made available to all young adults on probation .
28. 28
    Community sentences are more effective when the Probation Service is a fully engaged member of... Conclusion · paragraph 164 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Community sentences are more effective when the Probation Service is a fully engaged member of local partnerships, be it through the co-location of services or through cooperation forums, allowing information to circulate. This benefits offenders and there is also a public interest, for instance in making unpaid work placements more punitive and reparative.
29. 29
    We encourage the Probation Service to empower regional directors further, ensuring that a greater proportion... Conclusion · paragraph 165 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    We encourage the Probation Service to empower regional directors further, ensuring that a greater proportion of rehabilitative services are commissioned locally. They should be granted further autonomy to develop partnerships with local organisations and public agencies. Co-commissioning should be encouraged.
30. 30
    Commissioned rehabilitative services are a key component of community sentences. Conclusion · paragraph 192 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Commissioned rehabilitative services are a key component of community sentences. The delivery partners of the Probation Service provide valuable services. The most recent commissioning wave, while imperfect, is considered by all parties as a step in the right direction.
31. 31
    Partnerships with a range of local organisations, outside formal commissioning processes for rehabilitative services, are... Conclusion · paragraph 193 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Partnerships with a range of local organisations, outside formal commissioning processes for rehabilitative services, are also key to securing meaningful unpaid work placements that foster public support for community sentences.
32. 32
    The Probation Service, however, is not making the most out of these partnerships. Conclusion · paragraph 194 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    The Probation Service, however, is not making the most out of these partnerships. Referrals do not always contain sufficient information, risk assessments are not always produced and shared in a timely manner, and commissioned partners find it difficult to feed back information to the Probation Service.
33. 33
    The Ministry of Justice should seize the upcoming wave of commissioning as an opportunity to... Conclusion · paragraph 195 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    The Ministry of Justice should seize the upcoming wave of commissioning as an opportunity to apply lessons from the past two years. More funding should be allocated, especially to women’s centres and for housing. Contracts should be longer to protect the Probation Service’s partners, but subject to termination clauses to protect the taxpayer. More flexibility should be built in, perhaps through regular reviews, to allow partners to innovate.
34. 34
    The Ministry of Justice should ensure that smaller organisations are enabled to bid for contracts. Conclusion · paragraph 196 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    The Ministry of Justice should ensure that smaller organisations are enabled to bid for contracts. Smaller organisations should be offered administrative support. They should be permitted to apply jointly, or in partnership with larger organisations. Requirements should be adapted to the size of the contract.
35. 35
    The Probation Service should improve communications with its partners. Conclusion · paragraph 197 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    The Probation Service should improve communications with its partners. This could include guidance on what can, or cannot, be shared under data protection legislation . It should consider granting them direct access to its databases , as used to be the case prior to unification.
36. 36
    The Probation Service found itself understaffed when it unified in 2021. Conclusion · paragraph 213 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    The Probation Service found itself understaffed when it unified in 2021. This results in unmanageable caseloads and the profession being unattractive. Despite impressive recruitment campaigns in recent years, vacancy rates remain high. New recruits are inexperienced.
37. 37
    An offender’s relationship with their probation officer can be instrumental to their path away from... Conclusion · paragraph 214 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    An offender’s relationship with their probation officer can be instrumental to their path away from criminal activity. It is recognised as one of the most important factors, and people who have previously been on probation told us about the influence that good probation officers have had on their lives. Probation staff can only build constructive relationships with offenders if they are appropriately trained and have manageable caseloads; this in turn requires adequate staffing levels and minimal vacancy rates.
38. 38
    Recent recruitment and training waves should be sustained until vacancies are filled and the service... Conclusion · paragraph 215 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Recent recruitment and training waves should be sustained until vacancies are filled and the service effective. Efforts should be targeted at those areas where recent recruitment waves have been least successful.
39. 39
    The Probation Service is going through an identity crisis. Conclusion · paragraph 234 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    The Probation Service is going through an identity crisis. The role of a probation officer has changed in recent years—the increased focus on public protection distracts the attention of probation staff away from least-serious offenders. Moreover, the expectation that they refer offenders to services provided by others, and the quantity of administrative tasks they are expected to perform, often on flawed IT systems, transforms their mission into an unfulfilling job and means that they have reduced capacity to support low-level offenders on community sentences.
40. 40
    The Probation Service’s court teams are highly regarded by sentencers, but there are concerns about... Conclusion · paragraph 235 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    The Probation Service’s court teams are highly regarded by sentencers, but there are concerns about how their role is perceived by offenders. Due in part to the regularity with which sentencers accept the recommendations in the PSR, court teams themselves are sometimes seen by offenders as sentencing or even as prosecuting, which can undermine the trust of offenders in the Probation Service and lead to proceedings being perceived as unfair. Sentencers might consider being more explicit in the way they take ownership of their sentencing decisions when it aligns with a recommendation made by the Probation Service. Demonstrating that sentences are determined by the judiciary alone could reduce misconceptions.
41. 41
    Our impression throughout our inquiry was that Government and senior management seems to have lost... Conclusion · paragraph 236 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Our impression throughout our inquiry was that Government and senior management seems to have lost sight of low-level offenders and to be preoccupied with the size of the prison population and post-release supervision, perhaps because of recent institutional reorganisations. Supervising low-level offenders on community sentences is central to the mission of the Probation Service.
42. 42
    The Probation Service should not undergo any further large-scale restructuring in the coming few years... Conclusion · paragraph 237 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    The Probation Service should not undergo any further large-scale restructuring in the coming few years , to allow time for recent reorganisations to settle down, for more staff to be recruited, and for new recruits to gain experience, enabling them to supervise further recruits.
43. 43
    HMPPS should continue investing in its IT systems, such that Probation staff can dedicate more... Conclusion · paragraph 238 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    HMPPS should continue investing in its IT systems, such that Probation staff can dedicate more time to people on probation (see also section starting at paragraph 166 on “making the most out of partnerships” on the partners of the Probation Service being able to access IT systems).
44. 44
    Pre-Sentence Reports (PSRs) are an essential part of the sentencing process. Conclusion · paragraph 255 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Pre-Sentence Reports (PSRs) are an essential part of the sentencing process. They allow courts to tailor sentences to individual circumstances and give sentencers confidence that specific requirements are suitable and available in their area (see paragraph 67).
45. 45
    The number of PSRs prepared by the Probation Service, and the quality of these PSRs,... Conclusion · paragraph 256 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    The number of PSRs prepared by the Probation Service, and the quality of these PSRs, have been declining dramatically in recent years. This is the outcome of an effort to save court time but comes at the expense of the quality of sentencing. It also means that offenders are unable to give consent in an informed and systematic way to treatment requirements for which consent is necessary.
46. 46
    We support ongoing efforts that should result in more PSRs being prepared, of a higher... Conclusion · paragraph 257 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    We support ongoing efforts that should result in more PSRs being prepared, of a higher standard, avoiding wasting court time. New PSR templates should include a prompt for probation officers to consider whether a treatment requirement would be appropriate, to encourage increased use of such requirements.
47. 47
    The Probation Service, offenders , and their representatives should be given more opportunity to request... Conclusion · paragraph 258 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    The Probation Service, offenders , and their representatives should be given more opportunity to request Pre-Sentence Reports. Pre-Sentence Reports should be conducted in a way that makes offenders feel that they are being heard.
48. 48
    The imposition of rehabilitative requirements should be guided by the individual circumstances of the case... Conclusion · paragraph 259 Conclusion (the committee's words)

    The imposition of rehabilitative requirements should be guided by the individual circumstances of the case so as to ensure maximum efficiency of sentences. PSRs should provide the opportunity for rehabilitative needs to be assessed and for consent to be sought, in an informed and systematic way.
49. 49
    The National Audit Office detailed that the number of offenders starting supervision with the Probation... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    The National Audit Office detailed that the number of offenders starting supervision with the Probation Service under a community sentence fell by 44% (from 106,073 to 59,800) between 2012 and 2022, reflecting the decline in imposition of community orders over the same period. 74 The Probation Board of Northern Ireland noticed similar trends in the use of the Community Service Orders. 75 Figure 1: Number of community orders issued every year Source: Ministry of Justice, ‘Criminal justice system statistics quarterly: September 2022—Overview Table Q5.3’ (16 February 2023): https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-statistics-quarterly -september-2022 [accessed 10 October 2023]
50. 50
    The Ministry of Justice told us that “it is likely that various factors have contributed... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    The Ministry of Justice told us that “it is likely that various factors have contributed to this reduction in the number of COs imposed”. They mentioned “changes to sentence practice”, such as “an increased use of suspended sentences for Indictable/Triable Either Way offences”. 76 They suggested the following other explanations: “Changes in the number of cases being dealt with at court. Changes in the offence group mix being dealt with at court. Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Changes to Legislation.” 77
51. 51
    The Probation Institute added another potential cause, arguing that “the decline in use of community... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    The Probation Institute added another potential cause, arguing that “the decline in use of community penalties can be partially explained by ‘prisoncentricity’ as a dominant theme in political discourse”, defining “prisoncentricity” as “the dominance of thinking that imprisonment is the only real penalty.” 78
52. 52
    The National Audit Office said that “part of this decline is because the total number... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    The National Audit Office said that “part of this decline is because the total number of people sentenced over the period has declined by 14%”, but noted that “the proportion of all offenders given community sentences has decreased significantly.” 79 By comparison, the proportion of offenders given immediate custodial sentences has declined slowly (see Figure 2).
53. 53
    Lord Justice William Davis, Chair of the Sentencing Council, also told us about a change... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Lord Justice William Davis, Chair of the Sentencing Council, also told us about a change in sentencing practice. He explained that “between about 1991 and 2005, you could get a suspended sentence only if there were exceptional circumstances relating to either the offence or the offender”, such that “suspended sentences were rare.” The entry into force, in 2005, of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 meant “there was a dramatic increase in suspended sentences and a corresponding fall in community orders.” 80 Damian Hinds MP also said: “I think it makes sense to put together community orders and suspended sentence orders, which share some of the same characteristics. If you do that, the decline in the number is not so great. Between 2005 and 2022, the decline was around 33%. That has to be seen in the context of sentences overall, which was down by about 29%.” 81 Figure 2: Sentences passed Source: Ministry of Justice, ‘Criminal justice system statistics quarterly: September 2022—Overview Table Q5.3’: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice- statistics-quarterly-september-2022 [accessed 10 October 2023]
54. 54
    Damian Hinds MP argued that the apparent decline was the result of a change in... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Damian Hinds MP argued that the apparent decline was the result of a change in the crime mix, with those offences which frequently attract a community sentence being less frequently committed, but nevertheless being penalised by a community sentence: “if you were to measure the number of community orders and suspended sentences per 100 domestic burglaries, say, you would not see a decline”. 82 The National Audit Office, however, told us that “data do not indicate that changes in the frequency of different offences explains the decline in community sentences”. They explained that: “For each type of offence, the proportion of sentences issued that were community sentences has decreased, with the exception of violence against the person, for which there was a small increase of one percentage point.” 83
55. 55
    Women in Prison also said that legislation might have had an impact. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Women in Prison also said that legislation might have had an impact. They claimed that “the introduction of the offence ‘Assault on Emergency Worker’ in 2018 is sweeping a significant number [of] women … into the justice system”, and noted that this offence was most commonly attracting a community order (43% of cases), ahead of suspended custodial sentences (12%) and immediate custody (9%). 84
56. 56
    Witnesses suggested other explanations for the decline in the imposition of community orders mostly related... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Witnesses suggested other explanations for the decline in the imposition of community orders mostly related to the relationship between sentencers and the Probation Service. The Prison Reform Trust pointed in the direction of Pre-Sentence Reports (PSRs), which sentencers can request from the Probation Service: “courts are over 10 times more likely to impose a community sentence if a pre-sentence report (PSR) is conducted” but standard PSRs “have almost entirely been phased out” in recent years (see Box 9, after paragraph 244). 85 Phil Bowen also mentioned “a deterioration in the relationship between sentencers and Probation” (see section on “a matter of confidence”, paragraphs 57–69) as a potential explanation. The National Audit Office listed the “quality and availability of information about offenders available to sentencers”, “sentencers’ confidence in community sentences due to probation arrangements”, and “awareness and availability of options for managing offenders in the community.” 86 A matter of confidence
57. 57
    We heard that the decline in the use of community sentences may also be related... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    We heard that the decline in the use of community sentences may also be related to sentencers having, at some point, lost trust in them or how they used to be enforced. Lord Justice William Davis, Chair of the Sentencing Council, told us that “there is considerable anecdotal evidence” of “judges and magistrates losing confidence in community sentences. He elaborated: “We as the Council are constantly talking to judges and magistrates about different guidelines and aspects of sentencing as part of our evaluation process. In the course of those conversations from 2015 to 2017 it was a theme that judges and magistrates felt— ‘We simply do not think that the orders we are imposing will be enforced’.” 87
58. 58
    Dr Cracknell drew a link with the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms (see Box 4), through which... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Dr Cracknell drew a link with the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms (see Box 4), through which the management of least-serious offenders was outsourced to private organisations, known as “Community Rehabilitation Companies” (CRCs), between 2014 and 2021. He explained that “these reforms have damaged the trust that sentencers have” in the Probation Service’s “ability to deliver effective community sentences.” 88 Box 4: The ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ reforms “Transforming Rehabilitation was a major structural reform programme introduced shortly after Chris Grayling MP became Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice in 2012. The programme implemented in 2014–15 introduced fundamental changes to how probation was organised and delivered. The primary change was the division of service delivery into two parts: The National Probation Service (NPS)—responsible for manging offenders who posed the highest risk of harm to the public and who had committed the most serious offences. The NPS was organised into seven geographic areas. Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs)—run by a mix of providers from private, statutory and voluntary sectors, contracted to deliver community sentences for medium and low-risk offenders, and paid, in part, for results achieved in reducing reoffending. In 2014, private companies (including Sodexo, Interserve, and MTC Novo) won bids to provide services in 21 CRC areas.” 89 In June 2020, CRC contracts were terminated and the Probation Service unified. 90 The House of Commons Justice Select Committee responded: “We welcome the decision to unify the Probation Service once more. We warn, however, that, after the disruption of the past seven years, changes proposed and begun to the probation system must be fully thought through, properly funded and expected to remain in place for a period of decades rather than months or a few years.” 91
59. 59
    Tom Franklin, Chief Executive of the Magistrates’ Association, confirmed that “the changes in the Probation... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Tom Franklin, Chief Executive of the Magistrates’ Association, confirmed that “the changes in the Probation Service over the last decade have certainly not helped at all” because “there is a feeling that a lot of the expertise in the Probation Service was lost as a result”, such that “the level of confidence has taken a knock over the last few years.” Tom Franklin, however, told us that community sentences are now “as popular as ever” among magistrates. 92 Lord Justice William Davis agreed that the lack of confidence was “historical and does not apply any more.” 93
60. 60
    Part of the issue was that CRCs “were not allowed to engage directly with the... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Part of the issue was that CRCs “were not allowed to engage directly with the courts” according to the National Audit Office. 94 As the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC) put it, “there was dissatisfaction about the inability of sentencers to direct the shape of the community order”. 95 An inspection by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) found that, “in the final months” of the Transforming Rehabilitation years, magistrates “liked the idea of drug rehabilitation requirements, but felt that they were being poorly delivered” because “they did not have confidence in CRCs to meet the needs of people on probation who had a drug problem”. 96
61. 61
    We heard that “there has been a big push in the service to improve liaison,... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    We heard that “there has been a big push in the service to improve liaison, which is paying off”. 97 The Minister for Prisons and Probation told us about the Judicial Engagement Charter, which “sets out how judges are kept informed of the availability of interventions”. 98 Chris Jennings, HMPPS’s Executive Director for Wales who led the introduction of the Judicial Engagement Charter, explained its purpose: “It was a promise of what we would do to engage with the judiciary to make sure that they felt we were fulfilling our obligations and giving them the information they need. We set out a series of commitments as part of that charter, to make sure that at local, regional and national level we have proper engagement structures where we can listen to the concerns of magistrates and provide them with any information that they need to have confidence in our system.” 99
62. 62
    A tangible outcome was the creation of “a national forum” chaired by the Chief Probation... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    A tangible outcome was the creation of “a national forum” chaired by the Chief Probation Officer and of local “liaison committees”. 100 Damian Hinds MP also told us about “online region-by-region summaries of the different interventions provided by probation and what they involve” which are “primarily aimed at members of the judiciary”. 101 Kim Thornden-Edwards, the current Chief Probation Officer, told us that she was “satisfied” that local probation teams “have some really connected, vibrant arrangements with their local sentencers, both in quarterly meetings where the higher level progress and performance is reported, and in newsletters and ad hoc events.” 102 Tom Franklin, on behalf of the Magistrates’ Association, echoed this position: he told us that “magistrates see the relationship between themselves and the Probation Officers as entirely symbiotic” and that there is a “high degree of confidence” among them. 103
63. 63
    Against this “generally positive picture”, we heard that sentencers “would like more information on the... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Against this “generally positive picture”, we heard that sentencers “would like more information on the outcomes of the people they sentence”. 104 As Chris Jennings explained, “in usual circumstances the only time sentencers note progress of an order is usually when it is in breach”, meaning that the offender has been recalled before the Court for non-compliance with the terms of their sentence. 105 The then Chief Inspector of Probation, Justin Russell, told us that “it would seem like a good idea to build in some sort of feedback mechanism”. 106 Lord Justice William Davis remembered a time when “judges would ask for a short progress report from the supervising officer”, while acknowledging that probation staff would not have capacity to produce them systematically (see paragraphs 239–259). 107
64. 64
    The public, too, is questioning the use and enforcement of community sentences. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    The public, too, is questioning the use and enforcement of community sentences. Gavin Dingwall told us that, “too often, there is a public perception that anything other than a custodial sentence is not an adequate response to an offence” and that, “often this is borne out of ignorance of different types of sentencing.” 108 The House of Commons Justice Select Committee recently reported on these issues, finding that a significant proportion of the public has little knowledge of sentencing policy. 109 The Ministry of Justice cited the work of the Sentencing Council on the public understanding of sentencing: “These reports indicate that most respondents were of the view that COs may be most appropriate for less serious crimes, such as minor theft. Some however felt that they were too ‘soft’ to be effective.” 110
65. 65
    Revolving Doors told us that polling commissioned by them in 2022 “found that the majority... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Revolving Doors told us that polling commissioned by them in 2022 “found that the majority of the public (65%) think that the reason why most people commit non-violent, low-level crimes is due to poverty, mental health issues, and problems with drugs and alcohol.” They went on to say that “the majority (58%) also believe that alternatives to prison should be found in these cases”. 111 The National Association of Probation Officers told us: “Greater understanding of the guidelines but also what a community sentence involves would enable the public and victims to not only understand why a sentence was handed down but may go some way to offering reassurances.” 112
66. 66
    Despite all the advantages of community orders, their use has been declining in recent years. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Despite all the advantages of community orders, their use has been declining in recent years. Various explanations were brought forward. The negative impact of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms persists—sentencers lost confidence in the ability of Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs, to whom the management of low-risk offenders was outsourced) to enforce community orders. Trust in community sentences is progressively being restored after the Probation Service unified in 2021, putting an end to the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms.
67. 67
    Community orders should be used more frequently. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Community orders should be used more frequently. While it is the responsibility of the independent Judiciary to decide what sentence is appropriate in each case brought before Courts, it is the role of the Government to make sentences available to the Judiciary.
68. 68
    The Government should invest in the services that underpin community orders to satisfy sentencers of... Recommendation Recommendation (the committee's words)

    The Government should invest in the services that underpin community orders to satisfy sentencers of their efficiency and availability. The emphasis should be put on intensive treatment, the effectiveness of which is established.
69. 69
    Pre-Sentence Reports produced by the Probation Service should include relevant information about the content, effectiveness,... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Pre-Sentence Reports produced by the Probation Service should include relevant information about the content, effectiveness, and availability of community sentences in the local area (see further conclusions and recommendations on Pre-Sentence Reports starting at paragraph 255 in Chapter 5). Such information should be updated regularly to keep sentencers informed. 17 Q 26 (Phil Bowen), see also Q 18 (Andrew Neilson) and Q 17 (Gavin Dingwall). 18 Written evidence from the Ministry of Justice ( JCS0013 ) 19 Q 31 (Tom Franklin) 20 Ibid. 21 Sentencing Act 2020, section 208(10) 22 Q 25 (Andrew Neilson) 23 HC Deb, 16 October 2023, c ol 60 24 Q 18 (Phil Bowen) 25 HC Deb, 16 October 2023, c ol 60 26 Q 25 (Phil Bowen) 27 Written evidence from Dr Hannah Graham ( JCS0006 ) 28 Q 17 (Gavin Dingwall) 29 Written evidence from Paul Doran ( JCS0035 ). See also written evidence from the Scottish Sentencing Council ( JCS0009 ) for similar opinion polls in Scotland. 30 According to the National Audit Office, “Prison capacity can be measured in two ways: uncrowded capacity is the number of prisoners a prison can hold while providing a good, decent standard of accommodation. This is known as Certified Normal Accommodation. Prisons holding more prisoners than this threshold are crowded. Operational capacity is the total number of prisoners that a prison can hold without risk to control, security and the proper operation of the planned regime.” See National Audit Office, Improving the prison estate (Session 2019–20, HC 41), 7 Feburuary 2020: https://www.nao.org.uk /wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Improving-the-prison-estate.pdf [accessed 24 October 2023]. 31 Written evidence from the National Audit Office ( JCS0039 ) 32 Ministry of Justice, ‘Population bulletin: weekly 13 October 2023’ (6 January 2023): https:// www.gov.uk/government/publications/prison-population-figures-2023 [accessed 24 October 2023]. 33 Ministry of Justice, ‘Prison Population Projections 2022 to 2027, England and Wales’ (23 February 2023): https://www.gov.uk /government/statistics/prison-population-projections-2022-to-2027 [accessed 29 November 2023] 34 Ministry of Justice, Prisons Strategy White Paper , CP 581 (December 2021): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk /government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1038765/prisons-strategy -white-paper.pdf [accessed 29 November] 35 Written Answer 187206 , Session 2023–24 36 Letter from the Rt Hon Edward Argar MP, Minister of State for Justice to Sir Bob Neill MP (21 November 2023): https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/42350 /documents/210487/default/ 37 House of Commons Library, The Prison Estate in England and Wales, Research Briefing, SN05646 , 29 June 2023 38 HC Deb, 16 October 2023, c ol 60 39 Q 118 (Damian Hinds MP), see also Q 120 (Damian Hinds MP). 40 Written evidence from His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons ( JCS0018 ) 41 HC Deb, 16 October 2023, c ol 60 42 Q 118 (Damian Hinds MP), see also Q 120 (Damian Hinds MP). 43 Q 46 (Lord Justice William Davis) and The Sentencing Council, The Effectiveness of Sentencing Options on Reoffending (30 September 2022): https://www.sentencingcouncil.org .uk/wp-content/uploads/Effectiveness-of-Sentencing-Options-Review-FINAL .pdf [accessed 26 October 2023] 44 Ministry of Justice, Proven reoffending statistics quarterly bulletin, July to September 2021 (July 2021): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads /attachment_data/file/1173906/PRSQ_Bulletin_July_to_September_2021 .pdf [accessed 10 October 2023] 45 Q 20 (Gavin Dingwall) 46 Q 20 (Gavin Dingwall) 47 Q 108 (Jenny George) and supplementary written evidence from the National Audit Office ( JCS0042 ). 48 Q 20 (Gavin Dingwall) 49 Q 109 (Jenny George) 50 Written evidence from Dr Jay Gormley, Dr Louise Kennefick and Professor Melissa Hamilton ( JCS0028 ) 51 Written evidence from Revolving Doors ( JCS0016 ), see also Q 110 (Dr Juste Abramovaite). 52 Written evidence from the Prison Reform Trust ( JCS0019 ) 53 HC Deb, 16 October 2023, col 60 54 Q 16 (Justin Russell) 55 Q 4 (Justin Russell) 56 Written evidence from the National Audit Office ( JCS0039 ), Revolving Doors ( JCS0016 ), Q 106 (Dr Juste Abramovaite) and Q 122 (Damian Hinds MP). 57 Q 18 (Gavin Dingwall) 58 Written evidence from the National Audit Office ( JCS0039 ). Post-release supervision was made compulsory for those serving short-term custodial sentences by the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 . See also Q 106 (Jenny George) 59 Q 112 (Dr Juste Abramovaite) 60 Written evidence from the National Audit Office ( JCS0039 ) and Q 18 (Andrew Neilson and Phil Bowen). 61 Q 114 (Jenny George) 62 Letter from Rt. Hon. Damian Hinds MP, Minister of State for Justice, to Baroness Hamwee, Chair of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee (17 October 2023): https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/41868/documents/207632/default 63 Q 114 (Jenny George and Dr Juste Abramovaite) 64 Q 104 (Jenny George) 65 Written evidence from Paul Doran ( JCS0035 ) 66 Q 104 (Dr Juste Abramovaite), see also Q 27 (Gavin Dingwall) and written evidence from Dr Juste Abramovaite ( JCS0046 ) 67 QQ 108–109 (Dr Juste Abramovaite) 68 Q 72 (Kim Thornden-Edwards) 69 Ibid. 70 Q 24 (Phil Bowen) 71 Q 122 (Damian Hinds MP) 72 Written evidence from Greater Manchester Combined Authority ( JCS0044 ), the Probation Board for Northern Ireland ( JCS0043 ), Q 52 (Courtney Bryan) and Q 24 (Phil Bowen) 73 Written evidence from the Ministry of Justice ( JCS0013 ) 74 Written evidence from the National Audit Office ( JCS0039 ) 75 Written evidence from the Probation Board for Northern Ireland ( JCS0043 ) 76 Written evidence from the Ministry of Justice ( JCS0013 ). A ‘summary’ offence can be heard only before a Magistrates’ Court. An ‘indictable only’ offence can be heard only before a Crown Court. A ‘triable either-way’ offence can be heard either before a Magistrates’ Court or before a Crown Court. 77 Written evidence from the Ministry of Justice ( JCS0013 ) 78 Written evidence from the Probation Institute ( JCS0015 ) 79 Written evidence from the National Audit Office ( JCS0039 ) 80 Q 45 (Lord Justice William Davis) , see also written evidence from the Ministry of Justice ( JCS0013 ). 81 Q 118 (Damian Hinds MP) 82 Ibid. 83 Written evidence from the National Audit Office ( JCS0039 ) 84 Written evidence from Women in Prison ( JCS0030 ) 85 Written evidence from the Prison Reform Trust ( JCS0019 ) 86 Written evidence from the National Audit Office ( JCS0039 ) 87 Q 45 (Lord Justice William Davis) 88 Written evidence from Dr Matthew Cracknell ( JCS0014 ) 89 Justice Committee, The future of the probation service (Eighteenth Report, Session 2019–21, HC 285) 90 HC Deb, 11 June 2020, cols 425–438 91 Justice Committee, The future of the probation service 92 Q 32 (Tom Franklin) 93 Q 45 (Lord Justice William Davis) 94 Written evidence from the National Audit Office ( JCS0039 ) 95 Written evidence from the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners ( JCS0020 ) 96 Q 3 (Justin Russell) 97 Q 3 (Justin Russell) 98 Letter from Rt. Hon. Damian Hinds MP, Minister of State for Justice, to Baroness Hamwee, Chair of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee (17 October 2023): https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/41868/documents/207632/default , see also Q 106 (Damian Hinds MP). The Judicial Engagement Charter is published as supplementary written evidence from HM Prison and Probation Service ( JCS0047 ). 99 Q 72 (Chris Jennings) 100 Q 3 (Justin Russell) and Q 72 (Chris Jennings) 101 Letter from Rt. Hon. Damian Hinds MP, Minister of State for Justice, to Baroness Hamwee, Chair of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee (17 October 2023): https://committees.parliament. uk/publications/41868/documents/207632/default 102 Q 72 (Kim Thornden-Edwards) 103 Q 34 (Tom Franklin), see also Q 3 (Justin Russell) and Q 22 (Phil Bowen). 104 Q 3 (Justin Russell) 105 Q 72 (Chris Jennings), see also Q 49 (Lord Justice William Davis), Q 56 (Dr Eoin Guilfoyle), and Q 56 (Courtney Bryan). 106 Q 3 (Justin Russell) 107 Q 49 (Lord Justice William Davis), see also Q 72 (Chris Jennings). 108 Q 18 (Gavin Dingwall) 109 Justice Committee, Public opinion and understanding of sentencing (Tenth Report, Session 2022–23, HC 305) 110 Written evidence from the Ministry of Justice ( JCS0013 ) 111 Written evidence from Revolving Doors ( JCS0016 ) 112 Written evidence from NAPO ( JCS0021 ) < Back Next > © Parliamentary copyright 2023 A-Z index Glossary Contact us Freedom of Information Jobs Using this website Copyright Privacy notice Cookie policy Cookie Manager House of Lords - Cutting crime: better community sentences - Justice and Home Affairs Committee Cutting crime: better community sentences Contents Chapter 3: Tailoring sentences to the individual
70. 70
    Of all the reasons why community orders are a key sentencing option, one stands out:... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Of all the reasons why community orders are a key sentencing option, one stands out: they can be tailored to the circumstances of individual offenders. In this chapter, we reflect on how best community orders can fit the individual. We consider the fact that many people on probation need help with mental health issues or addictions and the corresponding need for treatment services. We also explore best practices arising from the wraparound support delivered by women’s centres and discuss how to create incentives for low-level, ‘prolific’ offenders to engage voluntarily with rehabilitation. Scaling up the use of treatment requirements Treatment needs
71. 71
    We heard that “many offenders experience mental health and substance misuse problems”. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    We heard that “many offenders experience mental health and substance misuse problems”. 113 His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) estimated that, in 2021, “about 75,000 people being supervised in the community by Probation had a drugs problem linked to their offending”. 114 In “about 38%” of the cases inspected by HMIP (which cuts across the entire probation population), “someone has a mental health issue”. 115 Given that the Probation Service was supervising around 240,000 people in December 2022, this would mean that around 91,000 people on probation suffer from mental health issues. 116 Writing about a different cohort, Revolving Doors pointed out that “one in three people in prison have issues with problematic substance use, 38% of people in prison believe that their drinking is ‘a big problem’ and more than half (52%) of people in prison report having mental health problems”. 117 The Probation Board of Northern Ireland (PBNI) told us that: “The complexity of people PBNI is supervising on community orders is increasing with more people presenting with poor mental health, addictions and trauma.” 118
72. 72
    The Government acknowledges that helping people on probation face their addictions or mental health issues... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    The Government acknowledges that helping people on probation face their addictions or mental health issues helps reduce crime. Damian Hinds MP told us that: “Drug addiction is the fuel, the driver, behind acquisitive crime and all manner of other crimes that come off the back of it and which drag young people and children into criminality”. 119 Dr Abramovaite concurred that “there is very strong evidence that substance misuse and mental health issues are big drivers for crime overall”. 120 She also told us about her evaluation of the New Chance scheme operating in the West Midlands: she found that, “after treatment, people who had mental health issues had a 37% lower reoffending rate than the control group”. She added that “among those who had substance misuse … the results were 55% lower”. 121 As Damian Hinds MP put it: “If you can resolve some of those issues, so much else follows in its wake.” 122
73. 73
    Three “Community Sentence Treatment Requirements” (CSTRs) exist to support offenders on their path away from... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Three “Community Sentence Treatment Requirements” (CSTRs) exist to support offenders on their path away from crime: “the Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR), the Mental Health Treatment Requirement (MHTR), and the Alcohol Treatment Requirement (ATR)”. 123 Speaking about DRRs specifically, Damian Hinds MP told us that “tackling drugs is a multi-faceted, multi-stage thing, but this opportunity at the point of sentencing to get people into a rehabilitation requirement is crucial”. 124 The delivery of CSTRs is “co-worked between probation and specialist treatment providers”. 125
74. 74
    For instance, we were told that Alcohol Treatment Requirements “are aimed at those with alcohol... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    For instance, we were told that Alcohol Treatment Requirements “are aimed at those with alcohol dependence, who are thought to require an alternative approach comprising (residential or non-residential) rehabilitative treatment”, and that “in such cases, treatment is thought to tackle offenders’ drinking problems where these underlie reasons for their criminal behaviour”. 126
75. 75
    Similarly, NHS England’s MHTR Service told us that they provide “treatment and interventions for individuals... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Similarly, NHS England’s MHTR Service told us that they provide “treatment and interventions for individuals who present with a range of low/medium level mental health issues, neurodiversity, personality disorders, trauma, and abuse” through primary care, and that Integrated Care Boards can commission secondary care “for those who require specialist care”. 127 For instance, our witness, Caroline, was sentenced to mental health treatment which “involved 12 sessions of emotional regulation treatment” followed by the “Thinking Skills Programme”. 128 Academics from the University of Northampton told us: “80% of individuals who complete the Primary Care MHTR intervention experience a statistically significant benefit in terms of mental distress, anxiety and/or depression.” 129
76. 76
    Witnesses told us about “the importance of dual diagnosis”. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Witnesses told us about “the importance of dual diagnosis”. 130 Niki Scordi, the then CEO of Advance, spelled out the problem: “mental health professionals will use the fact that you have a drug or alcohol addiction as a barrier to prevent you from accessing services and support, but you are abusing substances because you are trying to cope, so your mental health needs to be supported.” She explained that, as a result, some people “fall between the cracks and both services will deny support”. 131 Professor Brooker (Royal Holloway, University of London) and Dr Sirdifield (University of Lincoln) agreed that “it is very difficult for the general population to access ‘dual diagnosis’ services let alone those with the added complication of personality disorder.” 132
77. 77
    In the presence of a dual diagnosis, Niki Scordi argued that “services being available for... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    In the presence of a dual diagnosis, Niki Scordi argued that “services being available for mental health, rather than addiction, is particularly important”. 133 Talking in generic terms about a woman on probation, she explained that “she may know that she is using alcohol to cope, but telling her to stop and taking her to a treatment will not take away the reason why she is self-medicating”. This led her to conclude that “you have to address the underlying issues”. 134
78. 78
    Pavan Dhaliwal, Chief Executive of Revolving Doors, alluded to “combined orders”, involving more than one... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Pavan Dhaliwal, Chief Executive of Revolving Doors, alluded to “combined orders”, involving more than one treatment requirement. 135 Caroline told us that she “had the mental health treatment” and “just needed that Alcohol Treatment Requirement (ATR) as well”, emphasising the value of “the combination of both”. 136 Referrals for treatment
79. 79
    Justin Russell argued that treatment requirements “are not used as widely as they could be”. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Justin Russell argued that treatment requirements “are not used as widely as they could be”. 137 Speaking specifically about drug treatment, Justin Russell told us that there is a “huge gap” between the “need for specialist treatment” and the number of offenders served a treatment requirement. 138 Revolving Doors wrote that “the use of treatment requirements is far too low” across the board. 139 NHS England agreed that “the use of treatment requirements as part of a Community Order (CO) or Suspended Sentence Order (SSO) remains low”. 140 Kim Thornden-Edwards told us that CSTRs “have been around for some time, but they seem to have fallen out of regular volume use”. 141 Phil Bowen also told us that “the use of drug rehabilitation requirements has collapsed over the past 10 years”. 142 Caroline regretted that she had not been served a MHTR earlier: “I wish I had had the MHTR a lot sooner in my life”. 143 For comparison with another jurisdiction, “all offenders subject to ECO [an Enhanced Combination Order] were offered assessments by the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI) psychology staff”. 144 Box 5: Statistics on the imposition of Community Sentence Treatment Requirements (CSTRs) in 2012 and 2022 Over the course of a decade, the number of Alcohol Treatment Requirements and Drug Treatment Requirements imposed by courts decreased. The number of Mental Health Treatment Requirements imposed, however, grew more than twofold. More specifically: 5,971 Alcohol Treatment Requirements were commenced in 2012, representing 3.10% of requirements commenced that year as part of a community order. The number of ATRs commenced dropped to 3,796 in 2022, representing 3.80% of community order requirements commenced that year. 9,290 Drug Rehabilitation Requirements were commenced in 2012, representing 4.82% of requirements commenced that year as part of a community order. The number of DRRs commenced dropped to 3,601 in 2022, representing 3.60% of community order requirements commenced that year. 570 Mental Health Treatment Requirements were commenced in 2012, representing 0.30% of requirements commenced that year as part of a community order. The number of MHTRs commenced increased to 1,302 in 2022, representing 1.30% of community order requirements commenced that year. Source: Ministry of Justice, ‘Offender Management Statistics quarterly: October to December 2022—Probation: 2022, Table A4_8’ (April 2023): https://www.gov .uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-october-to-december -2022 Availability of treatment
80. 80
    Witnesses told us that referrals exceed availability and that increasing availability “would save lives”, especially... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Witnesses told us that referrals exceed availability and that increasing availability “would save lives”, especially in respect of mental health. 145 Tom Franklin told us that “local services may not be available” to deliver treatment requirements, such that the Probation Service would not recommend them in Pre-Sentence Reports in the first place, adding that “this is particularly the case with mental health treatment requirements”. 146 Niki Scordi also told us that “mental health services are not sufficient anywhere”, as she explained that there are “waiting lists and insufficient services” across all six Probation regions in which her charity operates. 147 Damian Hinds MP told us that “over the years, there has been much more provision of mental health services, but there has also been a huge growth in demand, which has been a strain”. 148 He nevertheless assured us that “secondary care mental health treatment requirements already exist throughout the system”. 149
81. 81
    Referrals exceed availability for drug treatment, too. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Referrals exceed availability for drug treatment, too. Justin Russell told us waiting lists “are not huge” for community-based drug treatment services commissioned by local authorities. 150 He added that there had been “a big drop” in the availability of such services, “partly because it is very expensive and they can only be commissioned on a consortium basis” if service providers are to be viable (see Chapter 4 for further information on the co-commissioning of services). 151 He also pointed out that “there is a lack of residential services” for drug treatment, in addition to issues related to services in the community. 152 We were told that “residential substance misuse rehabilitation services are sparse and it is very much a ‘post code lottery’.” 153
82. 82
    Even when treatment is available, witnesses told us about delays before it starts. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Even when treatment is available, witnesses told us about delays before it starts. Justin Russell said that “as with services for others living in the community, there are huge waiting lists at the moment for things like mental health treatment, and people on probation are joining a very long queue.” 154 The Criminal Justice Alliance added that “the way we deliver community sentences is often too slow” and that “a common frustration for judges is hearing that … ordered rehabilitative services have been delayed”. 155 Revolving Doors confirmed that “needing to wait for treatment to start when given a community sentence that involves mental health, drug and/or alcohol treatment” is a “key issue” identified by people on probation involved with the charity. They argued that “this waiting period can jeopardise a person’s chances, potentially leading to relapse and/or reoffending”. 156 Caroline told us: “I relapsed back to my old behaviour in that time that I had to wait”. 157
83. 83
    And when treatment is nominally available, it is not always completed. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    And when treatment is nominally available, it is not always completed. Justin Russell said that HMIP had “followed an entire quarterly cohort of people” who had been given a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement. They found that “only half of them had actually completed the DRR” and that “there had been very little drug testing”. Justin Russell also flagged that “in nine out of 10 orders, there had been no court oversight”, arguing that it “is a crucial part of the order; you go back to court to report on your progress”. 158 The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners explained that they “were told through the judiciary that review appointments for Drug Rehabilitation Requirements (DRRs) had stopped because people weren’t attending, there were no sanctions for this, and it simply tied up court time which could be better used”. 159 Dr Carly Lightowlers, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, University of Liverpool, shared similar findings about Alcohol Treatment Requirements, citing a study by the Ministry of Justice and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities: “fewer than half (46%) of those sentenced to an ATR engage with any treatment and just under half of those who do go on to complete it ‘successfully’ (48%), with most continuing to use alcohol”. 160
84. 84
    In the face of such challenges regarding the availability of treatment, Damian Hinds MP told... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    In the face of such challenges regarding the availability of treatment, Damian Hinds MP told us that “the Government made a commitment in the 10-year drugs strategy paper From Harm to Hope to making sure that there is a treatment place for every offender with an addiction and that there is money behind that”. He told us that he “would like to see considerably more drug rehabilitation requirements”. 161 Justin Russell noted that “after the Government published their drug strategy at the end of 2021, there was a significant increase in treatment funding”, but that “it was not in the control of the Probation Service, so it still has to join the queue with everybody else”. 162
85. 85
    Chris Jennings also told us he was determined to see an increase in the availability... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Chris Jennings also told us he was determined to see an increase in the availability of treatment services: “The Community Sentence Treatment Requirements are the area where I want to see most progress. If we cannot address people’s mental health and drug and alcohol issues, we will not be able to get them to keep on the right path and move their life to a more positive stage. Solving those root-cause issues is the key focus as pertains to community sentences.” 163
86. 86
    To enact such changes, witnesses told us about the “Community Sentence Treatment Requirement (CSTR) protocol”... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    To enact such changes, witnesses told us about the “Community Sentence Treatment Requirement (CSTR) protocol” between the Ministry of Justice and HMPPS, on the one hand, and NHS England and Public Health England, on the other hand. 164 The protocol aimed to increase the use of CSTRs and to introduce new primary Mental Health Treatment Requirements (MHTRs). NHS England told us that the new approach was launched in Milton Keynes in 2014 and later extended to four more areas in 2017 and 2018. They added that it involves £12 million of funding per year and was covering 65% of criminal courts as of May 2023. 165 We heard that “this pilot programme recognises that mental health and substance use are prevalent issues among offenders” and that “suitable community requirements have been significantly underused”. 166 HMPPS told us that the protocol “focused on strengthening local arrangements to improve joint work across substance misuse and mental health services” and “worked to promote the use of CSTRs with probation staff and sentencers”. They told us that “the roll out of new MHTRs is on track to achieve coverage in 100% of English courts by 2024” and that “one site has been established in Wales”. 167 Since 2018, “about 2,500 people” have already received mental health treatment thanks to the new approach, Justin Russell told us. 168
87. 87
    Chief Probation Officer Kim Thornden-Edwards told us about “a new national partnership agreement on health... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Chief Probation Officer Kim Thornden-Edwards told us about “a new national partnership agreement on health and social care”, agreed in February 2023. This new partnership, between the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health and Social Care, “funds some dedicated criminal justice-focused staff, who will work across police custody, courts, probation and prison to improve those treatment pathways” and “creates over 54,000 new substance misuse treatment places”. 169 This corresponds to a commitment, in the 10-year drug strategy, that 54,000 more people will receive treatment in the three years between April 2022 and April 2025 than would otherwise have been the case, a 19% increase from previous capacity. 170 This new partnership also involves “NHS England rolling out primary care mental health treatment requirements for offenders who are at a lower level of mental health needs.” 171
88. 88
    Damian Hinds MP assured us of his “commitment to high-quality community sentences and non-custodial alternatives... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Damian Hinds MP assured us of his “commitment to high-quality community sentences and non-custodial alternatives and to ensuring that … both are available”. 172 He told us that sentencers “must have the range of options to be able to choose what is right” in an individual case. 173 He argued that availability is “the first thing” that matters for sentencers to have “the confidence to know that what you think will happen … will happen”. 174
89. 89
    Many people on probation suffer from mental health issues and from addiction to alcohol or... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Many people on probation suffer from mental health issues and from addiction to alcohol or drugs, which fuels their offending behaviour. Few of them are referred to a Community Sentence Treatment Requirement (CSTR). And yet, referrals exceed the availability of treatment, which may in itself deter sentencers from making referrals.
90. 90
    A greater proportion of people on probation should be served one or more treatment requirement(s). Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    A greater proportion of people on probation should be served one or more treatment requirement(s). This could be achieved by implementing our recommendations on Pre-Sentence Reports (see paragraphs 255—259) and on ‘integrated’ sentences (see paragraphs 123—127), and through a greater emphasis on treatment requirements in sentencing guidelines.
91. 91
    Current efforts to improve treatment services and increase their availability should be sustained. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Current efforts to improve treatment services and increase their availability should be sustained. Further investment in Community Sentence Treatment Requirements is required and should be a priority. CSTRs are key to reducing reoffending, putting offenders on a path away from crime and protecting the public. Mainstreaming wraparound support The needs of female offenders
92. 92
    The Ministry of Justice recognises that “women in the CJS [Criminal Justice System] are amongst... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    The Ministry of Justice recognises that “women in the CJS [Criminal Justice System] are amongst the most vulnerable in society”. The Department referred to the 2023 “Female Offender Strategy Delivery Plan”, thanks to which “bespoke pathways for women have been developed”. 175 The National Audit Office added that “as part of its 2021 probation reforms the Ministry let contracts worth £46 million for services ‘tailored to female offenders’”, through women’s centres (see section starting at paragraph 166 on “making the most out of partnerships”). 176
93. 93
    Representatives from two such women’s centres told us about the specific needs of women in... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Representatives from two such women’s centres told us about the specific needs of women in the criminal justice system. Niki Scordi, the then CEO of Advance, told us about high rates of “self-harm, depression and suicide”. She added that some “have experienced some of the highest levels of disadvantage”, and “the community has left them behind”. 177
94. 94
    Rebecca Robson, from Women’s Community Matters, explained that “a lot of the mental health difficulties... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Rebecca Robson, from Women’s Community Matters, explained that “a lot of the mental health difficulties we see are the result of experiences of domestic and sexual abuse in childhood, and then ongoing domestic abuse”. She went on to explain that “frequently that is mixed in with addiction, which is often a coping technique for experiences of abuse” and that “there is a lot of suicidal ideation, self-harm, anxiety, and fear of crowds” among female offenders. 178
95. 95
    Nikki Scordi added that “women in particular worry about their children, whether they are with... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Nikki Scordi added that “women in particular worry about their children, whether they are with them or not”. She explained that “often, they are separated because of prison and cannot have them back, and that is a real concern for them”. 179 The Prison Reform Trust told us that “some pregnant women experienced difficulties in adhering to community sentence requirements, whilst also attending hospital appointments”. 180 The charity Birth Companions told us about “significant issues with a lack [of] recognition of, and responsiveness to, pregnancy and motherhood in policing, community sentence requirements and probation supervision.” 181
96. 96
    We heard about female offenders “facing multiple disadvantage who may have different competing and intersecting... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    We heard about female offenders “facing multiple disadvantage who may have different competing and intersecting needs”. 182 Women in Prison also argued that “Black, Asian, minoritised and migrant women experience ‘double disadvantage’ as a result of the combined impact of sexism and racism that manifests at both a structural and interpersonal level, including when coming into contact with the justice system”. 183 Together Women told us that many women in the Criminal Justice System “have experienced trauma, abuse, and discrimination throughout their lives” and that “by considering factors such as personal circumstances, history of trauma, substance abuse, and mental health conditions, the requirements of a community sentence can be designed to address a woman’s specific challenges and needs”. 184 Lessons from women’s centres
97. 97
    We heard about the best practices arising from the work of women’s centres. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    We heard about the best practices arising from the work of women’s centres. Women in Prison told us that “approaches based around prevention, early intervention and community-based support, are evidenced to be effective at reducing reoffending and support women in rebuilding their lives”, arguing that “research found Women’s Centres can cut reoffending to 5% against a national average of 23%”. 185 The Prison Reform Trust added that “women’s centres can play a vital role in reducing reoffending, providing safe, non-stigmatising settings for women to address issues surrounding their offending behaviour such as access to support with abusive relationships”. 186
98. 98
    Rebecca Robson, for instance, told us about Women’s Community Matters in Cumbria and the wide... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    Rebecca Robson, for instance, told us about Women’s Community Matters in Cumbria and the wide range of services the organisation offers: “We run an eight-week group course called Women’s First, which each week responds to a different pathway to reoffending, or a different vulnerability or issue … We have confidence-building courses … which are available to all women, including women who are accessing the service on this contract. We have a range of one-to-one support from lots of different skilled practitioners, including independent domestic violence advisers and mental health workers. We have courses that are specific to domestic abuse and the effects on the woman and her family; different peer support groups; social activities that help with reintegration back into the community and with making meaningful and purposeful friendships that perhaps help them to make better life choices; activities that support mental health improvement; different coping strategies such as mindfulness and grounding; and a range of practical support like a clothes bank, access to free toiletries, baby supplies and a crisis fund. We have warm hub spaces, particular drop-in and craft sessions, employment and education and training support, volunteer opportunities, a range of training, access to specialist support, survivor network groups, social enterprise opportunities, lots of one-off events and activities, and access to specialists to support and unpaid work placements.” 187
99. 99
    HMIP receives “good feedback on women’s services”, including from people on probation: “the feedback for... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

    HMIP receives “good feedback on women’s services”, including from people on probation: “the feedback for women is broadly more positive than it is for men.” 188 The Probation Institute also pointed out that an intervention by a women’s centre costs between £1,223 to £4,125 (depending on the needs of the benefitting woman), whilst a place in prison “costs £52,121” per woman per year. 189
100. 100
     The question was raised of how male offenders could benefit from this practice. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     The question was raised of how male offenders could benefit from this practice. Carrie Peters, Director of Justice Services at Ingeus, told us that “we need men’s services to be commissioned in a holistic way by region in the same way that women’s services are” because “men also have multiple and complex needs”. She explained that “women’s services have been commissioned in a holistic way” but “men’s services have been commissioned according to all the separate needs”. As a result, she said, “for someone who finds it difficult to engage, we are setting up all sorts of hurdles for them, because they have to go to all these different places, and nothing facilitates all those different providers talking to each other and working together”. She added that “at the moment, every contract is managed separately, and there is a lot of waste in the system for all those individual contracts”. 190
101. 101
     In the same spirit, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority told us that after a 12-month... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     In the same spirit, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority told us that after a 12-month pilot, “we have recently commissioned Well-being services which are predominantly focused on supporting the needs of men, adapting many of the principles and learning from the Greater Manchester Whole System Approach for Women with unmet need”. 191
102. 102
     Women entering the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales are often the victims of... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Women entering the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales are often the victims of abuse and discrimination, or suffering from trauma, addiction, and mental health issues. Many of them have caring responsibilities. These issues, acknowledged by the Government in its Female Offenders Strategy, have been explored in depth by others , notably by Baroness Corston and recently by the National Audit Office.
103. 103
     We note that the Ministry of Justice shares these concerns and has commissioned some specialised... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     We note that the Ministry of Justice shares these concerns and has commissioned some specialised women’s services. This model, in which offenders receive tailored, wraparound rehabilitative support from a single provider in a single location, is proving effective— it is dignified, drives down reoffending, and costs less than custody.
104. 104
     The Government should provide additional funding for the various rehabilitative services provided by women’s centres... Recommendation Recommendation (the committee's words)

     The Government should provide additional funding for the various rehabilitative services provided by women’s centres and explore options for wraparound support to be made available to all people who would benefit from it, giving them the best opportunity to stop committing crimes. This could include the expansion of one-stop-shops and co-located services. Creating incentives A “gap in the market” 192
105. 105
     Witnesses told us about the “multiple and complex needs” of ‘prolific’ offenders. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Witnesses told us about the “multiple and complex needs” of ‘prolific’ offenders. 193 For instance, Rebecca Robson told us that “mental health problems are very common in what we call prolific offenders, together with poor experiences of the education system and the care system”; she also spoke of “poverty” and of ‘prolific’ offenders having no “safety net” among their relatives to turn to. 194 Carrie Peters told us that “substance misuse is also very common” and that “there is a big link between shoplifting and homelessness, as well as lack of family, lack of support and, of course, debt and poverty”. 195
106. 106
     The then Chief Inspector of Probation told us about a “gap in the market for... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     The then Chief Inspector of Probation told us about a “gap in the market for people with very profound needs who commit very prolific low-level offending but are probably not being reached by community sentences at the moment”. 196 He argued that “the link in our sentencing framework between the seriousness of the offence, the tariff and the intensity of the intervention that can be offered … leaves a lacuna around the group of low-level offenders with very serious needs”. 197 He explained: “One of the interesting things in the way sentencing works is that the intensity of the sentence, particularly the intensity of the interventions associated with it, tends to be associated with the seriousness of the offence that is before the court. It has to be a fairly high-tariff offence before the most intensive interventions, such as drug rehabilitation requirements or mental health requirements, can be attached. That is slightly unfortunate, because quite often the people with the most profound needs are stuck in cycles of very low-level but extremely persistent offending. Typically, a street heroin user who is constantly shoplifting or committing minor, petty offences will not get a long community order; they will get a fine or a short prison sentence. That does nothing to tackle the underlying needs that drive the offending.” 198
107. 107
     Lord Justice William Davis explained that, according to sentencing guidelines: “The seriousness of the offence... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Lord Justice William Davis explained that, according to sentencing guidelines: “The seriousness of the offence should be the initial factor in determining which requirements to include in a community order.” He added, “if, in the individual case, there is a clear requirement for some fairly intensive drug intervention for a low-level shoplifter, that is what should happen”. 199 The Magistrates’ Association also proposed that magistrates are granted the power “to add rehabilitative provisions to sentences that currently do not cross the community penalty threshold”, such as “a small number of unpaid work hours, or one or two rehabilitation activity requirement (RAR) appointments” as a substitute for fines that an offender would otherwise be unable to pay. 200
108. 108
     On the other hand, witnesses warned against the temptation of “up-tariffing people into more supervision”. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     On the other hand, witnesses warned against the temptation of “up-tariffing people into more supervision”. 201 While he acknowledged that “a legal decision has already been made that repetition aggravates an offence”, Gavin Dingwall told us that this should not be “a given, by any stretch of the imagination”. He argued that “somebody who is shoplifting and continually stealing £20 worth of goods has a problem but is a minor offender”. 202
109. 109
     Witnesses were particularly concerned about “putting people into situations where they have multiple appointments that... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Witnesses were particularly concerned about “putting people into situations where they have multiple appointments that they need to keep which they fail to do so”: it can result in them being found in breach of their sentence and recalled before a Court, where they face an additional sentence. 203 We were told that “research indicates that over-programming (e.g. too many or too onerous rehabilitative requirements) individuals who are assessed as low risk of reoffending sets them up to fail”. 204 Tom Franklin agreed: “there could be low-level but prolific offenders who live very chaotic lifestyles, find it very difficult to turn up regularly to things and really struggle with that. That would nullify their involvement in particular schemes. Sometimes it is almost like, if they did them, they would be set up to fail because they would find themselves in breach, have to come back and end up in that cycle back into court.” 205
110. 110
     Justin Russell said that to reduce the criminal activity of low-level, ‘prolific’ offenders, their rehabilitation... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Justin Russell said that to reduce the criminal activity of low-level, ‘prolific’ offenders, their rehabilitation “would need to involve a residential element” and “treatment for mental health and/or drug and alcohol problems”, which “would probably need to involve someone consenting” to such interventions. 206 At the moment, however, “the danger is that they would say, ‘I’d rather have the six-week prison sentence than spend six months in a rehab, thank you very much’”. 207 Therefore, Justin Russell argued that “the way you set up the incentives to take the alternative to prison would need to be carefully thought through”. 208
111. 111
     We heard that “there is a plethora of pilot schemes all over the place”, some... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     We heard that “there is a plethora of pilot schemes all over the place”, some of which are designed to create such incentives. 209 Dr Abramovaite explained that, sometimes, police forces “do not know themselves what they are running” because they are running “hundreds” of schemes. 210 Tom Franklin told us that “there is a feeling that these schemes never really go anywhere”. He regretted the “very large amount of wasted effort” as these schemes “are rarely scaled up”. 211 Transform Justice expressed concerns that programmes, whether accredited by the Probation Service or not, are rarely evaluated. 212 These issues could be explained by the perception that schemes “are often set up because of the initiative of an individual”, whose goodwill may be insufficient for the scheme to gain scale. 213 Examples of schemes we heard about included: The Choices and Consequences (C2) programme, run since 2007 by Hertfordshire Constabulary. It was described to us as “a comprehensive reformative programme offered jointly by the Hertfordshire Police and Probation Services, and the Crown Court which is designed to safeguard the public by changing the attitudes and behaviour of offenders and detecting and reducing offending.” 214 Eligible people (adult ‘prolific’ offenders with addiction issues) are expected to “admit to the entirety of their past offending” to show commitment, in exchange for which “they are sentenced to a comprehensive rehabilitative programme in the community, closely monitored by the Court over a three-to-four-year period”. 215 It has, however, been criticised for involving the use of polygraph testing “outside the current statutory framework which governs the use of the polygraph for offender management”. 216 The “Prolific Intensive” package initiated in 2017 by the Bedfordshire probation team and Bedfordshire Police. Eligible people (typically “3rd strike burglars who usually have entrenched history of drug use”) are released on bail for six weeks, during which they must engage with “a trial run Community Order”. If they engage positively, Probation “will propose an intensive three-year Community Order as an alternative to custody”, usually involving unpaid work, a treatment requirement, and monthly court reviews, among other requirements. 217 The “problem-solving court” approach adopted by Manchester & Salford Magistrates Court since 2014, by all Manchester Magistrates’ Courts since 2017, and by Greater Manchester Crown Courts since 2019. Eligible people (women with “multiple support needs” who have offended at a level around the custodial threshold) are sentenced to a community order and are invited to regular, informal review hearings. 218
112. 112
     Dr Eoin Guilfoyle, Lecturer in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Brunel University London, drew our... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Dr Eoin Guilfoyle, Lecturer in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Brunel University London, drew our attention to the ‘integrated Community Service Order’ (CSO) in Ireland, which creates incentives for people on probation to engage with rehabilitative activities. He explained the integrated CSO to us: “In recent years, Ireland has introduced an integrated element into the Community Service Order. A person can, in discussion with a Probation Officer, agree to participate in an education, treatment or training programme. If successfully completed, they will get a reduction of up to one-third of their community service hours.”
113. 113
     “The concept of an integrated Community Service Order aligns better with principles of desistance”, Dr... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     “The concept of an integrated Community Service Order aligns better with principles of desistance”, Dr Guilfoyle argued. 219 He explained that “giving a person the option to opt in and the ability to choose the type of personal development activity they undertake, is likely to result in better outcomes than an approach that requires participation in a specific programme that the person had no part in choosing.” 220 He added that “there is a much greater likelihood of the person benefiting from it and succeeding in those programmes” thanks to the choice and the incentive structure. 221
114. 114
     Integrated CSOs are rewarding. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Integrated CSOs are rewarding. Dr Guilfoyle pointed out that “it also means that the Probation Service is encouraging the person to participate, and rewarding them if they do so” whereas, “by comparison, the approach here in England and Wales is that a judge will impose the requirement and a person who does not succeed is punished and could be returned to court and imprisoned”. 222 Other witnesses told us about reward mechanisms for offenders. Dr Hannah Graham explained that, in Scotland, “it is possible for a justice social worker and the court to consider the early completion or termination of an order, or its variation, in recognition of good progress being made towards the requirements of a Community Payback Order”. 223 Talking about drug testing requirements in England and Wales, Justin Russell explained that when offenders “were tested and came back clean it was a very validating thing for them”. 224
115. 115
     ‘Integrated’ sentences also save time before courts. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     ‘Integrated’ sentences also save time before courts. Dr Guilfoyle explained that if offenders do not successfully complete their integrated CSO, “it does not result in a revocation of the order; they just go back to doing the normal community service hours.” 225 This means that the Probation Service can mark the breach of the ‘integrated’ element of the order without the offender being brought back before a court.
116. 116
     However, Dr Guilfoyle cautioned that the integrated CSO, first piloted in 2016, “has not been... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     However, Dr Guilfoyle cautioned that the integrated CSO, first piloted in 2016, “has not been hugely effective”. He told us that it may be because “when it first became operational the individuals themselves had to source the training or treatment programme” which “was a barrier to a person opting in”. He said this might change and “ideally, it would operate where the Probation Officer encouraged the person, and if they do want to opt in they would work with them to identify and source an education or treatment programme”. 226 A committee has been set up to consider how the integrated CSO could be improved. 227
117. 117
     Inspiration could be found in that model. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Inspiration could be found in that model. Chief Probation Officer Kim Thornden-Edwards told us that she has “not looked at the Ireland model”, but said that “the idea of being able to reduce the sentence by up to one-third is definitely very interesting, and we should probably consider that”. She pointed out that “people on unpaid work can use 30% of their unpaid work hours specifically on employment training and education”, recognising that “it is not quite the same thing”. 228 Damian Hinds MP also referenced the “ability to bring employability and job training into unpaid work” in England and Wales. 229 Mentoring
118. 118
     We heard that mentors could encourage offenders engage with rehabilitation, whether they have been on... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     We heard that mentors could encourage offenders engage with rehabilitation, whether they have been on probation themselves or are lay members of the public. Damian Hinds MP told us that “there definitely is a role” for mentors. 230 He defined a mentor as “an ‘expert by experience’ who can help others by using relationship-based support to address rehabilitative needs”. He told us that “peer mentoring schemes” are available in seven of the 12 Probation regions “with an estimated 200 volunteer mentors”. Volunteers “are generally individuals with lived experience of prison and/or probation services” but “some probation regions also provide opportunities for volunteers without lived experience (e.g students studying relevant degrees)”. Mentors are expected to “complete a comprehensive training course (a minimum of 22 hours)” and they “receive regular supervision and support”. 231 He added that “there can definitely be more, both directly with the Probation Service but also indirectly, and probably at a much bigger volume, through charities, church organisations, community groups and so on.” 232
119. 119
     When someone is sentenced to a community order, it is “vital” that they are assigned... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     When someone is sentenced to a community order, it is “vital” that they are assigned a peer mentor, we heard from Pavan Dhaliwal. She explained that someone who has previously been on probation can help an offender make the most out of what is offered to them. 233 Revolving Doors shared the conclusions of an inquiry of its own, through which they found that “many people on probation supervision felt that peer support would have likely helped them to engage with probation more, and more honestly, from an earlier stage, which would have supported earlier desistance from crime”. 234 Other measures
120. 120
     We also heard about deferred sentences. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     We also heard about deferred sentences. Dr Graham told us that Scottish sheriff courts can decide to “defer sentence for approximately six months” during which the offender is supported and supervised, and to “sentence at the end of that”, giving courts a greater opportunity to monitor progress. 235 The Probation Board of Northern Ireland told us about the “Substance Misuse Court (SMC) which was introduced in Belfast Magistrates’ Court at Laganside in April 2018”: “it places people on intensive treatment programmes in the community to specifically target drug and alcohol linked offending behaviour, with final sentencing reflecting their participation.” They explained that “evaluations have indicated that those successfully completing the programme exhibited lower longer-term re-offending rates than those who did not”. 236
121. 121
     We also heard that “the greater use of appropriate and well-supervised out of court disposals... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     We also heard that “the greater use of appropriate and well-supervised out of court disposals is an option in that area”. 237 Phil Bowen told us about a service in Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court provided by the Centre for Justice Innovation, primarily targeted at people “who are constantly getting fines but cannot pay them”. 238 The service provides “advice, support and referral” to other services in a way that the Probation Service would only provide to someone on a community order. Courtney Bryan, Executive Director, US Center for Justice Innovation, told us about “early diversion” mechanisms in New York State: people who committed “low-level misdemeanours” are referred by the police to the US Center for Justice Innovation, where they “complete a brief service” before “their case is dismissed”, without appearing before a court. 239 She told us that they witnessed “tremendous compliance”. 240
122. 122
     Some witnesses, however, expressed reservations about the current use of out-of-court disposals (where the police... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Some witnesses, however, expressed reservations about the current use of out-of-court disposals (where the police deal with a low-level, often first-time offender without prosecution) in the UK. Tom Franklin referred to “an unregulated increase over the past few years”, and a lack of clarity as to any assessment of offenders’ needs. He called for out-of-court disposals “to be properly regulated”. 241 Gavin Dingwall also told us that “we have to be slightly careful, because the nature of out of court disposals has changed greatly”, adding that “the police now have far too much power”. 242 Issues related to the use of out-of-court disposals, while important, fall outside the scope of our inquiry. They merit further consideration.
123. 123
     The rehabilitative needs of low-level, repeat offenders are not being met. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     The rehabilitative needs of low-level, repeat offenders are not being met. Increasing the tariff of their punishment, be it in an individual case or through a revision of sentencing guidelines, is not the solution—it would set people up to fail, further criminalising them rather than encouraging their path to rehabilitation. The solution is to increase the intensity of the rehabilitative support offered to them.
124. 124
     The better approach is to incentivise offenders. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     The better approach is to incentivise offenders. Deferred sentencing can be used to encourage offenders to engage with probation, rewarding positive behaviour in the deferred sentence. Various initiatives have been or are being piloted to create incentives for low-level, repeat offenders to engage with more intensive rehabilitative activities.
125. 125
     These pilots should be properly monitored and evaluated to determine whether any of them should... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     These pilots should be properly monitored and evaluated to determine whether any of them should be made more widely available. A plan for evaluation is essential to the launch of any new pilots. Best practices should be shared and scaled up.
126. 126
     An interesting approach is being tested in Ireland. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     An interesting approach is being tested in Ireland. While their efficacy remains to be confirmed, the mechanisms of the ‘Integrated’ Community Service Orders are intended to create incentives for people on probation to engage with rehabilitation and in a range of activities that is meaningful to them. They also save time before courts.
127. 127
     The Government should create incentives for low-level, ‘prolific’ offenders to engage with rehabilitation. Recommendation Recommendation (the committee's words)

     The Government should create incentives for low-level, ‘prolific’ offenders to engage with rehabilitation. It could find inspiration in the principles underpinning ‘Integrated’ Community Service Order from Ireland, also addressing upfront the operational challenges identified in Ireland. Offenders should be given the opportunity to select an intensive rehabilitative activity of their choice, such as residential treatment. The Probation Service should guide them in their choice. If they complete the activity they have opted for, the length of their sentence should be reduced by up to one third, without the individual having to reappear before a court.
128. 128
     Initiatives for mentoring should be scaled up. Recommendation Recommendation (the committee's words)

     Initiatives for mentoring should be scaled up. Mentors can be people who have previously been on probation themselves or volunteers from the community. The Government should launch a national campaign to recruit mentors from the community. Charitable organisations should be commissioned to train and manage large numbers of mentors. Offenders should be offered the opportunity to be matched with a mentor, who would guide them through their sentence. 113 Written evidence from NHS England’s Mental Health Treatment Requirement Service ( JCS0037 ) 114 Q 10 (Justin Russell) 115 Q 8 (Justin Russell) 116 Ministry of Justice, ‘ Offender Management Statistics quarterly: October to December 2022 and annual 2022—Probation: 2022, Table A4_13’ (27 April 2023): https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender -management-statistics-quarterly-october-to-december-2022 [accessed 19 September 2023] 117 Written evidence from Revolving Doors ( JCS0016 ) 118 Written evidence from the Probation Board for Northern Ireland ( JCS0043 ) 119 Q 119 (Damian Hinds MP), see also Q 10 (Justin Russell). 120 Q 110 (Dr Juste Abramovaite) 121 Q 109 (Dr Juste Abramovaite) 122 Q 130 (Damian Hinds MP) 123 Q 67 (Kim Thornden-Edwards). See the Sentencing Act 2020, Chapter 2 as well as Parts 9, 10, and 11 of Schedule 9 to the Act. 124 Q 119 (Damian Hinds MP) 125 Q 67 (Kim Thornden-Edwards) 126 Written evidence from Dr Carly Lightowlers ( JCS0017 ) 127 Written evidence from NHS England’s Mental Health Treatment Requirement (MHTR) Service ( JCS0037 ) 128 Q 84 (Caroline) 129 Written evidence from Miss Joanna Binley, Mrs Kathryn Cahalin, Professor Matthew Callender and Miss Greta Sanna ( JCS0010 ) 130 Q 89 (Pavan Dhaliwal) 131 Q 95 (Niki Scordi) 132 Written evidence from Professor Charlie Brooker and Dr Coral Sirdifield ( JCS0001 ) 133 Q 95 (Niki Scordi) 134 Q 98 (Niki Scordi) 135 Q 89 (Pavan Dhaliwal), see also written evidence from Revolving Doors ( JCS0016 ). 136 Q 84 (Caroline) 137 Q 1 (Justin Russell) 138 Q 10 (Justin Russell) 139 Written evidence from Revolving Doors ( JCS0016 ) and NHS England’s Mental Health Treatment Requirement (MHTR) Service ( JCS0037 ) 140 Written evidence from NHS England’s Mental Health Treatment Requirement (MHTR) Service ( JCS0037 ) 141 Q 67 (Kim Thornden-Edwards) 142 Q 21 (Phil Bowen) 143 Q 84 (Caroline) 144 Written evidence from Dr Jay Gormley, Dr Louise Kennefick and Professor Melissa Hamilton ( JCS0028 ) 145 Written evidence from the Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody ( JCS0040 ), see also Q 8 (Justin Russell). 146 Written evidence from Tom Franklin ( JCS0007 ) 147 Q 95 (Niki Scordi) 148 Q 130 (Damian Hinds MP) 149 Q 119 (Damian Hinds MP) 150 Q 12 (Justin Russell) 151 Q 9 (Justin Russell) 152 Q 12 (Justin Russell) 153 Written evidence from Together Women ( JCS0033 ) 154 Q 2 (Justin Russell) 155 Written evidence from Criminal Justice Alliance ( JCS0022 ) 156 Written evidence from Revolving Doors ( JCS0016 ) 157 Q 85 (Caroline) 158 Q 10 (Justin Russell) 159 Written evidence from the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners ( JCS0020 ) 160 Written evidence from Dr Carly Lightowlers ( JCS0017 ) 161 Q 119 (Damian Hinds MP) 162 Q 12 (Justin Russell) 163 Q 78 (Chris Jennings) 164 Written evidence from HM Prison and Probation Service ( JCS0045 ) 165 Written evidence from NHS England’s Mental Health Treatment Requirement (MHTR) Service ( JCS0037 ) 166 Written evidence from Dr Matthew Cracknell ( JCS0014 ) and Ministry of Justice, ‘Vulnerable offenders steered towards treatment’ (10 August 2018): https://www.gov.uk/government/news/vulnerable-offenders-steered-towards- treatment [accessed 10 October 2023] 167 Written evidence from HM Prison and Probation Service ( JCS0045 ) 168 Q 4 (Justin Russell) 169 Q 67 (Kim Thornden-Edwards) 170 HM Government, From harm to hope: A ten year drugs plan to cut crime and save lives (29 April 2022): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ from-harm-to-hope-a-10-year-drugs-plan-to- cut-crime-and-save-lives [accessed 24 October 2023] 171 Q 67 (Kim Thornden-Edwards). See also Q 119 (Damian Hinds MP). 172 Q 122 (Damian Hinds MP) 173 Q 120 (Damian Hinds MP) 174 Q 119 (Damian Hinds MP) 175 Written evidence from the Ministry of Justice ( JCS0013 ) 176 Written evidence from the National Audit Office ( JCS0039 ) 177 Q 95 (Nikki Scordi) 178 Q 95 (Rebecca Robson) 179 Q 95 (Nikki Scordi) 180 Written evidence from the Prison Reform Trust ( JCS0019 ) 181 Written evidence from Birth Companions ( JCS0008 ) 182 Written evidence from Women in Prison ( JCS0030 ) 183 Ibid. 184 Written evidence from Together Women ( JCS0033 ) 185 Written evidence from Women in Prison ( JCS0030 ) 186 Written evidence from the Prison Reform Trust ( JCS0019 ) 187 Q 92 (Rebecca Robson) 188 Q 9 (Justin Russell) 189 Written evidence from the Probation Institute ( JCS0015 ) 190 Q 99 (Carrie Peters) 191 Written evidence from Greater Manchester Combined Authority ( JCS0044 ) 192 Q 1 (Justin Russell) 193 Q 97 (Carrie Peters) 194 Q 97 (Rebecca Robson) 195 Q 97 (Carrie Peters) 196 Q 1 (Justin Russell) 197 Q 16 (Justin Russell), see also Q 36 (Tom Franklin). 198 Q 1 (Justin Russell) 199 Q 47 (Lord Justice William Davis) 200 Written evidence from Tom Franklin ( JCS0007 ) 201 Q 29 (Phil Bowen) 202 Q 29 (Gavin Dingwall) 203 Q 29 (Phil Bowen) 204 Written evidence from Dr Jay Gormley, Dr Louise Kennefick and Professor Melissa Hamilton ( JCS0028 ) 205 Q 36 (Tom Franklin) 206 Q 16 (Justin Russell) 207 Ibid. , see also Q 25 (Andrew Neilson). 208 Q 16 (Justin Russell) 209 Q 36 (Tom Franklin) 210 Q 110 (Dr Juste Abramovaite) 211 Q 36 (Tom Franklin) 212 Written evidence from Transform Justice ( JCS0002 ) 213 Q 36 (Tom Franklin) 214 Written evidence from Hertfordshire Constabulary ( JCS0031 ) 215 Ibid. 216 Written evidence from Dr Kyriakos N. Kotsoglou and Dr Marion Oswald ( JCS0005 ) 217 Written evidence from the Integrated Offender Management Team ( JCS0041 ) 218 Written evidence from Greater Manchester Combined Authority ( JCS0044 ) 219 Q 54 (Dr Eoin Guilfoyle) 220 Written evidence from Dr Eoin Guilfoyle ( JCS0004 ), see also written evidence from Dr Jay Gormley, Dr Louise Kennefick and Professor Melissa Hamilton ( JCS0028 ). 221 Q 54 (Dr Eoin Guilfoyle) 222 Ibid. 223 Q 54 (Dr Hannah Graham) 224 Q 15 (Justin Russell) 225 Q 52 (Dr Eoin Guilfoyle) 226 Q 57 (Dr Eoin Guilfoyle) 227 Written evidence from Dr Eoin Guilfoyle ( JCS0004 ) 228 Q 77 (Kim Thornden-Edwards) 229 Q 126 (Damian Hinds MP) 230 Q 124 (Damian Hinds MP) 231 Letter from Rt. Hon. Damian Hinds MP, Minister of State for Justice, to Baroness Hamwee, Chair of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee (17 October 2023): https:// committees.parliament.uk/publications/41868/documents/207632/default 232 Q 124 (Damian Hinds MP) 233 Q 88 (Pavan Dhaliwal) 234 Written evidence from Revolving Doors ( JCS0016 ) 235 Q 52 (Dr Hannah Graham) 236 Written evidence from the Probation Board for Northern Ireland ( JCS0043 ) 237 Q 29 (Phil Bowen) 238 Ibid. 239 Q 52 (Courtney Bryan), see also written evidence from Courtney Bryan ( JCS0003 ). 240 Q 52 (Courtney Bryan) 241 Q 38 (Tom Franklin) 242 Q 26 (Gavin Dingwall) < Back Next > © Parliamentary copyright 2023 A-Z index Glossary Contact us Freedom of Information Jobs Using this website Copyright Privacy notice Cookie policy Cookie Manager House of Lords - Cutting crime: better community sentences - Justice and Home Affairs Committee Cutting crime: better community sentences Contents Chapter 4: Maximising impact
129. 129
     Over the course of our inquiry, we were told about a range of best practices... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Over the course of our inquiry, we were told about a range of best practices in the delivery of probation services across England and Wales. In this chapter, we consider how they could be scaled up. We look at the experience of the youth justice system, at lessons learnt from areas where probation services are delivered by local agencies working together, and at the relationship between the Probation Service and its commissioned partners. Borrowing best practices from youth justice Key differences
130. 130
     In our search for best practices in the delivery of non-custodial sentences, it was suggested... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     In our search for best practices in the delivery of non-custodial sentences, it was suggested that “Youth Justice Services seem to be doing much better” than the adult Probation Service. 243 The Minister for Prisons and Probation, Damian Hinds MP, agreed that “there definitely are lessons to be learned” from Youth Justice Services. 244 Witnesses identified key differences between Youth Justice Services and the adult Probation Service that would explain that discrepancy.
131. 131
     In the first instance, we heard about the importance of “manageable caseloads”. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     In the first instance, we heard about the importance of “manageable caseloads”. 245 Kim Thornden-Edwards told us that a youth offending officer may be supervising “10 to 12 cases” at a time, whereas Justin Russell said that “the typical caseload for a Youth Offending Service case manager might be between six and 10 children”. 246 By comparison, the National Audit Office told us that, in the adult service: “many probation staff were managing more than 70 cases, against a suggested case load of 30 to 60” (see section starting at paragraph 199 on “staffing issues”). 247 Justin Russell, told us that the size of the caseload “has to make a difference to how much attention you can pay someone” and argued that “bringing caseloads down … has to be at the heart of how you improve performance” in the adult Probation Service. 248
132. 132
     Besides caseloads, Justin Russell told us that the Youth Offending Services have “very stable staff... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Besides caseloads, Justin Russell told us that the Youth Offending Services have “very stable staff groups, very low vacancy rates”, and “staff remaining in post for long periods of time”, including senior members of staff being in post since YOSs were first set up in 2001. 249 By contrast, we were told that “the impact of Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) has been disastrous for the retention of staff and experienced staff”, because “the impact of experienced staff leaving at the point of TR and unification means that the workforce is skewed towards less experienced staff” (see Box 4 and section starting at paragraph 199 on “staffing issues”). 250
133. 133
     Best practice was also identified in “properly embedded multi-agency working” and “the range of local... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Best practice was also identified in “properly embedded multi-agency working” and “the range of local services that youth offending services have a connection to”. 251 Kim Thornden-Edwards explained that “youth offending services are very networked into services for young people” (see section starting at paragraph 150 on “facilitating local delivery”), whereas “adult services are usually with different providers” and can only be accessed when exhibiting higher levels of needs. 252
134. 134
     We also heard that Youth Offending Services were able to communicate effectively with those they... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     We also heard that Youth Offending Services were able to communicate effectively with those they supervised. Justin Russell explained that speech and language therapists working in Youth Offending Services “are finding huge levels of communication need that have to be met” (one example of how this need is met is through “easy-read guides to sentence plans”). He pointed out that it is “the same population that will then migrate into the adult population with no equivalent provision there”. He wondered “about the extent to which people on probation properly understand the requirements that are put on them”. 253 Moving the threshold
135. 135
     We heard about the transition from Youth Offending Services to the adult Probation Service. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     We heard about the transition from Youth Offending Services to the adult Probation Service. Currently, “Youth Offending Services stop supervision at 18, and there is effectively a cliff edge where children go from quite a personalised service, with speech and language, into the adult provision world”. He caveated that, in specific circumstances, “Youth Offending Teams can actually hold on to people beyond their 18th birthday if they feel that it is in their interest, at least to allow them to complete their sentence”—which may smooth the cliff edge in certain individual cases. 254
136. 136
     However, maturation continues past the age of 18. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     However, maturation continues past the age of 18. Justin Russell explained that “there is evidence that the full maturation process does not happen until you are 25”. 255 Carrie Peters, as a practitioner, confirmed that “because of brain development and maturity, we need to approach young adults in a different way”. 256 Academics told us that young people “warrant special consideration” and that “most young offenders will cease committing crimes through maturation”. 257 T2A argued that young people “are in a strong position to benefit from rehabilitative sentences and restorative measures” due to the “brain development” people undergo at that age. 258
137. 137
     We heard further evidence about the specific vulnerabilities of young adults. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     We heard further evidence about the specific vulnerabilities of young adults. Rebecca Robson told us that young adults tend to “struggle much more with relationships”, perhaps “because much of their life is spent online as opposed to in person”. She added that “accommodation also tends to be more difficult for young people, particularly if they are single and do not have family”. 259 Niki Scordi explained that many young people on probation “have been in care, under community orders and in the prison system, which means that they need practical support” as they are learning to live an independent life. 260 Carrie Peters told us that “we might need to work harder to engage people who are resistant and to think about different ways to get people on board, perhaps using the arts, or sports” because “sitting one to one in a room with someone is not that attractive to a lot of young people”. 261
138. 138
     Damian Hinds MP acknowledged that “there is a watershed moment that happens on your 18th... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Damian Hinds MP acknowledged that “there is a watershed moment that happens on your 18th birthday”, when someone transitions from Youth Offending Services to the adult Probation Service. 262 He questioned: “That is not how human beings are, is it? It is now pretty broadly recognised in the academic community—probably you cannot be quite this precise, but this is the general picture—young people’s brains are not fully developed until they are 25.” 263
139. 139
     Because the maturation process continues past the age of 18, Justin Russell told us that... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Because the maturation process continues past the age of 18, Justin Russell told us that “one of the obvious things you could do would be to shift the younger age range in probation into the Youth Offending Services themselves”. 264 He said that “it might be better to do it incrementally, moving up to 19, 20 and 21”, as he explained: “The peak age for offending is 18 and it is exactly at that point that you hand them over to a once-a-month probation interview with no speech and language, no CAMHS [Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services] and no ETE [Education, Training, and Employment] worker. It is an obvious idea. Why not allow Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) to work with children and young adults?” 265
140. 140
     We heard reservations about this proposal. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     We heard reservations about this proposal. Phil Bowen told us that, while he was “attracted to the proposal”, he was also “concerned that youth justice services would need to differentiate how they supervise and treat 14 year-olds compared to 21 year-olds”. He argued that “there would be different characters, and you would not want to mix those populations in particular ways” and that “it would require a sophisticated approach”. 266 Kim Thornden-Edwards said that “you would need to think about the safeguarding issues of seeing both children and adults in the same service, potentially in the same building”. 267 Damian Hinds MP agreed that “there is something unique about dealing with children”. 268 Andrew Neilson stated that his “worry about the proposal is that it could dilute what Youth Offending Services are successfully providing to under-18s”. He argued that “if it were done simply by adding all these extra people in and seeing what happened, it would need to be properly resourced”. Instead, the Howard League for Penal Reform considered the idea of “a separate, but very similar service for 18 to 25 year olds, rather than expanding the Youth Offending Service in that way”. 269 Innovating to support young adults
141. 141
     Whether or not the threshold is moved, Chris Jennings told us that “the cliff edge... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Whether or not the threshold is moved, Chris Jennings told us that “the cliff edge at 18, when you have one level of intensive support and then suddenly you do not, is the thing we have to worry about”. He told us that “we must make the cliff edge not a cliff edge and make the transition as smooth as we can”. 270
142. 142
     We heard about a range of innovative practices that have been, are being, or could... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     We heard about a range of innovative practices that have been, are being, or could be piloted initially for the benefit of young adults on probation. Academics argued that if lessons were learnt from the Scottish presumption against short sentences (PASS), the Northern Ireland Enhanced Combination Order, or the Integrated Community Service Order in Ireland, changes might be targeted at young people or women “rather than the entire population in the first instance”. 271
143. 143
     Looking at historical precedents, the Probation Institute wrote that “specialist teams used to manage the... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Looking at historical precedents, the Probation Institute wrote that “specialist teams used to manage the transition” for young adults “with reduced caseloads and focussed training”, and they told us that they “should be reinstated”. 272 T2A also told us about “specialised probation orders tailored to the specific needs of young adults designed to optimise compliance and completion of sentence” as “tested in Greater Manchester in the 2000s with the creation of Intensive Community Orders which were demonstrated to be beneficial to young adults”. 273
144. 144
     Currently, another approach is being piloted. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Currently, another approach is being piloted. The Ministry of Justice told us about the introduction of Young Adult Hubs in Cardiff, Manchester and Newham. They described these hubs as “psychologically informed spaces that aid engagement and reinforce young adults’ strengths while increasing their self-regulation ability”. 274 The Young Adult Hub pilot in the London Borough of Newham includes the “co-location of a multi-disciplinary team”, which consists of “health and probation staff and commissioned services” and seeks to provide “wrap-around support” that is “tailored” to the specific needs of young adults. 275 Kim Thornden-Edwards told us that this “dedicated group of people who manage that cohort of younger people on probation … have had special training in trauma-informed approaches, in neurodiversity and in maturity”, and that the approach “is already showing some promising outcomes, certainly in attendance and compliance”. 276
145. 145
     Looking forward, the Transition to Adulthood Alliance (T2A) told us about a range of potential... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Looking forward, the Transition to Adulthood Alliance (T2A) told us about a range of potential innovative practices, including: Specialised courts. They argued that “young adult specific courts” could deliver “specific arrangements” for young people “without legislative change”. They told us that “young adult cases could be heard by judges with experience of dealing with children who could receive specific training on dealing with young adults”. In that context, Pre-Sentence Reports would “focus on maturity in relation to the context of the offence”. Using such a model could allow for a “problem-solving court model” underpinned by “ongoing sentencer engagement and the principles of ‘procedural fairness’”. More flexibility in sentencing. T2A told us that “greater discretion within the existing sentencing framework” could allow sentencers to consider how to “support the development of a positive identity” within young adults. This could include looking at the “mitigating factor” of age and maturity within sentencing guidelines, or the introduction of “overarching sentencing principles for young adults”, as already exists for children. Greater access to primary care. T2A recommended that young people could be given facilitated “access to high-quality, sustained drug, alcohol and mental health treatment” in their communities, “as well as support for needs related to neurodivergence”. 277
146. 146
     There is a ‘cliff edge’ in the response to offending when a young person transitions... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     There is a ‘cliff edge’ in the response to offending when a young person transitions from Youth Justice Services to the adult Probation Service. Moving the age at which an offender undergoes this transition is unlikely, in itself, to bear positive results.
147. 147
     However, lessons can be learnt from Youth Offending Services about the management of the probation... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     However, lessons can be learnt from Youth Offending Services about the management of the probation population in general, and of young adults in particular. YOSs do not only work with smaller caseloads and with more experienced staff, but are also embedded in local communities and more effective at communicating with offenders.
148. 148
     The Probation Service should learn best practices from Youth Offending Services, especially about how to... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     The Probation Service should learn best practices from Youth Offending Services, especially about how to communicate with offenders to ensure they understand the sentences that are imposed on them. It should also encourage the local delivery of rehabilitative services and multiagency cooperation.
149. 149
     Age-appropriate solutions should be found to smooth the transition of those moving from Youth Offending... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Age-appropriate solutions should be found to smooth the transition of those moving from Youth Offending Services to the adult Probation Service. These solutions should be made available to all young adults on probation. Facilitating local delivery A case for local delivery
150. 150
     Much of the evidence we received related to how the Probation Service cooperates with local... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Much of the evidence we received related to how the Probation Service cooperates with local agencies, such as local teams of the Probation Service and of the Prison Service, the Police, the NHS, local authorities, and their contracted partners. NAPO told us that “while there are some formal approaches to mandate cooperation between agencies … too often this is lacking”, citing “the excessive workload and staff shortages faced by so many public sector bodies” as an explanation. They added that there was “a huge variance between levels of cooperation” between local agencies. 278
151. 151
     We heard that the Probation Service “needs the local empowerment and local multiagency links that... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     We heard that the Probation Service “needs the local empowerment and local multiagency links that can make a difference for the people they are supervising”. 279 Justin Russell told us that “regional directors would welcome more devolution, and more power to innovate and do things a bit differently” and added that some of those in charge of Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) that existed under the Transformation Rehabilitation scheme “rather miss the days of CRC, when they had more control over the services they could buy, the way they did recruitment or the way that they organised their workforce”. He recommended that “regional directors or local probation should have the flexibility” to commission specialist support and “have it in their offices, rather than necessarily do it through an externally commissioned contractual arrangement”. 280
152. 152
     We heard about best practices in Northern Ireland. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     We heard about best practices in Northern Ireland. The Probation Board of Northern Ireland (PBNI) told us that Enhanced Combination Orders involve “a multiagency, multidisciplinary, collaborative approach, with PBNI leading on the Order, and support provided by a range of organisations including Barnardo’s, Community Restorative Justice Ireland (CRJI), Northern Ireland Alternatives and Victim Support”. They added that: “Within PBNI, ECOs involve Probation Officers (POs), Probation Service Officers (PSOs), Community Service Officers (CSOs) and PBNI Psychologists providing greater flexibility and choice.” 281 As a result, “the associated wrap around services are now well embedded and excellent working relationships have developed between stakeholders”. 282
153. 153
     Witnesses identified best practices in the management of Youth Offending Services (YOSs, see section starting... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Witnesses identified best practices in the management of Youth Offending Services (YOSs, see section starting at paragraph 130 on “borrowing best practices from youth justice”) to make the case for the local delivery of adult probation services. Phil Bowen, who agreed that “we need to ground the Probation Service’s organisational locus in its communities”, told us that “we need to professionalise and localise the Probation Service, fundamentally taking a leaf out of the Youth Justice Services’ book”. 283 Justin Russell, too, mentioned the operating model of Youth Offending Services, explaining that “YOSs feel locally empowered and locally governed”. 284 He told us that “they are an integral part of children’s services now in local authority areas” and that “they are also tied into a very strong multiagency governance process”. He explained further: “A typical Youth Offending Service has an embedded Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) worker, an embedded speech and language therapist and an embedded educational psychologist. They are specialists who really know their stuff. They are in the office and can interact on a daily basis with case managers. There is no real equivalent in probation.” 285
154. 154
     Co-commissioning and co-location were also recognised as best practice. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Co-commissioning and co-location were also recognised as best practice. Dr Abramovaite said: “to have all the services sitting together as a multidisciplinary team trying to assess and help individuals in the best possible way is definitely very much needed.” 286 The best example came from the Greater Manchester Combined Authority.
155. 155
     The Greater Manchester Combined Authority (see Box 6) told us about co-commissioning, where the same... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     The Greater Manchester Combined Authority (see Box 6) told us about co-commissioning, where the same services are “supported by a range of local commissioners which may include health, local authority, adult learning and skills etc, as well as criminal justice” to work with people on probation, as well as with other cohorts. They explained that they “identified the risk of clear duplication with already commissioned local authority statutory substance misuse services” and therefore “sought to ensure that people on probation get appropriate access to existing locally commissioned services rather than commissioning a separate service and therefore create duplication”. They told us about “the importance of building on existing services in our communities that already work with people facing multiple unmet needs and have the skills to engage with such people” because these services “are connected to wider support networks, both in the voluntary and statutory sectors and can help individuals access the wider support they need where they need it”. 287
156. 156
     They told us that co-commissioning benefits users as well as providers. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     They told us that co-commissioning benefits users as well as providers. They explained that “the benefit of this approach is the person accessing these services can stay engaged with them as long as their need dictates rather [than] just while they are subject to probation”. 288 They went on to explain that co-commissioning “helps to build a ‘one stop shop’ where services can be located together to meet the varying needs of the client and bring financial resilience to voluntary sector organisations that are often struggling to ‘make ends meet’”. The GMCA added that “this approach also means that services are not commissioned to be in competition with one another i.e. a support service for people on probation compared to another service that is to support people with similar needs, but not in the justice system”. 289
157. 157
     Furthermore, we heard that local delivery could also help achieve the punitive and reparative aims... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Furthermore, we heard that local delivery could also help achieve the punitive and reparative aims of sentencing. The Criminal Justice Alliance told us that “in Scotland there is legislative responsibility to consult specific people and organisations on the types of unpaid work activity that should be carried out in their area”. They recommended that “Probation should also develop more hyper-local partnerships by engaging with victims of crime and community groups to identify local needs”. They added that “greater involvement of the voluntary and community sector in unpaid work placements would also be beneficial”, pointing out that “many voluntary and community sector organisations employ staff with lived experience of the criminal justice system in roles where engagement and rapport building is important”. 290 The APPC also told us that “what has been seen to work well are the examples of visible community reparation, especially when the identification of suitable projects arise from the input of community safety partnerships or other locally based public opinion”. 291 Ongoing efforts towards more local delivery
158. 158
     Kim Thornden-Edwards told us that HMPPS has “a stated commitment to looking to devolve more... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Kim Thornden-Edwards told us that HMPPS has “a stated commitment to looking to devolve more autonomy and authority to the regions”. 292 In practice, the APCC told us that “engagement with the Probation Service and PCCs is moving in a positive direction”. They explained that “there is commitment from HMPPS to ensure strong local relations exist and where possible co-commissioning of services is undertaken”. In that context, “HMPPS and the APCC have supported the delivery of guidance to local areas to enhance how data is shared across agencies to understand what works and to influence how local community payback schemes respond to community needs”. 293
159. 159
     In terms of best practice in information sharing, the APPC pointed to the example of... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     In terms of best practice in information sharing, the APPC pointed to the example of “sharing discussions” which arise from “Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA)”. These are “statutory arrangements bringing together the police, probation and prison services to assess and manage the risk posed by certain sexual and violent offenders”. At least one of the APPC’s members found that such discussions had been “a helpful way locally to obtain the necessary information and build a better risk picture of individuals involved in domestic abuse cases to then assess their suitability for community sentences”. 294
160. 160
     We also heard about Integrated Offender Management (IOM), which the Government defines as “a cross-agency... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     We also heard about Integrated Offender Management (IOM), which the Government defines as “a cross-agency response to the crime and reoffending threats faced by local communities”. 295 Pavan Dhaliwal told us that IOM provides a “good example” of “where the different agencies are working together in a really intense way, particularly when you are working with a cohort of people where the drivers around poverty, trauma and discrimination are playing out through substance misuse and mental health issues”. 296 Justin Russell welcomed “a revival of investment in integrated offender management” involving “joint police and probation teams working together, sharing an office, hopefully with drugs workers and employment workers, doing joint home visits and really getting on top of the people who are the most prolific offenders in a local area”. 297 Box 6: Devolution of justice powers to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority
161. 161
     While we heard about best practices in the local delivery of probation services, we were... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     While we heard about best practices in the local delivery of probation services, we were also told that communication may be difficult among the various local agencies involved in the delivery of community sentences. Justin Russell, for instance, told us that “there has been a lot of investment in identifying people with a mental health problem when they first come into the system”. He told us that “liaison diversion mental health workers”, who work in “almost every police custody suite”, identify “over 100,000” cases a year. Yet, he explained, “the issue then is whether that information is passed on to the CPS, the courts and the Probation Service” as HMIP “found that often it is not”. 298 They identified causes of these communication issues: as is the case for communication between the Probation Service and its commissioned partners (see section starting at paragraph 173 on “the operation of current contracts”), “quite often, people did not realise that they could share the information and felt that there were data protection restrictions, which was unfortunate, or they forgot to share it or did not have the systems that would enable them to do it”. 299
162. 162
     The APCC pushed for more communication among local agencies. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     The APCC pushed for more communication among local agencies. They told us about Drug Rehabilitation Requirements and “the example of an offender who needs to be tested twice a week”: “Probation and Police should be notified of every test; if there are constant positive tests, this allows probation to breach the offender and get them back to Court.” 300
163. 163
     The Probation Service is aware of these challenges. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     The Probation Service is aware of these challenges. Chris Jennings told us that “there are still definitely areas where sharing information across the system is complicated”. For instance, he told us that “getting information on child safeguarding is not straightforward” because “each local authority does it differently and has its own system”, such that “there is no one place you can go to draw off a system a nice piece of data that will enable us to move forward”. The exception is in Wales, where the Probation Service can now get better information: “if there is what we call a reportable incident and the police attend an incident, we get notified about that in the Probation Service.” 301 Damian Hinds MP also pointed in the direction of “criminal justice boards”, which he described as “ways of making sure that people locally, Police and Crime Commissioners, Probation, Police and the courts are able to communicate”. 302
164. 164
     Community sentences are more effective when the Probation Service is a fully engaged member of... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Community sentences are more effective when the Probation Service is a fully engaged member of local partnerships, be it through the co-location of services or through cooperation forums, allowing information to circulate. This benefits offenders and there is also a public interest, for instance in making unpaid work placements more punitive and reparative.
165. 165
     We encourage the Probation Service to empower regional directors further, ensuring that a greater proportion... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     We encourage the Probation Service to empower regional directors further, ensuring that a greater proportion of rehabilitative services are commissioned locally. They should be granted further autonomy to develop partnerships with local organisations and public agencies. Co-commissioning should be encouraged. Making the most out of partnerships
166. 166
     Chris Jennings told us that the Probation Service commissions “hundreds of third sector partners across... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Chris Jennings told us that the Probation Service commissions “hundreds of third sector partners across England and Wales to come in and do particular work on specialist areas” because the Probation Service does “not always have the in-house skill set”. 303 Justin Russell said that there were two ways that the Probation Service can commission services from the voluntary sector. 304
167. 167
     The first of these is through contracts for “Commissioned Rehabilitative Services” (CRSs) which are centralised... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     The first of these is through contracts for “Commissioned Rehabilitative Services” (CRSs) which are centralised at national level and cover six different pathways (Women’s Services; Personal Wellbeing Services; Finance, Benefits, and Debt; Dependency and Recovery; Education, Training, and Employment Services; and Accommodation Services). 305 Kim Thornden-Edwards told us that HMPPS have over 200 suppliers from the private or voluntary and community sector which are qualified to bid for contracts, and a total of 133 contracts with suppliers to deliver services locally. 306 Many of these contracts are due to expire in March 2024 but can be extended by HMPPS by up to one year. They are worth £348 million with extensions, or £242 million without extensions. 307
168. 168
     The second way of commissioning services is through the “Regional Outcomes and Innovation Fund” (ROIF),... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     The second way of commissioning services is through the “Regional Outcomes and Innovation Fund” (ROIF), which is funding made available by HMPPS to regional probation directors to commission services locally. 308 Justin Russell described this as a “devolved funding stream, where individual regional directors have an innovation fund which they give out as grants to smaller organisations that are not currently providing any of the other services”. He told us that this “has been a positive thing, but it is a small amount of money”. 309 The 2021 commissioning process
169. 169
     Kim Thornden-Edwards told us that the national contracts came in “at pace” in 2021, when... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Kim Thornden-Edwards told us that the national contracts came in “at pace” in 2021, when the end of the Community Rehabilitation Companies led to the unification of the Probation Service (see Box 4), with 110 contracts being live at the time of unification. 310 She added that HMPPS “will be looking to learn the lessons” from that first-generation commissioning process. 311
170. 170
     Niki Scordi told us that the commissioning process in 2021 was a considerable improvement on... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Niki Scordi told us that the commissioning process in 2021 was a considerable improvement on the previous process five years earlier. She talked about “massive improvements”, and specifically welcomed the commissioning of “a holistic service” for women, allowing organisations like hers to become a one-stop-shop where all the rehabilitative needs of female offenders can be addressed (see section on “mainstreaming wraparound support” starting at paragraph 92). She also welcomed the fact that the regions at the level of which services are commissioned “are smaller so that local services can engage” and the fact that contracts last for five years. 312 Together Women also told us that they have been impressed by the role of Probation teams, highlighting “extensive efforts to engage with women’s specialists”. 313
171. 171
     We heard, however, that “there is a mismatch between referrals and what is being commissioned”. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     We heard, however, that “there is a mismatch between referrals and what is being commissioned”. 314 Justin Russell told us that HMPPS “underestimated the potential demand for things like women’s services and accommodation” whereas “there have not been enough referrals for well-being services”. Carrie Peters, whose company is commissioned to deliver all types of services except women’s services (Personal Wellbeing Services; Finance, Benefits, and Debt; Dependency and Recovery; Education, Training and Employment Services; and Accommodation Services), told us that “accommodation is in the greatest demand”, whereas “there is capacity in some of the other services”. 315 On the other hand, Niki Scordi told us that, for her women’s centre, “referrals are often much higher than we were expecting—25% to 75% more”. She explained that they “sometimes have waiting lists for just engaging with a dedicated key worker”. 316 She added that there is not “sufficient funding for accommodation or mental health”. 317
172. 172
     We also heard that “the feedback from the voluntary sector involved in those contracts is... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     We also heard that “the feedback from the voluntary sector involved in those contracts is that the contracts have felt quite constraining and they have gone to the big national organisations” whereas “smaller providers have felt squeezed out” and that “they were not able to compete”. 318 Niki Scordi told us that the commissioning processes excluded smaller organisations unless they were able to partner with a larger one. She said that her charity—a larger one in terms of women’s services—”struggled” with the commissioning process and yet “had to step in and partner with local organisations” to help them bid. 319 Rebecca Robson explained that, as someone running “a small charity without separate IT teams, HR teams and contract management teams”, applying to be awarded a contract “was a very lengthy and complicated process”. She mentioned “a lot of legal language and very technical language”, though acknowledged that she received support from “Ministry of Justice staff and Probation staff, who have been lovely, understanding and patient”. 320 She added that she also received support from a larger organisation and “if it was not for them we probably would not have secured the contract”, mentioning various “policies” that bidders were expected to have in place, as well as “IT security” standards. 321 Damian Hinds MP conceded that “procurement rules, legal risk, and due diligence” can sometimes “restrict the number of bidders”. 322 The operation of current contracts
173. 173
     Besides the commissioning process, we also sought evidence on the operation of existing contracts. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Besides the commissioning process, we also sought evidence on the operation of existing contracts. Witnesses told us about communication issues between the Probation Service and its partners, focusing specifically on referral mechanisms, updates on needs and risk assessments, and the sharing of IT databases.
174. 174
     Communication issues arise at referral stage. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Communication issues arise at referral stage. Damian Hinds MP told us that “Probation practitioners are required to share information with CRS [Commissioned Rehabilitative Services] providers to enable them to engage with people on their caseloads appropriately and be responsive to individual risks and needs”. 323 Justin Russell commented that “the actual referral mechanism is not giving the providers of services enough information about the people being referred”, explaining that they are “not being told the potential risk levels of people or of their other needs”. 324 He explained that in theory, “a very comprehensive assessment is done when someone first starts their community order and that then informs their sentence plan”. 325 Niki Scordi told us that in practice “we definitely find that risk assessments are not always available”. 326 Even when they are available, Niki Scordi told us that “the quality of the initial assessment” by the Probation Service “might be limited”. 327
175. 175
     Communication issues persist after initial referrals. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Communication issues persist after initial referrals. Carrie Peters told us that “risk and need are dynamic”, meaning that the risk presented by an offender, as well as their rehabilitative needs, may evolve while they are on probation. She explained that her organisation is often unable to pick up on such changes as they occur. 328 Niki Scordi confirmed that “as we build that trusting relationship, the woman can share much more about her needs”. 329 However, “it is very rare that we can add dynamically” to initial needs and risk assessments, Niki Scordi told us as she explained that “the most challenging thing is that the system and the way it has been designed does not allow for that flexibility”. 330 Rebecca Robson also told us that “it is getting live information about risk that presents us with a challenge” 331
176. 176
     Rudimentary facts are often missing. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Rudimentary facts are often missing. Niki Scordi told us that “basic information like accurate contact details” is often missing in initial referrals. 332 Carrie Peters added that “practical changes like someone having moved address or having a different officer” are not always communicated past initial referrals. 333
177. 177
     Lack of clarity around data protection regulation, some of which came into effect after the... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Lack of clarity around data protection regulation, some of which came into effect after the IT systems were designed, was put forward as a potential cause of communication problems. Rebecca Robson told us about “probation practitioners who worry about sharing too much” with delivery partners, under a misapprehension about data protection. She argued that “there is more work to be done on that to really understand what can and should be shared” with commissioned services. 334 Carrie Peters acknowledged that “there are things that have to be taken out of the risk information, like the names of victims and particular information about them” but agreed that “it can go too far and too much is taken out”. She told us that “some of it probably comes down to trusting us as partners to hold sensitive information, to deal with it and to treat it with the respect it needs, and to let it inform the work we need to do”. 335
178. 178
     Previously, “voluntary sector providers had direct access to probation case management systems”: the case management... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Previously, “voluntary sector providers had direct access to probation case management systems”: the case management tool nDelius and the risk assessment tool OASys (see Box 8). 336 They were able to receive and share updates on people on probation, but lost access to these systems when the Probation Service unified in 2021. 337
179. 179
     Damian Hinds MP confirmed that “Commissioned Rehabilitative Service (CRS) providers do not have access to... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Damian Hinds MP confirmed that “Commissioned Rehabilitative Service (CRS) providers do not have access to nDelius …, OASys …, NOMIS (the Prison Service’s case management system) or an equivalent system in place in privately contracted prisons”. He explained that “these systems contain sensitive information relating to people in prison and under probation supervision that is not required by CRS providers to deliver their services”. 338
180. 180
     The Probation Service now uses a platform called “Refer and Monitor” (R&M) to communicate with... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     The Probation Service now uses a platform called “Refer and Monitor” (R&M) to communicate with its partners. Damian Hinds MP explained that “R&M facilitates a speedy and effective referral process, with easy access to information about the services offered by CRS providers and allows information sharing between probation practitioners and providers to ensure progress is managed robustly”. 339 Kim Thornden-Edwards, who admitted that “sometimes we did not have the availability to transfer information in a safe way to some of our delivery partners”, told us that “we have unblocked most of the problems now” since the Probation Service has “made real changes in those systems”. 340 Damian Hinds MP confirmed that “several enhancements have been made to the R&M digital tool since CRS services commenced in 2021”. 341 Carrie Peters agreed that “what is put on to Refer and Monitor has certainly improved in the last two years” while noting that “there are still gaps”. 342 Because a single offender, especially among male offenders, will likely be interacting with a range of commissioned services, Carrie Peters told us that organisations delivering them would also like to get updates from each other, which the platform doesn’t allow: “We are all on Refer and Monitor but we cannot see anything anybody else has put on there.” 343
181. 181
     Carrie Peters told us that her company carries out their own “in-depth assessment” and that... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Carrie Peters told us that her company carries out their own “in-depth assessment” and that if they realise that persons on probation “need to be on different pathways or they have a higher level of complexity” of needs, then they have to go back to their probation officer, “sometimes for an amendment and sometimes to cancel the referral or for a re-referral, which takes an awful lot of time”. 344
182. 182
     Voluntary sector organisations “repeatedly” told HM Inspector of Probation that they would like direct access... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Voluntary sector organisations “repeatedly” told HM Inspector of Probation that they would like direct access to probation case management systems. 345 “Access to the authority systems OASys and nDelius would put us in a better position for keeping abreast of all those changes as we go along”, we heard from Carrie Peters. 346 Rebecca Robson agreed that, for those days when her organisation is not hosting a probation officer, she would like “access to live information about risk that we had before when we had access to the other systems”. 347 Carrie Peters argued that this would also be in the interest of the Probation Service, because partners “could also record directly on to those systems, which would … save probation practitioners time”. 348
183. 183
     Rebecca Robson told us that probation staff are based in her organisation “one or two... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Rebecca Robson told us that probation staff are based in her organisation “one or two days a week”, and thanks to this “information sharing works really well, including about the ongoing risk”. 349 She explained that “in Cumbria, it is generally working well, and we are getting quality referrals” because her charity has “developed relationships between Probation staff and our staff”. 350 The next commissioning process
184. 184
     We asked three of the Probation Service’s delivery partners about how they would like the... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     We asked three of the Probation Service’s delivery partners about how they would like the Ministry of Justice to approach the next national commissioning process.
185. 185
     They asked for longer contracts. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     They asked for longer contracts. “Longer contracts certainly help to build relationships and stability, and people understand where they need to go”, Carrie Peters told us. 351 Niki Scordi said she would like contracts to last “ten years”. 352 Rebecca Robson agreed that she would “not want to go through that process too many times”. 353 Chris Jennings, talking about cooperation between UK Government and Welsh Government, sympathised as he regretted that he has “a short-term funding solution for a long-term problem” and was hoping for a “long-term funding arrangement”. 354 Damian Hinds MP acknowledged that “in an ideal world, you would probably always want to have rolling contracts, so that the organisation can always have some certainty” but argued that “there is a balance to be struck” because “that is not the way we do public finance in this country” and “it never has been”. 355
186. 186
     Delivery partners asked for flexibility to be built into the contracts, allowing them to adapt... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Delivery partners asked for flexibility to be built into the contracts, allowing them to adapt their services to the circumstances of the people referred to them. Carrie Peters, who argued that current contracts “can stifle innovation and stop you from going the extra mile”, told us that “flexibility needs to be built in and you need to be able to adapt to a changing environment as you go”. 356 Niki Scordi said the challenge with long-term contracts is that they are often fixed and there is an unwillingness to flex them sufficiently until they are renewed”. 357
187. 187
     They also argued for more funding for women’s services. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     They also argued for more funding for women’s services. Niki Scordi argued that women’s services have been “underfunded up and down the country for over a decade”. 358 She welcomed the fact that women’s services are now commissioned in a holistic way but found that, “as a result … those services are underfunded, because obviously if you are funding one service for all needs, you are likely to under record that as opposed to funding separate needs”. 359 She said that “women’s highest level of need is in mental health, and there is a real shortage and no specific funding for that”, adding that counselling was funded separately from those services commissioned by the Ministry of Justice for people on probation. 360 She added that women who see the benefit of the services they receive “will often want to engage for longer than the service is funded for”, and that her organisation offers services to girls aged 15 to 18 that are “not funded in most areas up and down the country”. 361 Going beyond women’s services, Dr Matthew Cracknell, Senior Lecturer, Middlesex University, wrote that, instead of trying to make custodial sentences increasingly tough, “significant funding needs to be given to probation services and related community services including those concerned with housing, mental health and substance use, in order to make community orders more attractive and viable to sentencers.” 362
188. 188
     The National Audit Office told us that “the Ministry let contracts worth £46 million for... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     The National Audit Office told us that “the Ministry let contracts worth £46 million for services ‘tailored to female offenders’” through its 2021 commissioning process (see sections on “the 2021 commissioning process” starting at paragraph 169 and on “mainstreaming wraparound support” starting at paragraph 92) but that, otherwise, “the Ministry of Justice had only spent £9.5 million on grants for women’s community services over four years (2018–19 to 2021–22) and that the short-term nature of grants made it difficult to sustain services”. The NAO pointed out that “in January 2023 MoJ announced that it had launched multi-year grant competitions to invest up to £24 million in community support services for women as part of its new female offender strategy delivery plan”, which “would equate to around £8 million a year, an increase of over three times compared to the previous four-year period (around £2.4 million a year), without adjusting for inflation in the comparison.” 363
189. 189
     Two of the delivery partners also sought a different funding approach, “based on outcomes rather... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Two of the delivery partners also sought a different funding approach, “based on outcomes rather than the number of needs, sessions and RAR days”. 364 They explained that, currently, when someone is referred to an organisation to complete RAR days, “the probation practitioner sets what those rehabilitation days are”. If, after having met the offender, the organisation believes that their needs would require a different intervention, they have two options: either the organisation complies and the offender “does not engage very positively, and we do not see the benefits”, or they “have to go back and amend the system”. 365 To ensure that they have “that positive approach right from the beginning”, Niki Scordi asked for “payment by results”, mentioning a “grant-based” approach. 366 Carrie Peters agreed that her organisation Ingeus “would like to be a genuine partner … and to be flexible and adapt as we go, and for the contract to be the agreement as to how we are going to work together; not to restrict, not to stifle, but to allow us to learn together and to get better at changing people’s lives”. 367 Damian Hinds MP pointed out that “payment by results” is “part of what the Transforming Rehabilitation programme was to do” and told us: “I want to make sure that we retain some of that ethos, bearing in mind that it is really hard to do a full payment-by-results model.” 368
190. 190
     Witnesses also spoke about the role of regional directors of the Probation Service in the... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Witnesses also spoke about the role of regional directors of the Probation Service in the next commissioning wave. “Regional probation directors would like to see far more of that budget being devolved to them so that they can make their own choices about what they purchase”, Justin Russell told us. He cited the example of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, which co-commissions services with the regional probation director, aside from national HMPPS commissioning. “We are seeing a more nuanced and flexible range of services there as we inspect”, Justin Russell explained. 369 Kim Thornden-Edwards responded that the services commissioned by HMPPS “are built to address needs that we know are pretty standardised across our probation services”, within which there can be “some flex” to adapt to local needs. She also referred to the “regional innovation fund” available to regional directors as the way for them to commission services locally. Where services might be commissioned centrally, HMPPS was “certainly alive to the potential learning from some of the bespoke and smaller niche commissions locally and what that may tell us that we should think about nationally”. 370
191. 191
     We asked them whether there would be value in literacy and numeracy services being commissioned... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     We asked them whether there would be value in literacy and numeracy services being commissioned to support people serving community sentences. Carrie Peters remembered the discontinued Offenders’ Learning and Skills Service (OLASS), whereby “funding went to probation services and colleges delivered literacy, numeracy and ESOL classes in probation settings in the same way as the education provision is delivered in prison”. She was “a big supporter” of that approach, because colleges “often do not want people who have committed certain types of offences, or sometimes any offences, to attend, so bringing their services on to probation premises works well”. 371 Niki Scordi and Rebecca Robson, representing two women’s centres, felt that “numeracy and literacy tend to be at the very bottom” of the needs of the people they are supporting. 372 Their organisations prioritise more urgent needs, for instance around mental health and trauma.
192. 192
     Commissioned rehabilitative services are a key component of community sentences. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Commissioned rehabilitative services are a key component of community sentences. The delivery partners of the Probation Service provide valuable services. The most recent commissioning wave, while imperfect, is considered by all parties as a step in the right direction.
193. 193
     Partnerships with a range of local organisations, outside formal commissioning processes for rehabilitative services, are... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Partnerships with a range of local organisations, outside formal commissioning processes for rehabilitative services, are also key to securing meaningful unpaid work placements that foster public support for community sentences.
194. 194
     The Probation Service, however, is not making the most out of these partnerships. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     The Probation Service, however, is not making the most out of these partnerships. Referrals do not always contain sufficient information, risk assessments are not always produced and shared in a timely manner, and commissioned partners find it difficult to feed back information to the Probation Service.
195. 195
     The Ministry of Justice should seize the upcoming wave of commissioning as an opportunity to... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     The Ministry of Justice should seize the upcoming wave of commissioning as an opportunity to apply lessons from the past two years. More funding should be allocated, especially to women’s centres and for housing. Contracts should be longer to protect the Probation Service’s partners, but subject to termination clauses to protect the taxpayer. More flexibility should be built in, perhaps through regular reviews, to allow partners to innovate.
196. 196
     The Ministry of Justice should ensure that smaller organisations are enabled to bid for contracts. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     The Ministry of Justice should ensure that smaller organisations are enabled to bid for contracts. Smaller organisations should be offered administrative support. They should be permitted to apply jointly, or in partnership with larger organisations. Requirements should be adapted to the size of the contract.
197. 197
     The Probation Service should improve communications with its partners. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     The Probation Service should improve communications with its partners. This could include guidance on what can, or cannot, be shared under data protection legislation. It should consider granting them direct access to its databases, as used to be the case prior to unification. 243 Q 20 (Andrew Neilson), see also Q 16 (Justin Russell). 244 Q 125 (Damian Hinds MP) 245 Q 20 (Andrew Neilson) 246 Q 76 (Kim Thornden-Edwards), Q 16 (Justin Russell). See also Q 125 (Damian Hinds MP). 247 Written evidence from the National Audit Office ( JCS0039 ) 248 Q 16 (Justin Russell) 249 Ibid. 250 Written evidence from Dr Jake Phillips, Nichola Cadet, Andrew Fowler and Laura Riley, Sheffield Hallam University ( JCS0025 ) 251 Q 20 (Andrew Neilson) 252 Q 76 (Kim Thornden-Edwards) 253 Q 15 (Justin Russell) 254 Q 16 (Justin Russell) 255 Ibid. 256 Q 96 (Carrie Peters) 257 Written evidence from Dr Jay Gormley, Dr Louise Kennefick and Professor Melissa Hamilton ( JCS0028 ) 258 Written evidence from The Transition to Adulthood Alliance ( JCS0032 ) 259 Q 96 (Rebecca Robson) 260 Q 96 (Niki Scordi) 261 Q 96 (Carrie Peters) 262 Q 125 (Damian Hinds MP) 263 Ibid. 264 Q 16 (Justin Russell) 265 Ibid. 266 Q 28 (Phil Bowen) 267 Q 76 (Kim Thornden-Edwards) 268 Q 125 (Damian Hinds MP) 269 Q 28 (Andrew Neilson) 270 Q 76 (Chris Jennings) 271 Written evidence from Dr Jay Gormley, Dr Louise Kennefick and Professor Melissa Hamilton ( JCS0028 ). For more information on the Scottish presumption against short sentences, see written evidence from Dr Hannah Graham ( JCS0006 ). 272 Written evidence from the Probation Institute ( JCS0015 ) 273 Written evidence from The Transition to Adulthood Alliance ( JCS0032 ) 274 Written evidence from the Ministry of Justice ( JCS0013 ) 275 Written evidence from The Transition to Adulthood Alliance ( JCS0032 ) 276 Q 76 (Kim Thornden-Edwards) 277 Written evidence from The Transition to Adulthood Alliance ( JCS0032 ) 278 Written evidence from NAP ( JCS0021 ) 279 Q 16 (Justin Russell) 280 Q 9 (Justin Russell) 281 Written evidence from the Probation Board for Northern Ireland ( JCS0043 ). Over half of Probation Staff in Northern Ireland are Probation Officers, while other grades are described as operational support staff. See PBNI, ‘Careers’: https://www.pbni.org.uk/careers [accessed 9 December 2023]. For an explanation of the roles of Probation Officer and Probation Services Officer in England and Wales, see para 200. 282 Written evidence from the Probation Board for Northern Ireland ( JCS0043 ) 283 Q 30 (Phil Bowen) 284 Q 16 (Justin Russell), see also Q 125 (Damian Hinds MP). 285 Q 8 (Justin Russell) 286 Q 116 (Dr Juste Abramovaite) 287 Written evidence from Greater Manchester Combined Authority ( JCS0044 ) 288 Ibid. 289 Ibid. 290 Written evidence from Criminal Justice Alliance ( JCS0022 ) 291 Written evidence from the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners ( JCS0020 ) 292 Q 75 (Kim Thornden-Edwards) 293 Written evidence from the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners ( JCS0020 ) 294 Ibid. 295 Home Office, ‘Integrated offender management (IOM)’ (26 March 2013): https://www.gov.uk/guidance/integrated-offender-management- iom [accessed 11 October 2023] 296 Q 89 (Pavan Dhaliwal) 297 Q 4 (Justin Russell) 298 Q 8 (Justin Russell) 299 Ibid. 300 Written evidence from the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners ( JCS0020 ) 301 Q 69 (Chris Jennings) 302 Q 121 (Damian Hinds MP) 303 Q 70 (Chris Jennings) 304 Q 7 (Justin Russell) 305 Ibid. 306 Q 70 (Kim Thornden-Edwards) 307 Q 75 (Kim Thornden-Edwards) . 308 Q 70 (Kim Thornden-Edwards) 309 Q 7 (Justin Russell) 310 Q 75 (Kim Thornden-Edwards) 311 Ibid ., the Ministry of Justice commissioned a review of the commissioning process, resulting in the publication of the Oldfield report. Richard Oldfield, Oldfield Partners, Review of the Dynamic Framework of the National Probation Service (September 2021): https://www.clinks.org/sites/default/files/2021–08/Review% 20of%20the%20Dynamic%20Framework%20of%20the%20National%20Probation%20Service%20-% 20Richard%20Oldfield.pdf [accessed 26 September 2023] 312 Q 99 (Niki Scordi) 313 Written evidence from Together Women ( JCS0033 ) 314 Q 7 (Justin Russell) 315 Q 92 (Carrie Peters) 316 Q 92 (Niki Scordi) 317 Q 99 (Niki Scordi) 318 Q 7 (Justin Russell) 319 Q 99 (Niki Scordi) 320 Q 99 (Rebecca Robson) 321 Q 100 (Rebecca Robson) 322 Q 127 (Damian Hinds MP) 323 Letter from Rt. Hon. Damian Hinds MP, Minister of State for Justice, to Baroness Hamwee, Chair of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee (17 October 2023): https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/41868/documents/ 207632/default 324 Q 7 (Justin Russell) 325 Q 9 and Q 11 (Justin Russell) 326 Q 93 (Niki Scordi) 327 Q 91 (Niki Scordi) 328 Q 91 (Carrie Peters) 329 Q 91 (Carrie Peters and Niki Scordi) 330 Q 91 (Niki Scordi) 331 Q 90 (Rebecca Robson) 332 Q 90 (Niki Scordi) 333 Q 91 (Carrie Peters) 334 Q 91 (Rebecca Robson) 335 Q 93 (Carrie Peters) 336 Q 7 (Justin Russell) 337 Ibid. 338 Letter from Rt. Hon. Damian Hinds MP, Minister of State for Justice, to Baroness Hamwee, Chair of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee (17 October 2023): https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/41868/documents/207632/ default 339 Ibid. 340 Q 69 (Kim Thornden-Edwards) 341 Letter from Rt. Hon. Damian Hinds MP, Minister of State for Justice, to Baroness Hamwee, Chair of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee (17 October 2023): https://committees.parliament.uk/ publications/41868/documents/207632/default 342 Q 93 (Carrie Peters) 343 Q 99 (Carrie Peters) 344 Q 90 (Carrie Peters) 345 Q 7 (Justin Russell) 346 Q 91 and Q 93 (Carrie Peters) 347 Q 103 (Rebecca Robson) 348 Q 91 (Carrie Peters) 349 Q 91 (Rebecca Robson) 350 Q 90 (Rebecca Robson) 351 Q 99 (Carrie Peters) 352 Q 99 (Niki Scordi) 353 Q 99 and Q 103 (Rebecca Robson) 354 Q 71 (Chris Jennings) 355 Q 128 (Damian Hinds MP) 356 Q 101 and Q 99 (Carrie Peters) 357 Q 91 (Niki Scordi) 358 Q 100 (Niki Scordi) 359 Q 99 (Niki Scordi) 360 Q 92 and Q 95 (Niki Scordi) 361 Q 96 and Q 97 (Niki Scordi) 362 Written evidence from Dr Matthew Cracknell ( JCS0014 ) 363 Supplementary written evidence from the National Audit Office ( JCS0042 ) 364 Q 99 (Niki Scordi) 365 Q 98 (Niki Scordi) 366 Q 102 (Niki Scordi) 367 Q 103 (Carrie Peters) 368 Q 128 (Damian Hinds MP) 369 Q 8 (Justin Russell) 370 Q 75 (Kim Thornden-Edwards) 371 Q 95 (Carrie Peters) 372 Q 95 (Niki Scordi) < Back Next > © Parliamentary copyright 2023 A-Z index Glossary Contact us Freedom of Information Jobs Using this website Copyright Privacy notice Cookie policy Cookie Manager House of Lords - Cutting crime: better community sentences - Justice and Home Affairs Committee Cutting crime: better community sentences Contents Chapter 5: Challenges faced by the Probation Service
198. 198
     Throughout our inquiry, we heard that the Probation Service is facing a range of challenges. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Throughout our inquiry, we heard that the Probation Service is facing a range of challenges. It suffers from staff shortages, resulting in unmanageable caseloads, and its mission is being questioned as its focus has shifted from the supervision of low-level offenders to the protection of the public against high-risk criminals. It also comes under criticism for the decline in the number and quality of pre-sentence reports it produces. This affects whether community orders are imposed, as well as their effectiveness. We review these challenges in this chapter. Staffing issues
199. 199
     The Probation Service is understaffed. Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     The Probation Service is understaffed. The National Audit Office told us that “in December 2022, 1,762 out of 6,158 Probation Officer roles were unfilled, a vacancy rate of 29%”. 373 Academics from Sheffield Hallam University confirmed that, as of March 2023, there was “a shortfall of 1,771 level 4 Probation Officers against the required staffing level of 6,158”. 374 The then Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell pointed out that the vacancy rate was “34% in London” and “over 50%” in certain areas of London. 375 Vacancy rates for probation officer roles are high in all 12 regions of the Probation Service (see Table 1).
200. 200
     Academics at Sheffield Hallam University told us that “The impact of Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) has... Conclusion Conclusion (the committee's words)

     Academics at Sheffield Hallam University told us that “The impact of Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) has been disastrous for the retention of staff and experienced staff”. They explained that “the departure of a generation of qualified and experienced staff including Probation Officers and Probation Services Officers … who could not accommodate the changes resulting from TR and chose to exit probation work”. 376 (A Probation Services Officer (PSO) supervises low- and medium-risk offenders while a Probation Officer (PO) also supervises higher-risk offenders.)