« BALLOT CLOSES 30TH MAY | Main | NATIONAL STANDARDS »
May 28, 2008
COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
In recent times the probation service has been more associated with enforcement than compliance. Enforcement was seen as the means to increase the confidence of the courts in using community penalties and countering the image of probation as soft. Enforcement chimed with punishment in the community – probation as the law enforcement agency, as former minister Paul Boateng force-fed us some years ago. He moved on to be the British high commissioner in South Africa!
There is no evidence that strict enforcement reduces reconviction rates – it seems to have little bearing, though those who complete their community sentences and licenses do have lower reconviction rates. The evidence suggests achieving compliance is more likely to reduce rates of reconviction than rigid enforcement procedures.
‘Probation areas and policy makers should be realistic about what reductions in offending can be achieved in the short term through toughening up enforcement practices. One option may be to explore ways of positively reinforcing good attendance and of addressing non-compliance without recourse to breach action.’ (Home Office Report: 41/03)
Statistics gathered by the Home Office show that two-thirds of the persons recalled to custody were not recalled for re-offending but for technical breaches. In 2000/1, 2,457 prisoners were recalled. This had risen sharply to 9,320 by 2004/5. (Napo Press Release - 9/10/06).
All probation areas have received additional funding which is to be spent on initiatives to divert those at high risk of short prison sentence and also to reduce the rate of breaches of those currently subject to supervision on licences and community orders. It is intended this will be achieved by improving rates of compliance.
Napo welcomes any efforts that will help to reduce overcrowding and initiatives to raise levels of compliance – To quote the boss of Noms: 'You don't get good results with offenders unless you really connect with them, win their respect and help them to address their problems…’
Enforcement and compliance go hand in hand and rates for both have been on the increase in recent years.
‘The latest performance figures for the National Probation Service (covering April 2006—February 2007) indicate that 92 per cent. of relevant offenders have enforcement action initiated within 10 working days as required by National Standards; in 1999 it was just 44 per cent. Since 2002-03 the service has also been measured against a compliance target, which measures the proportion of orders and licences that reach the six months stage without requiring breach action. On this basis compliance has improved from 62 per cent. in 2002-03 to 72 per cent. in 2006-07 (April 2006—February 2007)” (Hansard 10/5/07
To stress compliance is not to ignore enforcement and whilst we can respond cynically and see this as the pendulum swinging from enforcement to compliance that would be a simplistic reading. Maybe it’s more of a rebalancing and certainly a recognition of the sheer pointlessness of short prison sentences for those who pose no threat of harm to the public.
On the other hand the plan to try and divert defendants from custody is fraught with pitfalls and seems unlikely to work as whilst the probation service may be able to change its own behaviour and practices, influencing sentencing behaviour is a tall order. The rising prison population, according to a piece of influential research, is driven by two main factors – sentencing practices and the media and political frenzy around crime. The 2003 criminal justice act was meant to stem rising prison numbers, but all we see is a worsening situation. We now have one of the highest rates of imprisonment in the world. The paper ‘The Decision To Imprison’ is attached as a download.
Posted by Hampshire at May 28, 2008 06:23 PM