« OLASS REPORT - PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE | Main | BUDGET CUTS »
November 08, 2008
COMMUNITY SENTENCES
A summary here of some of the findings reached by the public accounts committee on the effectiveness and value of community sentences. There is a threat here of new funding formulas to move money around between probation areas. Note the disparity between the low use of alcohol requirements and the high incidence of alcohol-related crime. Do probation areas do them themselves any favours by raising the thresholds (OASys scores) to qualify for an ATR when such practices may actually put future funding at risk? It seems all targets carry a sting in their tails.
"Sentences served in the community offer the courts a credible alternative to custody, taking account of the offence committed, the risk posed by the offender and their needs.
Since their introduction under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, community orders have offered courts the ability to impose a range of 12 possible ‘requirements’, including accredited programmes (such as anger management courses or alcohol and drug rehabilitation),unpaid work in the community and supervision by the National Probation Service. There is little information available nationally on the effectiveness of community orders.
On the key measure of reconviction, figures from the Ministry of Justice (the Ministry) responsible for the National Offender Management Service and the National Probation Service, showed that for those sentenced to community orders, their actual reconviction rate was lower than those sentenced to custodial sentences for similar offences (3.6% below predicted rates as opposed to 3.1% below—a statistically significant difference).
The Ministry does not have basic information on the effectiveness of community orders, such as national data on whether offenders have completed their community orders, nor on why offenders have failed to complete them. The National Probation Service has set national standards for absences from, or breaches of, community orders, but these are applied inconsistently across the 42 local Probation Areas.
There are marked differences between Probation Areas in their interpretation of acceptable and unacceptable reasons for an offender being absent. Delays in starting programmes impact adversely on an offender’s ability to complete an order.
A key feature of the community order is that courts should be able to sentence offenders to requirements that address their underlying problems, such as alcohol or drug treatment programmes. However, sentencing options for courts are sometimes limited, as not all requirements are available in all local areas.
The use of requirements relating to alcohol or drug misuse is low. Despite alcohol misuse being shown to cause a quarter of offenders to commit offences, only 2% were given an alcohol treatment requirement.
The Ministry’s current method of funding Probation Areas is unsatisfactory and slow to respond to changes in demand from the courts.
There is a need for a more flexible system of allocating funding and moving resources between Areas in accordance with need."
Posted by Hampshire at November 8, 2008 10:02 PM