Facts About The Criminal Justice
Court system factors
How people are sentenced can significantly impact subsequent reoffending rates. For example, short prison sentences for minor crimes have been linked with higher reoffending rates, as they provide insufficient opportunity for support to be provided and genuine change to occur, as well as putting disproportionate operational and capacity demands on the prison system.
Currently, people released from sentences of less than or equal to six months had a proven reoffending rate of 61.6%.21 Conversely, evidence suggests that non-custodial sentences and diversionary referrals at the point of first offence can effectively reduce reoffending.
This section of the map indicates some of the factors that influence the kind of sentences that are given. For example: Use of alternative, non-custodial sentencing increases as engagement with, and understanding of, the ’causes behind a crime’ (an individual’s context) increases.
Many people who meet the criminal justice system experience multiple disadvantages, including a combination of homelessness, problematic substance use, domestic violence, and poverty. The use of alternative sentencing is increased by the availability of detailed pre-sentence reports (PSRs), which provide this contextual information.
Judiciary use of non-custodial sentencing will also be influenced by the availability of, and evidence for, non-custodial approaches. This in turn will be influenced by investment in these kinds of approaches. Such investment would create a ‘positive feedback loop’, increasing the availability of, evidence for, and use of non-custodial approaches.
Leverage points Our mapping process identified two key leverage points which could influence sentencing. These are in addition to the policy advocacy and influencing activities detailed earlier in this report.
A positive feedback loop could be created by greater investment in non-custodial, diversionary approaches. Research suggests that holistic interventions addressing multiple needs may be particularly effective for young people and women.
Part2
The Sentencing Council has a key role to play here, as it outlines recommended and minimum sentences within which the judiciary operates.
The council has received criticism from those trying to bring about change for having too little focus on the evidence around which interventions improve outcomes.24 Influencing this part of the system could have a significant effect on outcomes for individuals.
PSRs were identified strongly in our research as a key factor in giving judges and magistrates the contextual information they need to understand the circumstances behind a particular crime and therefore sentence appropriately.
However, we heard in our interviews how the quality and depth of PSRs is limited by time and capacity constraints within the probation and court system.
Charity sector funding in this area Perhaps understandably, very little charity sector funding is directed at the court system. The courts receive the least specialist criminal justice charity funding, at 0.3% of the total according to our analysis.
Plus, issues in the court system have been exacerbated by significant cuts to legal aid due to austerity.25
For those attempting to shift the status quo around issues like reoffending, the courts are an overlooked area. This is partly because there are very few charities who work primarily to influence outcomes in the courts.
Funders should therefore think about nurturing and supporting a range of existing and newer organisations to achieve systemic change in this area. Clearly there is a need for greater investment or innovation to improve the quality of PSRs.
High quality PSRs have become more important due to Covid-19 related backlogs in the courts, as there may now be a greater likelihood of inappropriate sentences. Funders may also consider supporting advocacy work, to bring about a greater evidence-based approach within the Sentencing Council.
Prison system factors
What happens to people within prison greatly affects what then happens outside them—including the likelihood of reoffending. It is not surprising therefore, that a significant proportion of charity sector funds are directed here. We wrote in our Beyond Bars 2019 report about the value charities add here.
Our lived experience interviewees emphasised the importance of having access to the right support and developmental services while in prison, many of which are provided by civil society organisations.
In this section of the map, we highlight some of the factors that influence whether people in prison can connect with the right services, and what influence this has on reoffending rates.
Of course, it’s important that there is a sufficiency and diversity of support services available, but whether people in prison know about them or are referred to them is also key.
People we interviewed emphasised that this is not always the case—particularly with short sentences. People often relied on others in prison for information, as prison officers didn’t generally have enough time, information, or inclination to provide it. In general, relationships with prison officers weren’t sufficiently positive to be able to discuss those needs.
We also know that people in prison may experience an overtly discriminatory relationship with their prison officers, and that only about 1% of people who make an allegation of discrimination against prison staff have their case upheld, compared to 76% of staff reports against a prisoner.26 Aside from access to services, another prison system factor that influences outcomes is the size of the prison population.
Overcrowded prisons—in addition to causing general stress and safety issues—increase the chance of people being disconnected from services and relationships. There is also an increased chance of population ‘churn’, as prisoners are transferred at short notice to provide space for new people entering prison.
Enlarged prison populations also reduce prison officer support time and their awareness of the support available, this then creates delays in accessing services such as mental healthcare. Another critical factor that participants in the workshops emphasised is the culture of each prison.
The autonomy that governors have leads to considerable differences in approach within prisons, including in the services that are available, the way they are treated by prison staff and the likelihood of an individual accessing the support they need.
This indicates that influencing prison governors could be a key point of strategic intervention. Leverage points Our mapping suggests a few potential leverage points: 1.
Probation system factors
This map section highlights how a human-centred approach to probation can reduce reoffending. Many interviewees spoke of how the approach of, and relationship with, their probation officer was a critical factor in their post-prison experience. Some described how their relationship with a probation officer had effectively ‘saved them’ from reoffending while for others their probation officer took on a much more punitive role, leading to distrust and disengagement.
A probation officer that prioritises risk management and the ‘policing’ aspect of their function, employing the ‘threat of recall’ to prison, is not likely to foster trust with the individual involved. This may limit what they share with their probation officer around personal needs.
Our map illustrates how a focus on rehabilitation and desistance in the probation system may have an impact on an individual’s likelihood to reoffend. It also shows the barriers currently affecting this approach, from probation officer training to high caseloads for probation staff.
Leverage points the leverage points for achieving change in the probation system are primarily within the control of the government and individuals within HM Prison and Probation Service, rather than charitable funders.
These leverage points for achieving change in the probation system are key, however, for helping an individual along a positive path. Investment in probation officer training.
A lack of appropriate training for probation officers may impact upon their ability to deliver the tailored support needed for individuals in their caseload. This training could be enhanced by being informed by people with lived experience.
A report published by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation in December 2020 found that many officers have unmanageably high caseloads and ‘once staff have been recruited,
Part2
Access to appropriate developmental and support services in prison. It is essential that there are enough high-quality support programmes in prisons.
Mentoring was emphasised by our interviewees as having value. Funders should work with charities to ensure there is consistency of services across prisons.
Prisoner awareness of services available. With accessibility of support programmes, and information about them, highlighted as a key issue, there may be an opportunity for investment or innovation here.
Some prisons have begun initiatives like directories of charity services, which is a simple solution but one which requires coordination and capacity to set up and update.27 3. Prison governors and staff supportive of charity approaches.
As prison staff largely determine the parameters within which service providers work, leverage could be attained by training and / or support for both prison governors and prison staff. Interventions might seek to increase understanding of, support for, and prioritisation of support programmes operated by charity providers.
There are already successful charity programmes working with governors and staff that could be supported, expanded, and strengthened to this end.
These include Unlocked Graduates, which recruits and trains graduates and career changers to become prison officers, and Spark Inside, which delivers coaching to people who live and work in prisons.
Charity sector funding in this area Prison-based interventions currently make up around 9% of the total funding of specialist criminal justice charities.
This is a focus area for many organisations, and one where they add significant value through their independence from the prison, allowing charities to build the trust necessary to helping people move forward.
Despite this, we have been concerned around a potential drift away from prison-based work. NPC research found that there was a significant drop in independent funding which aligned with the year that the controversial Transforming Rehabilitation shifts were brought in.
Some funders have an understandable concern about subsidising areas where statutory funding should be providing support.
However, prison-based services are essential, and there are many effective organisations that could apply leverage within the points identified or that are doing so already.
Part2
There has been a lack of investment in their ongoing training and development, much of which is not of a sufficient standard to meet their needs’.29 2. Rehabilitation approach to probation.Many of our interviewees felt that their probation officer was too quick to recall them back to prison for minor infractions and did not provide enough support around their practical needs (for example, adequate housing) that when met would support their rehabilitation. There was a strong feeling amongst these interviewees that a more equal balance needed to be struck between managing risk and supporting rehabilitation
Personalised support provided by probation officers. Some participants in our interviews suggested that tailored, individualised support from probation officers was helpful in supporting them to reintegrate into the community post-release.
This type of support requires investment of time and energy from the probation officer, to build the trust necessary for honest conversations about someone’s personal circumstances, and to consider how some people may face extra barriers to reintegration due to structural disadvantages (including racism and poverty).
This requires greater investment in probation officer training as well as an increase in individual capacity, as officers are often juggling high caseloads. One participant commented on how their probation officer went above and beyond to support them during their time together:
Charity sector funding in this area Although government funding on the probation system is significant, charitable initiatives which touch on probation tend to work more broadly with individuals in the community, so for the purposes of our analysis we have grouped them there. In our analysis, we did not come across any organisations who were working primarily to support the functioning of the probation system.
