Community Justice : Issues for Probation and Community Justice 9781843925781, 1843925788, 1843921286

Table of contents :
Content: Cover
Copyright Page
Contents
Figures and tables
Notes on contributors
1 Community justice: the smell of fresh bread
2 The probation service, public protection and dangerous offenders
3 Dim prospects: humanistic values and the fate of community justice
4 The police service: from enforcement to management
5 Police and community justice in partnership
6 'Tough on probation': probation practice under the National Offender Management Service
7 Working for community justice: a Home Office perspective
8 A new chance for rehabilitation: multi-agency provision and potential under NOMS. 9 Crime prevention: the role and potential of schools10 The identification and management of anti-social and offending behaviour
11 Community youth justice: policy, practices and public perception
12 Community responses to hate crime
13 Marginalized and disenfranchised: community justice and mentally disordered offenders
14 Improving confidence in criminal justice: achieving community justice for victims and wi.

Citation preview

Community Justice Issues for probation and criminal justice «m M

WILLAN PUBLISHING

Jane Winstone and Francis Pakes

C o m m u n it y Justice Issu e s fo r p ro b a tio n a n d c rim in a l justice

E d ite d b y Jane W in s t o n e a nd F ra n c is P a k e s

WILLAN PUBLISHING

Published by Willan Publishing Culmcott House Mill Street, Uffculme Cullompton, Devon EX15 3AT, UK Tel: +44(0)1884 840337 Fax: +44(0)1884 840251 em ail: in fo@w illanpublishing.co. uk website: www.willanpublishing.co.uk Published sim ultaneously in the USA and Canada by W illan Publishing c/o ISBS, 920 NE 58th Ave, Suite 300 Portland, Oregon 97213-3786, USA Tel: +001(0)503 287 3093 Fax: +001(0)503 280 8832 email: info@ isbs.com website: www.isbs.com @ The editors and contributors 2005 All rights reserved; no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the Publishers or a licence permitting copying in the UK issued by the Copyright Licensing A gency Ltd, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W 1P 91 IE. First published 2005 ISBN 1-84392-128-6 (paperback)

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Project m anagem ent by Deer Park Productions, Tavistock, Devon Typeset by PDQ Typesetting, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire Printed by T J International Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall

C o n te n ts

Figures and tables Notes on contributors

v vii

1

Com m unity justice: the smell o f fresh bread Frauds Pakes and Jane Winstone

2

The probation service, public protection and dangerous offenders M ike Nash

16

Dim prospects: humanistic values and the fate of com m unity justice M ike Nellis

33

3

1

4

The police service: from enforcem ent to m anagem ent Robin Fletcher

52

5

Police and com m unity justice in partnership Barry Loveday

72

6

'Tough on probation': probation practice under the National O ffender M anagem ent Service Dennis Gough

7

W orking for com m unity justice: a H om e Office perspective Chris U w is

91

106

8

9

A new chance for rehabilitation: m ulti-agency provision and potential under N OM S Aaron Pycroft Crime prevention: the role and potential of schools Carol Hayden

10 The identification and m anagem ent of anti-social and offending behaviour Ruth M. Hatcher and Clive R. Hollin

130

142

165

11 Com m unity youth justice: policy, practices and public perception 183 Nikki M cKenzie 12 Com m unity responses to hate crime Nathan Hall

198

13 M arginalized and disenfranchised: com m unity justice and mentally disordered offenders Jatie Winstone and Francis Pakes

219

14 Im proving confidence in criminal justice: achieving com m unity justice for victims and witnesses Jacki Tapley

237

15 Is research working? Revisiting the research and effective practice agenda ]ames M cGuire

257

16 Com m unity justice in a safety culture: probation service and com m unity justice in the N etherlands M iranda B oom

283

Index

301

fig u re s and tables

Figure s 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8

W ays of w orking of th e Jo in t A ccreditation Panel U nintend ed con sequ ences of th e p anel's way of w orking Panel criteria G eneral offend in g program m es accredited Sex offender, violence and substance m isuse program m es accredited D evelopm ents in panel activities Scientific m ethods scale adapted for reconviction studies An integrated m odel to evaluate th e im pact of offenders

113 113 114 115 116 117 123 123

T able s 5.1 5.2 5.3

H ow com pletely partners have fulfilled their role Crim e prevalence com pared w ith th e national average The decisions BCU com m anders can m ake w ithout reference to Force H Q and w hat control they have over the bud get 9.1 B ehaviou r in schools (as reported by teachers) 9.2 Personal safety and violence in schools (at school level) 9.3 B ullying surveys 9.4 P erm anen t exclusions 9.5 N on-attendan ce: percentage of half days m issed 9.6 Rates of school-tim e arson fires: English m etropolitan areas com pared w ith non-m etropolitan areas 9.7 C om peting priorities for schools 10.1 Child and ad olescent predictors of ad ult offend ing 12.1 Characteristics of hate crim es by offend er m otivation

78 79 82 151 152 152 153 154 157 160 172

202

To my children Jon, Andrew and Beth W instone and in loving m em ory o f m y father Jo h n W atts To my daughter Katie Rose Pakes

N o te s on contributors

M iranda Boone is a Senior Lecturer in C rim inal Law and Crim inology at the W illem Pom pe Institute for Crim inal Law and Crim inology of the U niversity of U trecht, the N etherlands. H er thesis was on the subject of com m unity sentences and she conducted research on different topics relating to crim inal law and crim inology. In particular, she wrote about sen tences, prison system s and probation. Recently she co-edited a volum e on crim inal law and discretion. At present she is involved in a research project on the reorganization of the judiciary in the N ether­ lands. Robin Fletcher is an associate researcher in the Crim inology D epartm ent, M iddlesex University. H e is a retired D etective Superintend ent, having served with the M etropolitan Police for 30 years. His research interests are the governance of crim e, policing styles and system s, and the im pact of m ulti-agency partnerships on crim e reduction. H e has published on the subjects of the im pact of crim e intelligence and the influence of com m unity policing. H e is currently researching the im pact of the extend ed police family. Dennis Gough is a Senior U niversity Tutor in C om m unity Justice Studies at the U niversity of Portsm outh. H e was form erly a senior probation officer with the N ational Probation Service. In addition to current d evelopm ents regarding the N ational O ffen d er M anagem ent Service, his other research interests are in child protection and the crim inal justice system . N athan H all is a Lecturer at the Institute of Crim inal Justice Studies at the University of Portsm outh. His m ain research interest lies in hate crim e, a subject he has researched extensively, particularly in relation to crim inal ju stice responses in England and W ales and in the U nited States. His first book, Hate Crime, is bein g published by W illan Publishing in 2005. He is currently involved in com parative research on the policing of hate crim e in London and N ew York. Ruth M. H atcher is a Lecturer in the Forensic Section of the School of Psychology at the U niversity of Leicester. H er m ain research interest lies in the evaluation of offending behaviour program m es delivered to

offenders w ithin com m unity settings. In particular sh e is interested in attrition from such program m es and the reasons for it. She is currently involved in a H om e O ffice-funded national evaluation of offend ing behaviour program m es w ithin the Probation Service of England and W ales. Carol Hayden is a R eader in Applied Social Research at the Institute of Crim inal Justice Studies, U niversity of Portsm outh. H er research focus is on children in trouble, w h eth er this is at hom e, in school or in the com m unity. She has researched and published w idely on children excluded from school and child ren in the care system , inclu ding evaluating interventions designed to help these children. She is currently w riting a b ook on this them e. Clive H ollin is Professor o f Crim inological Psychology in the D epartm ent of Psychiatry, Division of Forensic M ental H ealth, at the U niversity of Leicester. H e has w orked as a prison psychologist, as director of rehabilitation in th e Youth Treatm en t Service and as a consultant forensic psychologist at Ram pton H ospital. H e has published widely in th e field of crim inological psychology, particularly with reference to the m anagem ent and treatm ent o f offenders. H e is co-editor of th e journal, Psychology, Crim e and Law. Chris Lew is is a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Crim inal Justice Studies, U niversity o f Portsm outh, and a consu ltant in crim inol­ ogy. H e is particularly interested in crim inal ju stice policy and was for m an y years a sen io r civil servan t in the H om e O ffice R esearch D epartm ent. H is m ain current interests are research and statistics of crim e, especially organized crim e, gun crim e and crim e in Africa; o ffend er program m es; prosecution system s and diversity issues. Barry Loveday is a R eader in Crim inal Justice at the U niversity of Portsm outh. His m ain area of research is local policing and local police service delivery. H e has w ritten extensively on this and on issues relating to the perform ance, m anagem ent and accountability of the police. H e is a m em ber of the Local G overn m ent A ssociation's Safer Com m unities A dvisors P anel, in w hich cap acity h e is cu rren tly advising local authorities on the im plications and opportunities provided by the Police Reform A genda now being pursued by central governm ent. H e has been extensively involved w ith the w ork o f Crim e Reduction Partnerships established with the Crim e and D isorder Act 1998.

N ote s on contributors

Jam es M cG uire is Professor of Foren sic Clinical Psychology and D irector of Clinical Psychology Training at the U niversity of Liverpool. H e has condu cted research in prisons, probation services, and other settings on aspects of the effectiveness of intervention with offenders and related topics. H e carries out psycho-legal w ork for courts and tribunals, and has been involved in a range of consultatative work with crim inal justice agencies in the U nited K ingdom and other countries. His current research projects include evaluation of com m unity-based offending behaviou r program m es, a system atic review of violence prevention, and factors influencin g treatm ent outcom e in addictions. Nikki M cKenzie is a Senior Lecturer at the Institute of Crim inal Justice Studies at the U niversity o f Portsm outh. H er m ain research interests lie in you th crim e, youth ju stice and restorative justice. Nikki volunteers as a chair youth offender panel m em ber w ith the W essex Youth O ffend ing Team , w hich she has done since 2002. She is currently com pleting her PhD on Fam ily Group C onferences w ithin the UK Youth Justice System. M ike N ash is D epu ty Director o f the Institute o f Crim inal Justice Studies at the U niversity of Portsm outh. His m ain research interests lie in the field of dangerousness, crim inal justice policy, and professional cultures. H e has w ritten extensively in the field and Blackstone Press published his first book, Police Probation arid Protecting the Public, in 1999. H e is currently w orking on a new book on public protection and the crim inal justice process. M ike Nellis is Professor of Crim inal and Com m unity Justice in the Glasgow School of Social W ork, U niversity o f Strathclyde. H e is a form er social worker w ith you ng offenders and has been closely involved in the training of probation officers. H e has w ritten extensively on the changing nature of the probation service, the prom otion of com m unity penalties, the significance of electronic m onitoring and the cultural politics of penal reform (including the use of prison m ovies and prisoner's autobiogra­ phies). His m ost recent book (edited w ith Eric Chui) was M oving Probation Forw ard (Longm ans 2003). Francis Pakes is Principal Lecturer at the Institute of Crim inal Justice Studies at the U niversity of Portsm outh. His m ain research interest lies in com parative crim inal justice. H e has w ritten extensively on crim inal justice in his native country, the N etherlands. H e published his first book, Com parative Criminal Justice, w ith W illan Publishing in 2004. H e is

C om m u n ity Justice

currently involved in com parative research into legalization of euth ana­ sia and assisted suicide as well as in th e area o f psychology and law. Aaron Pycroft is a Senior Lecturer at the Institute of Crim inal Justice Studies at th e U niversity of Portsm outh. H e is a regional coordinator delivering th e BA(H ons) C om m unity Justice Studies program m e. Prior to w orking at Portsm outh U niversity Aaron worked for 15 years in th e nonstatutory sector as a practitioner and operational and senior m anager w ithin the field of substance abuse. H e has w orked extensively with DATs, PCTs, H ousing A ssociations, crim inal ju stice agencies and local authorities in developing and providing services. His m ain research interests are alcohol and drug issues, m ultiple needs, and m ulti-agency w orking. Jacki Tapley is a Senior Lecturer at th e Institute of Crim inal Justice Studies at the U niversity o f Portsm outh. H er m ain research interests lie in victim ology and the role o f victim s in th e crim inal ju stice system . Prior to join in g the Institute, Jacki w orked as a probation officer in Dorset. She has retained her links w ith D orset and is a m em ber of the Dorset Crim inal Justice Board C onsultative C om m ittee and has undertaken research on the Board's beh alf to assist in the d evelopm ent of local services for victim s and w itn esses. S h e is cu rren tly inv o lv ed in collaborative research w ith academ ics from the U nited States and Australia focusing on young people's attitudes towards dom estic violence and th e current developm ent o f dom estic violence legislation. Jane W instone is a form er probation officer currently working as a Principal Lecturer at the Institute o f Crim inal Justice Studies at the U niversity of Portsm outh leading th e program m e for the delivery of the p robation officer qualification. H er m ain research interest lies in youth penology and she is currently evaluating delivery strategies in a young o ffend er institution. H er long-stand in g involvem ent in com m unity ju stice had led to a specific interest in m entally disordered offenders.

C h ap ter I

Com m unity justice: the smell of fresh bread Francis Pokes and Jane Winstone

I am passionate about tackling anti-social behaviour in our com munities. It is about respect for other people. It's about decency. It's about hardworking families w ho play by the rules not suffering from those that don't. It's everything that strong com munities should stand for, protecting the vulnerable, sticking up for what is right. These are the words of Tony Blair in a speech delivered on 28 October 2004. 'Com m unity' is without doubt one of New Labour's most prolific buzzwords, and unsurprisingly it has attracted a good deal of academic interest. The term com munity features in the title of m any a recent book on criminal justice policy in the New Labour Era, including Crawford's Crime Prevention arid Community Safety (1999), M atthews and Pitts's (2001) Crime, Disorder and Community Safety, as well as Crime Control and Community, edited by H ughes and Edwards (2002). In addition, there is the collection edited by Bottom s, Gelsthorpe and Rex on Community Penalties from 2001. There is no doubt that in both policy and in academic circles, com m unity is the place to be. This book arguably boarded the same bandw agon as it carries 'com m unity justice' as its title and was beset by the same difficulty: that com munity justice is hardly less vaguely defined than its even more fashionable cousin, com m unity safety. To us, com m unity justice com prises working with offenders, crime prevention, com munity safety as well as working with victims and vulnerable groups. In addition, it is also about revisiting the concept of 'justice' and exploring w hether the

C om m u n ity Justice

current arrangem ents can or will deliver com m unity ju stice for som e or all sections of w hat w e understand to be 'com m unity'. Th e problem w ith the term , as w ith m any o th er com m u n ity buzzw ords, is that it is part aspirational, part symbolic. Separating the w heat from the chaff is therefore no m ean feat. Clear and Karp (1999) are clear about the value of the ideal of com m unity justice. T hey argue that com m unity justice is prim arily about restoring the dam age to victim and com m unity rather than about pu nishing offenders. This vision is closely aligned to restorative justice. The ideal type represents a localized form of ju stice that supports effective and com m unicative com m unities w hose propensities for self-governance are harnessed. W orking in partnership is vital and so is the inclusion of schools and civic and religious organizations in enhan cing com m unity cohesion and inform al social control (Clear and Karp 1999, 2000). B ein g both cohesive and inclusive, these com m unities are yearning to be em pow ered by the state to be involved with ju stice proper. Their sense o f ju stice is one that centres on rehabilitation, in putting right the w rongs o f th e crim e and the dam age it inflicted on victim and com m unity, and by bettering the offend er in order to prevent re-offending. T h e ideal com m unity fits the ideal of com m unity justice, but suffers from the caveat that com m unities, by their very nature are both inclusive and exclusive, a point to w hich w e return later. The principles of com m unity ju stice have been outlined as follows. First, the com m unity is the ultim ate con su m er of crim inal ju stice. Rather than offenders, or even victim s, it is com m unities that the system ought to serve. Second, com m unity justice is achieved in partnership at a local level. Third, it is problem focused: problem s are addressed rather than cases processed. T h e extent to w hich these principles actually inform practice in Britain, or anyw here else for that m atter, is highly debatable. At this p o in t it is as in evitable as it is a clich é to lam en t the politicalization of the field of com m unity ju stice. There is ind eed an oft-noted d isparity b etw een th e im agination and positive energy associated w ith com m unity ju stice and the adm inistrative 'o n e size fits all' reality of local im plem entations.

D e co n structing co m m u n ity The sym bolism associated w ith usage of the term 'com m unity' is pervasive and w idespread. To take a rather obvious exam ple, the controversial Anti-Social B ehaviour Act 2003 is filled to the brim with references to com m unities. T h e governm ent's anti-social behaviou r plan 2

C o m m u n ity justice: the smell of fresh bread

that carries the slogan 'P u ttin g com m unities first' was published in N ovem ber 2003 under the title Together Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour. It contains 99 references to com m unity and com m unities. In his forew ord, then H om e Secretary David B lu nkett used the term no less than ten times in a piece that is no m ore than 600 w ords long - few sentences, let alone paragraphs, have no reference to com m unity in som e shape or form. There is som ething im m ensely com pelling about the term com m unity. It is associated w ith a naive im m ersion in togetherness: as it were, prim itive m an sitting round a fire after a successful hunt, w hat Rosenberg calls a 'w arm circle' (in Baum an 2001: 10). Baum an em phasizes the naturalness of com m unity as a self-explanatory state of belonging, of know ing to be surrounded by like-m inded people. As social anim als, b ein g part of on e all-em bracing com m unity appears to b e our G arden of Eden. It is som ething w e like to think w e once had and w e are forever trying to get it back. C om m u nity is possibly the m ost native of social arrangem ents (Baum an 2001). In today's society, the fact that com m unity is so often talked about is possibly a sign of trouble. 'N ev er was the word com m unity used m ore indiscrim inately and em ptily than in the decades w hen com m unities in the sociological sense becam e hard to find in real life' (H obsbaw m 1994: 428). C om m unities are not w hat they used to be, or at least not how w e collectively like to rem em ber them . W hat constitutes the essence of com m unity? Redfield (1971) lists three criteria. T he first is distinctiveness. T he archetypal com m unity is clearly set apart from others. It is clear w ho is included and w ho is not and its boundaries are beyond question, understood by both m em bers and n o n ­ m em bers. Second, the essential com m unity is small; all m em bers know each other and are often in each other's sight. O ntologically, the difference betw een 'u s' and 'th em ' is that you are fam iliar with the sight of the m em bers of you r ow n com m unity w hereas the rest of the w orld is a stranger. C om m unication am on g insiders is all-em bracing w hereas interactions w ith others are scarce and superficial. The third defining feature is self-sufficiency. T h e com m unity does not really need the outside w orld; at once there is pristine unity and splendid isolation (Redfield 1971). It can be added that com m unities provide a 'cradle to grave' sense of belonging. A further characteristic of such archetypal com m unities w ould be their self-governance. All of this, of course, harks back to D urkheim 's conception of m echanical solidarity (cited in Giddens 1971), w hich is a form of social cohesion w here people live and w ork w ithin a tightly constrained radius and w here roles, values and beliefs are prescribed and adhered to throu ghou t the generations.

3

C om m u n ity Justice

The problem , as D urkheim was the first to recognize, is that w e no longer live in a m echanical-type society. W e inhabit a society w here difference, not sim ilarity, is the distinguishing factor, w hich D urkheim labelled organic solidarity. This presupposes that social cohesion arises not from the acceptance of a com m on set of beliefs and sentim ents, b u t from a com plex system of in terd ep en d en ce w hich recognizes the pursuit of individual goals, provided they are legitim ate and socially sanctioned. T he m odern technological world requires a fragm entation of living and w orking arrangem ents; concepts of fam ily, that cornerstone of com m u­ nity, have undergone radical changes as the dem ands of m odern living have restructured values, roles, ideals and econom ic arrangem ents. Unity and togetherness are no longer a 'g iv en' com m odity of social life; they need to be worked at, harnessed, cherished and protected. W e are all m em bers of all sorts of diluted com m unities that w ith varying levels of success try to fulfil our need to belong. C om m unities, so indiscrim inately alluded to in political rhetoric, com e in any nu m ber of shapes and sizes, a notion understated in the field of crim inal justice policy: T he need to 'd efin e' or 'profile' com m unities is often regarded by practitioners to be a luxury w hich has little relevance to doing their jobs. Yet, m any efforts to galvanise, develop and w ork w ith 'th e com m unity' end in failure precisely because this has not been done. T he challenges facing high crim e neighbourhoods, their con nec­ tions w ith globalisation and other broad er socio-econom ic change (for exam ple w ith increasing individualism and changin g patterns of trust), the com peting interests and dem ands am ong different groups of people, the fact that different localities have different 'com m unity careers' (Bottom s and W iles 1986) and characteristics, and diverse, different and often com peting needs w hich eschew the often form ulaic and standardised agency approaches - is rarely understood by practitioners. (Foster 2002: 175) R u nning th e risk of identifying discursive types of com m unity to death, w e can distinguish the follow ing types of late m od ern com m unities. First there is the idea of com m unity that represents a nostalgic indulgence. It refers to the spurious m em ory o f a com m unity that never w as and typically represents an idealized version of our parents' or grandparents' time, using phrases such as, 'D u ring the war w e all stood together', and 'N obody locked their houses w hen I was young'. Young notes that the feeling of 'paradise lost' seem s ubiquitous:

4

C o m m u n ity justice: the smell of fresh bread

Politicians of all persuasions, from social dem ocrats to conservatives, share a preoccupation w ith th e notion of returning to the past, or rekindling the half-w arm m em ories of family, w ork and com m u­ nity. (Young 1999: 49) A lthough w idespread throu ghou t W estern civilization, there is som e­ thing particularly British about how deep this notion has perm eated popular discourse. Television w as, allegedly, m uch better 30 years ago, and so w ere trains, teachers, and grand m a's cakes. O ften forgotten are the hardships, insecurities and w orries o f the time. The second type is the oft-bem oaned divided com m unity. W e reserve this term for com m unities occupied by m em bers of a lim ited set of m utually exclusive groups. Cohesion w ithin these groups m ight be high, but interactions betw een th e groups are shallow and often hostile. The division often occurs along religious lines w here, say, Protestants and C atholics live side by side b u t lead by and large separated lives. These com m unities are m ulti-level: there is hardly a com m unity at all as such, given that the different groups frequ ent their ow n religious, social and cultural institutions w hilst failing to engage m eaningfully w ith each other. At the sam e time, how ever, enclaves m ight be thriving, and the m ere presence of 'outsiders' w ithin the com m unity boundaries m ight serve to increase m em bers' sense o f belonging w ithin their group as both in-group and out-group sentim ents are likely to be en h an ced (H ogg and A bram s 1988). T his can be u n d ersto o d as the 'sie g e m e n tality '; com m u n ity sp irit is only a p p aren t w h en the m em bers p erceiv e them selves to be threatened by a hostile outside force. W e see this in the current focus upon fear o f crim e and anti-social behaviour, w hich is used as a device to eng en d er com m unity spirit w here no n e apparently existed before. M ore indicative of the post-m odern era are disintegrated com m unities in w hich cohesion does not really extend beyond the front door. These are the com m unities to w hich the m axim 'T here is no such thing as com m unity' applies best. People in these typically urban neighbourhoods tend to have a w ide variety o f backgrounds and the population tends to be you ng and transient. W hen policy-m akers refer to 'o u r com m unities' they do not tend to have these in mind. Gated com m unities tend to be in affluent neighbourhoods and have sharply d efined physical boundaries. They are also called propriety com m unities as they are often set on private land. T hese com m unities tend to have private security arrangem ents in place, such as CC TV and access restrictions, and are also characterized by low crim e rates and high levels of fear. Such com m unities offer the possibility for a m ore extrem e

5

C om m u n ity Justice

form of stratification: 'u s' and 'th em ' defined by the pow er literally to buy into such schem es. H aving said that, it has been alleged that the sense of belon ging w ithin such com m unities is n o t particularly high: m em bers feel m ore bound by the legal than by the social contract (Blakely and Snyd er 1999). Davis (1990) also em phasizes the need felt by the m iddle classes to be insulated, both spatially and socially, from underclass undesirables. U rban planning and city design are increasingly geared to keep the underclass, and the disorder they are feared to inflict, out of sight of the m iddle classes. P olicy -m ak ers also ten d n o t to refer to v irtual or o th e rw ise despatialized com m unities. Increasingly, internet-based groups engage in interactions that give rise to w hat w e m ight call com m unities. D istance-learning students engage w ith each other and their course via online learning centres. C hess aficionados play in online leagues and tournam ents and first-tim e m others share experiences via chat-room s and user groups. C om m unity no longer requires proxim ity. It is w orth m entioning th e phrase 'com m unities of choice'. W e m ight decide to send our children to public school, to becom e a school governor or to take part in the organization o f a local five-a-side league, the rew ard of such actions bein g adm ission into a social structure that, as long as it is defined loosely enough, constitutes a com m unity. B elongin g is increas­ ingly optional and our wish to becom e im m ersed in a social entity with its inevitable code of conduct and form al or inform al social control, is offset against the d em ands that the com m unity m ight place on us and the freedom that will be lost as a result. O f course, the luxury of choice is prim arily reserved for the m ore affluent cushioned by an econom ic com fort zone; evicted tenants and excluded pupils will find the issue of choice by and large an anathem a. These are obviously crude descriptions: few w ould recognize their neighbou rhood in any of these discursive com m unity types. T h e fact rem ains that th e use of the term com m unity is sim ply over-stretched to the point that it hardly serves any purpose at all. It is like a superm arket spreading th e smell of fresh bread throu ghou t their store: it is a 'feel­ good' factor, hinting at the w ay things used to be w hen the w orld was sm aller and less bew ildering.

C o m m u n ity justice and co m m u n ity spirit T he enthusiasm for anything w ith 'com m unity' added to it is exem plified by the reception of N ew York City's so-called com m unity courts. The Red H ook C om m unity Justice C en ter was launched in Brooklyn in 2000. Since

6

C o m m u n ity justice: the smell of fresh bread

then, a nu m ber of similar courts have been established throu ghou t the USA. T h e idea is that a single locus exists that serves as the hub for a variety of com m unity justice efforts. A single-sitting ju d g e can hear family, civil or crim inal cases concerned w ith w hat are often term ed 'quality o f life' crim es. Solutions include m ediation, restitution and com m unity service orders w ith drug training and education program m es also available. Part of the C en ter is an unconventional youth court. Y ouths receive about 30 hours of training to serve as either ju d g e, ju ro r or prosecuting attorney, and they gain school credits for their participation. It is described as a true ju ry of peers, but it m ust be em phasized that this Y outh C ourt deals with only about 100 m inor cases a year and invariably w hen the guilt of the person is not at issue. At present it is too early to say w h e th e r su ch com m u n ity c en te rs re p re se n t a new level o f the institutionalization of com m unity justice. It is, how ever, safe to say that the idea appeals: after the m arketing successes of zero tolerance policing (Pakes 2004), it seem s that N ew Y ork City has again produced a winner. In th e tim e-honou red tradition o f U S/U K strategic harm onization , Liverpool is already piloting a com m unity ju stice centre based on the Red H ook exam ple. A nother idea from the U nited States th at has b een enthusiastically received, at least by the form er H om e Secretary David Blunkett, is that of com m unity prosecution. C om m unity prosecution represents a shift of perspective aw ay from prosecuting officials being prim arily reactive servants of the court, and towards them becom ing proactive servants of com m unities (Etheridge 2003). It m ight involve assigning prosecuting officials to specific areas, or schools. It also m ight involve giving com m unity leaders a say in sentencing, or the furtherance of com m unity im pact statem ents b ein g heard in court. Few w ould dispute that w hen it com es to effective crim e reduction strategies, the local level is usually their natural habitat. H ow ever, they need to be inform ed by the reality that com m unities are likely to be com posed of 'lightly engaged strangers' (H ancock and M atthew s 2001: 110). T h e suspicion is that policy is based on an assum ption of w hat com m u n ities are like, rath er th a n on w h at actu ally h ap p en s in neighbourhoods up and dow n the country. So w hat is the state of Britain's com m unities today? To w hat extent are neighbourhoods actually classifiable as com m unities? The H om e Office C itizenship Survey allows us at least a glim pse of how m atters stand (M untan and Zuraw an 2004). The survey looks at levels of civic participation, such as contacting a local councillor or attend in g a public m eeting, inform al volu nteering (giving unpaid help to non-fam ily m em bers) and formal volunteering (giving unpaid help through groups,

7

C om m u n ity Justice

clubs or organizations). W hereas only a small m inority (3 per cent) are actually involved in civic participatory activities, 37 per cent indicated that at least once a m onth they w ere engaged in inform al volunteering, for exam ple giving advice, looking after property or pets, transporting people, babysitting, cooking, cleaning, or shopping. Form al volunteering is d one by 28 per cen t and tends to con cern education, sports and exercise, religion, hobbies and social clubs. The report also looks at the relation betw een relative deprivation (at area level) and active com m unity participation, w hich is the am algam ation of civic participation, informal and formal volunteering. At first sight there appears to be no relation betw een civic participation and relative deprivation. Sim ilarly, in the sphere o f inform al volu nteering, the differences betw een th e most and least deprived areas are only moderate. If these data can serve as a m easure for social cohesion (although they seem to be too general to do that convincingly), then the most deprived areas are hardly distinguishable on these indicators. A substantial difference, how ever, occurs w ith form al volunteering, w here a difference of 15 percentage points was found betw een the least and most deprived areas. The idea of working-class com m unities in w hich people 'look after each other' in a way lost by society's high er echelons is not confirm ed by these data. N or does it confirm the notion of deprived areas as hostile barren lands in w hich it is everyone for them selves. In term s of social cohesion, it w ould alm ost seem as if the rich and the poor have it in more or less equal am ounts. Foster (2002) has indeed argued that in seem ingly defeated and highly disorganized neighbourhoods there are often well established and understood m echanism s of social organization, in w hich netw orks of crim inal activity m ight be em bedded, challenging the assum ption that crim e alw ays sides w ith disorder, and once more dem onstrating that offenders and victim s are never w holly separate entities. It is arguable that these survey data give additional support for w hat H an co ck and M atth ew s (2001) claim is ev id en ce that peo p le in com m unities do not m erely pass in the night, but that som e level of com m unity-oriented activity is at least reasonably w idespread. H ow ever, the suggestion that m any urban areas consist m ainly of relative strangers is likely to be rem ain unchallenged. You m ay not know your neighbour's nam e or even face but you m ight w rite to you r M P, sign a petition, or w ater the plants of a colleague w ho lives dow n the road. It offers no ev id en ce to b ack up B lu n k e tt's idea of clo se-k n it h o m o g en eo u s com m unities of law -abiding citizens, sick to the back teeth of the rotten apples in their midst. It only show s that there is som e degree of com m unity spirit w ithin a broad locality. Reports of the death of

8

C o m m u n ity justice: the smell of fresh bread

com m unity are, therefore, obviously exaggerated. The survey, how ever, hardly allows us to assess it as having a good bill of health. The Active C om m unities survey particularly looks at th e 'u s' part of the com m unity equation. Jock Y oung (1999) is particularly concerned with w hat com m unity does to outsiders. A fter all, com m unity cohesion is greatly served by the exclusion o f outcasts. This exclusion is usually physical and th e preferred arrangem ent is sim ply not to have crim inals, vandals, w itches and m onsters am ong us. Y oung refers to the establish­ m ent of a 'cord on sanitaire' (Young 1999) around com m unities that serves as a protective layer, keeping out the riff-raff and conveniently ignoring the fact that m ost individuals are m ore likely to be abused, beaten or killed by som eone w ho is fam iliar than by a stranger. The usage of th e term com m unity becom es altogether m ore sinister w hen its pow ers of exclusion are considered. As an exam ple of ho w the com m unity discourse increases the leverage on keeping outcasts at bay we look at tw o m easures to tackle anti-social behaviour. These are dispersal orders and Anti-Social B ehaviour O rders (ASBOs). Dispersal orders can be given in areas designated by a senior police officer for a period of six m onths w hen there are reasonable grounds to believe that m em bers of the public have b een intim idated, harassed, alarm ed or distressed as a result of the presence or behaviour of groups of tw o or m ore persons in public places, and that anti-social behaviou r is a significant and persistent problem in the relevant locality. Such a designation gives police officers additional powers. T hey m ay disperse any group, and direct people in any group to leave the area, as long as they do not live there, and to not return with 24 hours. The penalties for not com plying can be a stiff fine (up to £5,000 pounds), or a m axim um of three m on ths' im prisonm ent (Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003). It will be interesting to see, from th e research that will em erge, w ho it is that is dispersed and w here they are dispersed from and to. It is potentially an excellent tool to protect m iddle-class areas from trouble overflow ing from nearby estates. Anti-Social Behaviour O rders (ASBOs) have sim ilarly increased the significance o f the 'w h ere' of anti-social behaviour. As is the case w ith dispersal orders, the criteria to be fulfilled in order to be eligible for A SBO s are d efined with, as Foot called it, 'frigh tening vagueness' (Foot 2004). A SBO s typically forbid the recipient from exhibiting certain behaviours, such as vandalism , racist abuse or fare-dodging. A lternatively, or in con ju n ction, they can forbid the recipient from entering certain geographic areas, such as a shopping centre or a high street. Breach o f an ord er is punishable w ith up to five years' im prisonm ent in the case o f adults and up to tw o years' detention for juveniles.

9

C om m u n ity Justice

The year 2004 saw a proliferation of im posed constraints on the freed om of the A SBO -ed: youths have been bann ed from city centres d uring school holidays; prostitu tes have been forbid d en to carry condom s; alcoholics have been ordered not to drink; an 11-year-old from Bradford cannot venture further than his ow n street (W ainw right 2004). There was also the headline-grabbing case of the farm er w ho got A SBO -ed for failing to control his pigs (Coates 2004). ASBO s and dispersal orders em body the p ow er o f exclusion, an issue about w hich N APO has expressed concern (N APO 2004, Fletch er 2005). That they are carried out with endless references to 'o u r com m unities' is telling, as w hat these m easures tend to do is prevent the re-occurrence of incidents in places w here com m unities hav e th e social pow er to have the system w ork for them - instead o f m aking sure that certain behaviours do not occur in the first place.

T h e contents of this book This b ook exam ines com m unity ju stice is its various guises. In its approach it takes the perspective o f various crim inal ju stice agencies, w ith particular focus on police and probation, as well as the perspective of a nu m ber of relevant groups w ithin the crim inal justice process, such as m entally disordered offenders, and victims. In addition, the role of non-crim inal ju stice bodies such as schools, and non-statutory bodies such as faith-based organizations is also addressed. Several chapters deal with the new ly established N ational O ffen d er M anagem ent Service that is set to significantly alter the landscape in w hich com m unity ju stice operates. A lthough N O M S is still at present in the process of find ing its feet, several contributors discuss its possible or probable im pact on com m unity ju stice in England and W ales in th e near future. T he early chapters explore the broad fram ew orks w hich inform com m unity ju stice and current delivery arrangem ents. C h apter 2 outlines th e politics of risk in relation to crim inal ju stice and probation. M ike N ash sets out the political contexts in w hich risk assessm ent takes place and the near im possible dem ands being placed on probation in general and the probation practitioner in particular. C h ap ter 3 explores the values inform ing com m u nity ju stice and M ike N ellis d ebates w h e th e r a hum anistic approach to crim inal ju stice is disappearing along with the establishm ent of N O M S. H e argues that 'punitive-repressive' or 'm anagerial-surveillant' versions of com m unity ju stice m ay claim ad herence to hum anistic values w hilst at the sam e tim e subverting their substance;

10

C o m m u n ity justice: the smell of fresh bread

and that w hilst inform ed by gen u ine m oral deliberation, its param eters are too narrow to em brace hum anistic considerations. C hapter 4 considers how com m unity ju stice has evolved from the perspective of the police. Robin Fletch er presents a historical overview of the ever-changing core roles of the police service, and outlines the current positioning of crim e prevention and com m unity safety w ithin the police service and in relation to m ulti-agency arrangem ents. C h apter 5 focuses in greater depth on m ulti-agency crim e reduction partnerships. Barry Loveday explores their genesis and functioning, in particular in relation to the role of the police w ithin such fram ew orks. Lssues such as differential levels of com m itm ent to the partnership and the snag of noncoterm inous boundaries are outlined and discussed. In another form of m ulti-agency arrangem ent, the political drive to establish seam less sen tencing is discussed in C h apter 6, w here D ennis G ough analyses the im pact of the em ergence of N O M S as th e um brella arrangem ent w ithin w hich custodial and com m unity sentences will be delivered in accordance w ith the Crim inal Justice Act 2003. H e assesses its likely effect upon probation work, as well as on probation culture and professional practice in w orking w ith offenders. C h apter 7 highlights the role of the H om e O ffice in th e delivery o f com m unity justice. Chris Lew is reviews the research base that has inform ed curren t strategies and the changin g perspectives of th e H om e O ffice betw een 1995 and the present day w ith regard to W hat W orks and o th er key initiatives. From here the concern of the book turns to specific groups and the ways in w hich com m unity ju stice can, is or will be im plem ented through voluntary and statutory agencies, policies and legislation. In C hapter 8, Aaron Pycroft debates the role of m ulti-agency w ork in dealing w ith people w ith m ultiple need s and in particular the w ork of faith-based organizations w ith regard to drug problem s. In C hapter 9 Carol H ayden exam ines the role and potential of schools w ith regard to crim e prevention, the links betw een educational factors and crim e and the relationship betw een schools and th e com m unities in w hich they are set. This highlights b oth th e potential o f schools to prom ote positive early experiences, w hich can act as protective factors for vulnerable young people but also the gap betw een these aspirations and the reality of deprivation w hich prevents individuals from an early age establishing a pro-social lifestyle. C h ap ter 10 specifically focu ses on A nti-Social B ehaviour and its im pact on various groups. Ruth H atch er and Clive H ollin outline issues of definition, m easurem ent and the range of new ly established m easures in place to tackle it. C hapter 11 is con cern ed w ith youth justice. Nikki M cK enzie exam ines the youth justice system and explores th e current dem onization of offend ing youngsters and the

C om m u n ity Justice

'social construction of youth' in general. She considers th e im plem enta­ tion of restorative ju stice, including referral orders, and presents som e positive results, despite som e of the anom alies of the ASBO . C h apter 12 has a focus on hate crim e. N athan Hall analyses the legislation in place to com bat hate crim e and the effectiveness or otherw ise of probation program m es in w orking w ith hate offenders. In addition, h e presents a typology of hate offenders and argues for probation w orkers to b e better equipped to recognize and tackle hate w ithin a w ider range of offenders, rather than exclusively those labelled hate offenders by the courts. C h apter 13 targets another group that pose a particular challenge to crim inal ju stice practitioners: m en tally d isord ered offend ers. Jan e W instone and Francis Pakes assess the position of m entally disordered offenders w ithin crim inal ju stice and conclude that th e M ental H ealth Bill 2004 has little to offer to reduce the m arginalization and negative stereotyping of this already disenfranchised group. C h apter 14 explores the role of victim s in the crim inal ju stice process. Jacki Tapley exam ines the m easures put in place to achieve high er levels of confid ence in the ju stice process as experienced by victim s and looks at how political rhetoric relates to practical results. D espite som e of the pessim ism expressed by previous authors, in C h apter 15 a positive note is sounded by Jam es M cG uire, w ho addresses the current state of provision for ju stice in the com m unity for offenders, critically revisiting recent debates and re-positioning these in term s of the W hat W orks delivery. The book concludes by offering an alternative perspective on com m unity ju stice, as M iranda B oon e analyses the transform ation of the probation service in the N etherlands, a develop­ m ent with particular relevance to the U K in C hapter 16.

T h e state of c o m m u n ity justice As the contents of this book will d em onstrate, com m unity ju stice is part substance, part spin. Jacki Tapley, N ikki M cK enzie and Jam es M cGuire describe d evelopm ents that are encouraging, w hilst Aaron Pycroft envisages a tw enty-first cen tury revival of th e role of non-statutory agencies in the rehabilitative effort. Crim inal ju stice is show n to be increasingly sensitive to the need s of various 'consu m er groups' and has beco m e increasingly con cern ed w ith recognizing vulnerability and treating it appropriately. O n the o ther hand, contributors such as N ellis (C hapter 3), W inston e and Pakes (C hapter 13) and Loveday (C hapter 5), am ong others, list practical and, w orse, principled problem s w ith the current approaches taken. N ot all is well in the world o f com m unity

12

C o m m u n ity justice: the smell of fresh bread

ju stice, and w ithout doubt the strength of rhetoric prom oting com m unity ju stice is rather far rem oved from th e reality of practice in the real w orld, probably now h ere m ore so than in the area of probation, as M ike N ash and D ennis G ough argue. A chieving com m unity justice in more than a token fashion is a d aunting task. In this regard it is im portant to highlight the state of flux that has overcom e the area. W hereas the pace of change in crim inal ju stice policy has increased over several decades, N ew Labour probably hold the dubious honou r of setting new standards here, passing more legislation in this field than any other previous governm ent - from the Crim e and D isorder Act 1998 to the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, and w ith the M ental H ealth Act and the M anagem ent of O ffenders Act quite possibly in the pipeline. C ertainly the foreshadow of th e latter has placed the world of probation in a state of lim bo (Carter 2003), w ith its future particularly uncertain. The plethora of legislation over the past 12 years has inevitably created significant organizational change for the im ple­ m entation of com m unity ju stice, w hich has required revised philoso­ phies, aim s, structures and w orking styles. T hese have already posed quite overw helm ing challenges for the system , w hich is still reeling from their ongoing im pact. It now faces con tin ued uncertainty as to its future shape, especially u n d er N O M S. Retaining the m otivation and support of the professionals will be the real challenge to M artin N arey, currently head in g the initiative. W hen it com es to delivering com m unity ju stice, it is the people w orking in a professional, support or voluntary capacity w ho are affected; such radical changes w ithout extensive prior consultation are likely to paralyse rather than em pow er the w orkforce. It also legitim izes a certain degree of pessim ism : 'W e will not know w hat will h ap p en to com m unity ju stice at this ju nctu re, b u t w e are sure it will n ot be good.' As this book m akes perfectly clear, there are m any hu rd les to overcom e, particularly in a curren t political context w here the fight against terror often overtakes local concerns, and w here fear of crim e easily gets divorced from risk of victim ization per se. O n th e other hand, w e need to stress that in th e m osaic o f agencies, platform s, partnerships and the like, positive m essages do exist and need to be brought to the fore. W hereas the term 'com m unity justice' is easily dism issed as N ew Labour's flavour of the m on th, th e progress m ade under its um brella in som e areas (but, adm ittedly, not in all) is still som ething w orth shouting about.

13

C o m m u n it y Justice

R e fe re n c e s Bauman, Z. (2001) Community: Seeking Safety in an Insecure World. Cambridge: Polity Press. Blair, T. (2004) Speech on Anti-Social Behaviour. Available online: http://www.number'l O.gov. uk/output/Page6492.asp. Blakely, E.J. and Snyder, M.G. (1999) Fortress America: Gated Communities in the United States. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press. Blunkett, D. (2003) Criminal Justice and the Community. Paper given at Criminal Justice - Serving the Community, 7 July 2003. Bottoms, A., Gelsthorpe, L. and Rex, S. (eds) (2001) Community Penalties: Change and Clwllenges. Cullompton: Willan. Bottoms, A. and Wiles, P. (1986) 'Housing Tenure and Residential Community Crime Careers in Britain', in A. J. Reiss and M. Tonry (eds), Communities and Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Carter, P. (2003) M anaging Offenders, Reducing Crime: A New Approach. London: Home Office. Clear, T.R. and Karp, D.R. (1999) The Community Justice Ideal: Preventing Crime and Achieving Justice. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Clear, T.R. and Karp, D.R. (2000) 'Toward the ideal of com munity justice', NIJ Journal, October: 20-29. Coates, S. (2004) 'Pig owner hopes fence will save his bacon', The Times, 16 Decem ber 2004. Crawford, A. (1998) Crime Prevention and Community Safety: Politics, Policies and Practices. Harrow: Longman. Davis, M. (1990) City o f Quartz: Excavating the. Future o f Los Angeles. London: Vintage. Etheridge, J. (2003) Community Justice in Action: The Baltimore City Pilot Programme. Paper given at Criminal Justice - Serving the Community, 7 July 2003. Fletcher, H. (2005) 'A SBOs - yet more powers', NAPO News, January, 165: 5. Foot, M. (2004) 'ASBO Absurdities', Guardian, 1 December 2004. Foster, J. (2002) 'People Pieces: The Neglected but Essential Elem ents of Community Prevention', in C. Hughes and A. Edwards (eds) Crime Control and Community: The New Politics o f Public Safety. Cullompton: Willan, pp. 167-196. Giddens, A. (1971) Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis o f the Writings o f Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hancock, L. and Matthews, R. (2001) 'Crime, Community Safety and Toleration', in F. M atthews and J. Pitts (eds) (2001) Crime, Disorder and Community Safety. London: Routlege, pp. 98-119. Hobsbawm, E. (1994) The Age o f Extremes. London: Michael Joseph. Hogg, M.A. and Abrams, D. (1988) Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes. London: Routledge. Hughes, G. (2002) 'Plotting the Rise of Community Safety: Critical Reflections on Research, Theory and Politics', in G. Hughes and A. Edwards (eds) (2002) Crime Control and Community: The Nezv Politics o f Public Safety. Cullompton: Willan, pp. 20-45. Hughes, G. and Edwards, A. (eds) (2002) Crime Control and Community: The New Politics o f Public Safety. Cullompton: Willan. Matravers, A. (2003) Sex Offenders in the Community: Managing and Reducing the Risks. Cullompton: Willan.

14

C o m m u n it y justice: the sm ell o f fresh bread

M atthews, F. and Pitts, J. (eds) (2001) Crime, Disorder and Community Safety. London: Routledge. M untan, T. and Zurawan, A. (2004) Active Communities: Headline Findings from the 2003 H ome Office Citizenship Survey. London: HMSO. NAPO newsletter (2004) NAPO News, 1 October 2004, p. 12. Pakes, F. (2004) Comparative Criminal Justice. Cullompton: Willan. Redfield, R. (1971) The Little Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wainwright, M. (2004) '11 year old confined to his own street', Guardian, 7 D ecem ber 2004. Young, J. (1999) The Exclusive Society. London: Sage.

15

C h a p te r 2

The probation service, public protection and dangerous offenders Mike Nash

Late or post-m odern society is characterized by 'risk' (G iddens 1990, H udson 2001, 2003, K em shall 2003). Societies are con cern ed w ith risk (or m ore accurately increased risk) becau se they believe that they lack the controls they once had over their lives. To a certain extent, the unexpected and unanticipated, in an age w hen w e think we should have greater control, takes people back to a pre-m odern form of existence w here natural disasters and threats determ ined the param eters of risk. For exam ple, in late sum m er 2004 a sudden river surge alm ost destroyed the Cornish coastal village o f Boscastle. People felt pow erless in the face of nature. Yet the paradox is that the sudden upturn in the scale and frequency of natural disasters w ould at least in part appear to be triggered by the 'ad v ancem ent' of society and its outcom es, that is, global w arm ing. Therefore, this sense of insecurity and risk is fuelled by a belief that events are beyond control, fram ed by a context w here they should be in control. Sim ilar argum ents can be deployed in thinking about the war on terror w aged by President Bush in the U nited States. The w orld's m ost pow erful nation is unable to offer its citizens the sense of safety and security they dem and, and ind eed are prom ised. The fragm entation of m odern society, the decline of the nuclear fam ily, the break-up of traditional com m unities all fuel the sense that the range and diversity of risk is increasing. In such a clim ate people seek guarantees, or at least prom ises, that these threats will be m et and challenged, and that they will be reduced. The greater the sense o f insecurity, the louder the dem and for safety m easures to be im posed. G overnm ents of all hues

16

T he probation service, public protection and dangerous offenders

respond to this public voice across the w orld, and th e assessm ent and m an agem en t of risk becom es a central feature o f political life. This w ider sense of insecurity relating to global issues therefore im pacts upon everyday m atters such as fear o f crim e. As w e will explain below , certain crim es and crim inals prom ote an alm ost irrational fear and anxiety, w ay beyond the realistic risk posed to the public. Yet the m edia in particular focus on the spectacular and unusual, giving the im pression that rare crim es are far m ore com m on than they are, and the chances of b ein g victim ized m uch greater than 'in the past' (but see Pearson 1983 for a discussion on recurring fears and visions of a previous golden age). H ow ever, ju st as governm ents have to respond to global risks, even thou gh they are often pow erless to do anything, so m ust crim inal ju stice agencies respond to crim e concerns. In so doing they becom e draw n into the sam e guarantee business as their political leaders. Risk m anagem ent has thus becom e a core and overriding function for crim inal justice agencies. N evertheless, ju st as governm ents cannot p revent a natural disaster, so crim inal ju stice agencies cannot prevent a recurrence of serious offending. T h ey can only put in place m easures that m ight help to m anage the risk, to m ake it in essence seem ingly m ore predictable. T hey need to try to anticipate behaviour that m ay well defy system atic assessm ent and prediction. T he other side of th e risk coin is blam e - fail to predict or m anage the risk and you will be blam ed for getting it wrong. In such a clim ate it is easy to see that practitioners will seek all the assistance they can to 'g et it right', even though getting it right w ith unpredictable offend ers is a near im possible task. It is clear that a clim ate of fear and insecurity will alter the way in w hich crim inal ju stice practitioners w ork on a daily basis. This change in direction has probably been greater for the probation service than any other organization in the sector. Their concern w ith risk shifts its focus on the offend er from on e of rehabilitation to on e of m anagem ent and control (H udson 2001). The process o f m anaging risk becom es therefore a dom inant feature of everyday practice. In probation term s this would inclu de risk of re-offending (any offence) to the risk of repetition of serious and dangerous behaviour. T h e concern for those practitioners m ight be that th e d om inance o f th e risk agenda pervades all else, and even less serious offences becom e conflated into th e global con cern s of risk and insecurity. This chapter will explore how concerns w ith risk and dangerousness have com e to d om inate probation practice and d eterm ined the ways in w hich probation officers w ork w ith other professionals. Fu nd am ental to this consideration is the im portance of con text to practice. T h e context 17

C om m u n ity Justice

outlined above m ay appear to be a long w ay from the daily w ork of the probation officer. Yet w orking w ith risk and dangerousness has m ade probation practice m ore visible than ever and it is visible w ithin a context that arouses great public anxiety. Therefore the risks associated with failure in probation practice are m uch greater than in a previous existence, w hen probation w ork was secretive and som ething of a m ystery to the w ider public.

Politics and risk T he grow ing concerns of th e probation service with risk and dangerous­ ness coincide with the politicization o f this issue since the early 1990s. This period saw 'law and order' issues becom e a significant battleground betw een the m ajor political parties in th e UK, and ind eed across m uch of the w estern world (D unbar and Langdon 1998). It was the decision of the Labour Party u n d er Tony Blair to re-invent itself as a hard-line party on crim e w hich really forced the issue. As Labour and C onservative politicians sought to pu t distance betw een them , a general concern with crim e and crim inal justice steadily focused dow n to m ajor concerns with serious and dangerous offenders, notably predatory paedophiles. D espite a lack of any real evidence that eith er the num bers of these offenders w ere grow ing, or th at existing system s for m anaging them w ere failing, the m edia seized upon the issue. It did so at a tim e w hen political parties w ere parading their tough credentials, anxious to appease the press. Little was d one to represent the real nature of the risk to an increasingly aw are and con cern ed public. Both governm ent and opposition could therefore be accused of being com plicit in inflating this issue for political ends. D angerousness and the response to it was rapidly becom ing a political football. T he increased focus on serious and dangerous offenders is evid ent in a series of legislative and policy developm ents throu ghou t the 1990s (from the 1991 Crim inal Justice Act through to the 1998 Crim e and D isorder Act via the Sex O ffend ers Act 1997). H ow ever, these efforts to toughen the response against a very sm all m inority o f offenders w ere to have m uch w ider repercussions. The new response to dangerousness was different from previous patterns of w orking and to facilitate this a cultural shift was required. In enabling this cultural shift, the likelihood is that the organization's total response to offenders will also n eed to change. As we shall see below , this can m ean a reconfiguration of approach and attitude, as well as of ethos and values. T h e avoidance of failure, w hich would increasingly be a public failure, therefore becom es very im portant to th e organization. 18

T he probation service, public protection and dangerous offenders

The hardening of the political con text m ean t that agencies w ithin the crim inal ju stice sector, especially traditionally 'soft' organizations such as the probation service, had to respond to the tough new regim e. This process was not, how ever, an overnight one. Since the return of M argaret T hatcher as prim e m inister in 1979, the traditional ethos of the probation service has b een u n d er threat. T hat ethos, w hich had view ed offenders as them selves victim s of a range of negative factors, was to becom e deeply unfashionable. T h e new right, both in the UK and the USA, w ere unsym pathetic to offenders and increasingly uninterested in explanations for offend ing behaviour; they w ere m ore con cern ed w ith condemnation, increasingly less interested in evid ence and m ore con cern ed w ith populism (Savage and N ash 1994). For th e probation service this had to m ean a significant shift to th e way in w hich it approached its w ork w ith offenders - if it was to m aintain its position as a key crim inal justice agency. A w orking style that sought to change behaviou r in a non-cond em natory style, in w hich a degree of forgiveness and tolerance w ere present, w as unlikely to survive in an atm osphere in w hich offenders w ere seen to be to blam e for their actions. If the probation service w ere to survive in an increasingly hostile and punitive atm osphere it was likely that it would have to assum e at least the language, if not the practice, of th e 'n ew penology' (Feeley and Sim on 1992). Its reluctance to engage in w holesale opposition to th e changes proposed by the governm ent suggested that organizational survival would be an increasing concern (N ash and Ryan 2003). In practical term s, the legislative and policy changes w ere b eginn ing to im pact upon the daily practice of probation officers. N ational Standards, introduced by th e 1991 Crim inal Justice Act (CJA), w ere revised during the 1990s to further restrict the professional discretion of probation officers (H om e O ffice 1995a). It could b e argued that these standards w ere as m uch about sending out a new public m essage concerning the w ork of the probation service as it w as about im proving that work. It m ust be rem em bered that the 1990s w ere a period in w hich the political stakes, particularly in law and order, w ere constantly being raised. A lternative agendas to that dom inating the political field w ere unlikely to be acceptable to th e governm ent or the m edia. As such the victim increasingly assum ed cen tre stage and, perhaps m ore im portantly, certain types of victim rose to prom inence. These 'deserving' victims w ere 'in n o cen t' children, at risk from sex fiends and m onsters - offenders w ho deserved no public sym pathy at all! As W orrall (1997) indicates, the probation service had quietly and effectively w orked with sex offenders for a nu m ber of years, but in the new clim ate their style of w orking was not restrictive or controlling enough. The change bein g visited upon the probation service m ight then have had m ore to do w ith sym bolism than 19

C om m u n ity Justice

with m ajor concerns about its effectiveness. It may have been that its language was considered inappropriate b u t its results w ere satisfactory. It should be rem em bered that the w ork described by W orrall cam e from an era w h en m easu rem en t of e ffectiv en ess w as at b e st hap h azard . U n fo rtu n ately th e new era b ein g ush ered in w ould leave little opportunity for the old m ethods to be properly evaluated. It ought to be difficult to justify change w ithout the evidence; how ever, the rapidity of change suggests that once m ore politics w ins out over experience.

O rganizational survival T he probation service, as m any people understood it, w as undoubtedly u n d er threat. Tougher responses to the crim e problem did not sit easily w ith a social w ork resp o nse to o ffend ers. T h e service itself had undoubtedly responded to gov ernm ent concerns, for exam ple, chief officers produced a docum ent in 1988 entitled M ore D em anding than Prison (ACOP 1988). T h e con tent is easily d ed uced from the title, w ith the probation service d eterm ined to prove that it could be tough in the com m unity w hen supervising offenders. Yet as w e have seen throughout the 1990s th e stakes w ere constantly b ein g raised betw een governm ent and opposition parties, in essence producing constant new and tougher d em ands on crim inal justice agencies. As noted above, this political battle eventually focused dow n onto the issue of dangerous offenders and predatory sex offenders in particular. This issue becam e so politicized that it would inevitably im pact upon all crim inal ju stice agencies, although perhaps the probation service w as to experience it m ore than others. The up shot of the political battle w as that even m eeting the new targets would instantly lead to the creation of others. As w e have im plied above, th e developm ent of w hat has becom e know n as the risk society is closely linked with fear of crime. As fear grow s, invariably fuelled by m edia-fed m oral panics, the pressure is on th e governm ent to do something. H ow ever, if serious consideration is given to trying to do som ething about possible future events, it is not difficult to see that this is essentially an im possible task. It is n o t possible to predict w hat people m ight do and w hen they m ight do it. This, how ever, is precisely w hat th e public expect, and therefore is som ething that governm ents have to be seen to deliver. D oing som ething becom es being seen to do som ething, and that m eans actions that can be dem onstrated. This is w here on e of the m ajor changes for probation w ork would be located. W hereas in the past its w ork with serious offenders m ight have b een relatively secretive (although perhaps also effective; see C oker and M artin 1985, W orrall 1997), it w ould now have to be m uch 20

T he probation service, public protection and dangerous offenders

m ore accountable. Accountability w ould becom e ever m ore associated w ith shared risk assessm ent, a clear public m essage that probation officers w ere taking seriously the crucial public protection task.

Su rvivin g through collaborating It is im portant to grasp the im portance o f being able to dem onstrate publicly that tasks are being carried ou t and that risk is being assessed (and m anaged, as w e shall see below ). To do this, tw o significant developm ents began to unfold in the 1990s. T h e first was the increasing u se of risk assessm ent tools by probation officers and other crim inal ju stice personnel, to predict the likelihood o f future serious harm. T he second was the d evelopm ent of m ulti and later inter-agency working w ith serious and potentially dangerous offenders. W e will now consider both of these developm ents for the probation service. W e have m ade clear that being seen to tackle the problem of potentially dangerous offenders w as an increasing political priority throughout the 1990s. D espite any significant evidence that the problem was w orsening, political parties across the w orld appeared keen to parade their new tough credentials to the public. In the UK, Conservative governm ent and Labour opposition fought them selves alm ost to a standstill over this issue. D unbar and Langdon (1998) describe this as a process of trying to put 'clear blue w ater' betw een the protagonists. A lthough essentially a political battle, the effect of it w as felt throughout the crim inal ju stice sector. The probation service in particular, having been associated with a woolly and failing w elfare approach, would have to change its w ays if it w ished to m aintain its position at the 'cen tre stage' prom ised follow ing the 1991 Crim inal Justice Act. The problem for probation officers w as that their claim to professional status rested, u n fortu n ately for them , on a social w o rk qualification. This was increasingly seen as an inappropriate response to serious and dangerous offenders and ultim ately w as aband oned by the C onservative govern­ m en t (H om e O ffice 1995b). In the assessm ent and m an agem en t of risk, the essence of probation practice, th e casew ork interview , w as no longer regarded as sufficiently rigorous to dem onstrate to a concerned public that all attem pts w ere being m ad e to protect them . T h e risk society dem and ed greater evidence, alm ost as if the better th e process the safer the outcom e. At this tim e 'evid ence-based ' w ays of w orking w ere gaining consider­ able support in C anada and N orth Am erica and w ould becom e the m antra of the N ew Labour ad m inistration from 1997 onwards. The grow ing influence of psychologists and statisticians gradually saw the 21

C om m u n ity Justice

d evelopm ent of a range of risk assessm ent tools to assist professionals assess the risk of (initially) future re-offending and (later) future serious harm (for a discussion of the range of m ethod s used see Kem shall 2001, 2003). The im portance of these risk assessm ent tools was that they offered an alternative to the 'su bjectiv e' clinical interview , a m ethod increasingly discredited in political circles. By utilizing scientific m ethod it was suggested that the assessm ent w ould be m ore accurate, and less likely to be influenced by professionals' subjective feelings and experience. By producing a 'score' or level of risk, offenders could be classified and grouped according to risk and in so doing risk could be 'm anaged '. It is easy to see that this approach w ould be popular w ith politicians. N um bers could be produced relating to those w ho had been assessed and then tables produced o f those falling w ithin particular categories of risk. There w ould be clear evid ence that this problem w as being dealt with. Yet, it is clear from a w hole body of academ ic and practice evidence that the assessm ent of serious and dangerous behaviour is not as easy as these 1990s m essages w ere ind icating (Scott 1977, Prins 1988). The new actuarial m ethods gaining ascend ancy throughout probation practice w ere based on studies that had exam ined very large offend er groups. T hese large sam ples w ere, by definition, based upon the m ore com m on o ffence groups in w hich the offenders shared a nu m ber of similar characteristics. D angerous behaviour is, in contrast, thankfully m uch less com m on. It is defined alm ost by an inability to discover patterns across groups of people, indeed the opposite occurs w hen patterns are sought loithin the individual behaviou r o f serial offenders. Therefore there is an inheren t risk in an over-reliance upon statistical indicators as a m eans of assessm ent for very unusual and often highly individual behaviour. A tension can therefore b e seen in th e assessm ent of potentially dangerous behaviour. That tension is caused by an acute political context, a need or dem and to d em onstrate that som ething is 'b ein g done' and that this d em onstration can be evidenced. As a result, pseudo-scientific assessm ent m ethods gain sway as they can produce a tangible, evidencebased score. Casew ork m ethods, u n d er attack since the early 1980s, are seen as an inadequate response to potentially dangerous offenders and therefore the probation service increasingly and eagerly signed up to the actuarial agenda. Yet as w e hav e already noted, the probation service had enjoyed success in its w ork w ith this offend er group (Coker and M artin 1985) and had a body of accum ulated experience in assessing and w orking w ith risk. It had not, how ever, the sam e body of evidence to prove it. T h e tension, therefore, is one betw een proving that a rigorous approach is b ein g undertaken and the success or otherw ise of the outcome

22

T he probation service, public protection and dangerous offenders

of that approach. T here need s to be a variety of approaches and it is im portant that the accum ulated experience of th e probation service is not lost in the rush to dem onstrate rigour. As Kem shall (2001) indicates, a com bination of actuarial and clinical m ethods is the m ost effective way forw ard, yet there is a danger that the clinical or casew ork expertise is already b ein g lost. In w orking with potentially dangerous offenders there is an over­ w helm ing need to be aware of the trigger factors and context in w hich the dangerous behaviou r takes place. This can, of course, be determ ined by analysis of the offend er's history, their docum entation and interview s w ith them . H ow ever, it is not enough sim ply to identify the triggers; they need to recognized in real life and responded to. O ffend ers will often, consciously or unconsciously, give out signals prior to any offending behaviour. T h e better the relationship betw een offend er and probation officer, the m ore likely that process is to hap p en (Coker and M artin 1985). As Prins (1988) argues, w orking w ith potentially dangerous offenders necessitates 'think in g the u nthinkable and asking the unaskable'. N ot everyone can do this difficult and d em and ing task. It is an activity that is n ot easily bu reau cratized . M u ch o f th e trad itional exp erien ce of probation officers fits this task very well and should not b e lost. This point is im portant as the probation service increasingly shares its w ork with other crim inal ju stice agencies. The use of standardized risk assessm ent tools across the agencies could lead to a dilution of agency d ifference and potentially of agency skills. These potential scenarios are highlighted w hen considering the difference betw een m ulti and inter­ agency w orking (Crawford 1998). T h e latter im plies a degree of closeness such that th e differences betw een agencies becom e blurred and the distinctiveness of agency contributions possibly lost (for a discussion see N ash 1999a, 2004, M aw by and W orrall 2004). Yet the attractiveness of sharing a very considerable burden is easily understood. Since the 1980s a fam iliar H om e O ffice m essage has b een th at crim e cannot be solved by one agency (usually the police) w orking alone. Shared w orking would im prove com m unication, avoid duplication and prevent potential gaps in provision. For som e w hile this am bition w as to prove m ore idealistic than realistic. For exam ple, a report by H er M ajesty's Inspector of Probation (H om e O ffice 1995c) had revealed reluctance on the part of som e chief probation officers to share their inform ation w ith the police service, and indeed som e police officers had voiced con cern over closer w orking with probation (Sam pson and Sm ith 1992: 108). This position would not continue in the face of determ ined governm ent efforts to join-up crim inal ju stice agencies (see for exam ple the change reported by H M IP three

23

C om m u n ity Justice

years later (H om e Office 1998). For organizations such as the police service there was a new n eed to w ork m ore closely w ith others. T he Sex O ffend ers Act of 1997 had given them new responsibilities to assess the risk presented by sex offenders, as well as the requirem ent to log and m onitor them on the new sex offenders' register. T he police service w ere therefore expected to undertake a m uch m ore active role at points in the crim inal ju stice system in w hich they w ere less familiar. For exam ple, sex offenders previously released from custody w ould have been alm ost exclusively the responsibility of the probation service. The Sex O ffenders Act 1997 changed that and m ade this a m uch m ore public task than it had been previously for the probation service. The police w ere therefore h app y to look for allies and assistance. For its part, the probation service, unused as it was to public exposure, w elcom ed the opportunity to work m ore closely w ith an organization that con tin ued to en jo y good levels of public support. In a blam e culture it was good to have as m any friends as possible. The structure for the risk assessm ent and m anagem ent of potentially dangerous offend ers therefore evolved d uring the 1990s and is now virtually fully developed across th e UK. T h e advance in risk assessm ent tools, constructed in such a w ay that they could be used across the crim inal ju stice sector, fostered the grow th in m ulti-agency conferences (N ash 1999b, Kem shall and M aguire 2001, M aguire et al 2001). Taking m uch from the child protection m odel (Stevenson 1989) a core panel evolved, and increasingly an enlarged 'o th er agen cies' sector becam e involved. These conferences, variously kn ow n as high-risk offend er panels, potentially dangerous o ffend er panels or serious and high-risk panels, w ere all concerned w ith assessing risk and m anaging the more serious cases in th e com m unity. T hey w ere to be convened at the m ajor 'pinch points' such as before a court appearance, before release from custody or before transfer from another area. A scarcity of resources would m ean that only the highest levels o f risk would receive intensive intervention (for exam ple, police surveillance or intensive com m unity supervision). Yet, as we have noted above, in a blam e clim ate it is quite likely that risk w ould be overestim ated so as to avoid getting it w rong, or conversely, underestim ated as th ere are insufficient resources to m anage large num bers of high-risk offenders (Kem shall and M aguire 2001). Furtherm ore, entry points into th e con ference process, if offence-based, would throw up very large num bers and a filtering system was clearly need ed - for exam ple recent MAPPPA reports indicate that nearly 39,500 cases are m onitored by MAPPPA (Guardian, 8 July 2004), and of course thousands m ore will have been filtered out o f the system , bu t still would have consu m ed resources.

24

T he probation service, public protection and dangerous offenders

There are a variety of solutions to this problem , m ost of w hich are in existence in various form s. O n e w ould be the continual refinem ent of the risk assessm ent tools to better identify levels of potential harm . As noted by Kem shall (2001, 2003), the new O ffen d er A ssessm ent System (OASys) has b een developed for use across the sector and is a com bination of actuarial and clinical inform ation. It is undoubtedly an im provem ent on previous tools but is tim e-consum ing to com plete. It is evident that w hen faced with large num bers and lim ited resources, short cuts will be taken (M aguire et al 2001). O ut of this refinem ent of the risk assessm ent process has com e a separation of the high-risk category to include very high-risk, or as the H om e O ffice has called it, 'th e critical few ' (num bering ju st over 2,100 of the total figure noted above). This is a clear attem pt to isolate those offenders m ost likely, according to predictions, to engage in very serious harm ful behaviour, w ith a degree o f im m inence. Such a system does allow a concentration and focus of resources. H ow ever, it should be rem em bered that to get to the position of isolating the critical few , a good deal of assessm ent w ork w ould have been undertaken at an earlier stage. T he d evelopm ent of first and second tier m eetings, and classifications such as 'risk aw are', d em onstrate that agencies are having to com e to term s w ith devoting considerable tim e and energy to reassure the public that all is bein g d one to protect them . At the sam e tim e, that reassurance d em ands levels of resources that are sim ply not available and of course d iverts resou rces from o th er im p o rtan t tasks. E qually, a lack of perform ance indicators in this im portant area of w ork for the police has suggested that a lack of resources m ay be forthcom ing (K nock et al

2002). The clim ate in w hich public protection operates is o n e that is intolerant of error. The pressure generated for agencies is enorm ous and any m istake, or ind eed an unrelated serious event, is likely to lead to dem ands for greater protection, m ore rigorous assessm ent and greater collaboration. T he truth is that protection cannot be guaranteed but politicians are reluctant to acknow ledge this sim ple fact. The result is that procedures will continue to be tightened as the dem ands for evidencebased action con tin ue unabated. T h e m edia focus on the critical few and their very unusual behaviour will undoubtedly ensure a distorted future for the probation service. The parallels w ith the insurance industry are obvious. Insurance prem ium s, based upon levels of risk d eterm ined by hu ge data sets, are easily upset by natural disasters. T hese are by definition unpredictable and largely replicate the situation w ith dangerous behaviour. As w e have indicated, unusual and rare behaviou r is largely d eterm ined by a very specific context. This offend ing is unique to the offend er and it is difficult

25

C om m unity Justice

to read across to other offender groups. It is then sim ilar to a natural disaster. A nother feature of actuarialism is that the careful m ajority pay for the actions of the m inority w ho are less concerned with protecting them selves or their property. A distorted concern w ith potentially dangerous offenders can equally im pact upon the m ajority w ho are, in this instance, so-called 'ordinary offend ers'. The d om inant focus upon risk assessm ent will affect the ways in w hich practitioners w ork w ith all cases - it will set the tone for an agency. O n e result m ight be that all cases becom e inflated in term s of their risk and seriousness with the outcom e bein g a m ore controlling and punitive regim e. A nother could be that certain categories of offender are no longer seen as the core business of an agency; it is clear from recent public m essages con cern in g the probation service that this is becom ing the norm . Low er-risk offenders, those that tend to fill the beds in prison, are increasingly seen as the responsibility of other agencies, in particular perhaps the voluntary sector. Public protection is becom in g som ething of an exclusive club!

Justified loss of rights? It should of course be rem em bered that the w hole edifice of public protection is built upon the possibility that som ething m ight happ en in the future. It m ay be based upon an event, or a pattern of events in the past, but it is by definition about predicting the future. This in itself may not appear to be too problematic, but it is the consequence of being predicted potentially dangerous that is very serious. This takes us into the issue of rights. W hat has becom e know n as the first dangerousness debate (for exam ple Floud 1982, Scott 1977, H awkins 1983) was very concerned with the issue of offender rights. T he concern centred upon the justification for lim iting or rem oving the rights of offenders for w hat they might do in the future, rather than for w hat they to d done in the past. If the basis of the legal process is that offenders are punished for their crimes and once punished cannot be punished again, a restriction of rights for potential behaviour appeared to be an infringem ent of natural law. The conclusions of several of the academ ic studies in the first dangerousness debate were that rights were im portant and that w hat has been term ed the 'p re­ em ptive' strike (Morris 1994: 41) is morally wrong. H ow ever, an influential study by Floud and Young (1981) spoke of the 'ju st distribution of risk', m eaning that it was justifiable to infringe an individual's rights if their previous behaviour effectively m eant that they w ere a significant risk to others. This view would appear to be increasingly echoed in recent legislation both in the UK and North America.

26

T he probation service, public protection and dangerous offenders

If this view is accepted, the accuracy of the predictions upon w hich the assessm ent is based is param ount. W e have, how ever, already seen that for this particular group of offenders such accuracy is unlikely. Society therefore has to decide, if it is interested in the issue of hum an rights, the accuracy levels it will accept before agreeing to remove those rights from offenders. If we really do live in a risk society marked by fear and anxiety, it is likely that we will be less tolerant towards offenders and more willing to see them lose rights. Although w e can in no w ay accurately predict future behaviour, we appear prepared to accept this if previous behaviour causes us anxiety. The greater good of the w ider com m unity wins out over the (offending) individual. For critics such as H udson (2001) this approach is m ore risk control than risk m anagem ent. It echoes Garland's (2001: 181) view that certain offenders, such as sex offenders, are marked for life and as such rem ain beyond redem ption. In the United States, attem pts to challenge the infringem ent of rights caused by dangerousness legislation through the courts have been m arked by failure. Indeed, the response of the state has been to describe dangerous behaviour, especially predatory sexual offending, as resem bling a contagion. In such instances, the public good w ins out and the contagion is isolated. The response of the British governm ent to the foot and m outh outbreak in 2001 suggests how far society will go to rid itself o f its plagues, elim inating even the unaffected in the process. If they sign up to this kind of agenda, probation officers are alm ost reversing a w orking p hilosophy that once centred alm ost exclusively upon rehabilitation. Their focus becom es one of m onitoring and control with the stated intention of m anaging or isolating the risk posed by the offender. As W orrall (1997) and Young (1999) indicate, they becom e an agent of the 'exclusive society'. In essence there is nothing inheren tly w rong about this practice. H ow ever, it m ay be that it is the 'h o w ' rather than the 'w h y' that is im portant. The w ork of probation officers, over decades, has been to build a relationship with offenders and, by various m eans, w ork with them to help change their behaviour. This has com e under serious criticism from all sides. R ight-w ing critics argue that it is too soft and liberal, that it befriends rather than challenges offenders. Such 'friendly' relationships are too cosy and tolerant of failure. This argum ent lay behind at least som e of the rationale to change the nature of probation officers' qualifying training (H om e O ffice 1995b). O ther critics, from the left of the political spectrum , have criticized the intrusiveness of casew ork relationships and their bias and subjectivity. They are said to represent state violation of m any basic hum an rights. H ow ever, evidence continues to support the value of a good professional relationship with offenders (see, for exam ple, Burnett 2002, Rex 1999) w hereas Coker and M artin

27

C om m u n ity Justice

(1985) suggested that a good and trusting relationship was effective in m on itoring th e w arn in g trigg er factors for po ten tially d angerou s behaviour. W e have already seen in the w ork of Prins (1988) that offenders will often quite deliberately give off signals in the hope that they will be prevented from re-offending. These signals have to be recognized; and indeed, the offend er will perhaps show them more willingly if th e relationship is built upon trust. T he probation officer has traditionally been the only operative w ithin the crim inal ju stice system w orking w ith offenders on this basis. It is a w ay of w orking that could becom e lost w ith the grow th in inter-agency w orking and in a results and evidence led clim ate that d em ands tangible proof of w hat is being done. It will be un fortun ate if this skill, or even the acknow ledgem ent of the im portance of these skills, is lost. U ndoubtedly th e enhan ced approach to partnership and m ulti-agency w orking will im prove com m unication and ensure the efficient deploy­ m en t of resources. Process should n o t win out over outcom e, how ever. A recent case highlights the risks of believing that processes and procedures alone are a guarantee of safety. In M arch 2004 a m an was convicted at W olverham pton Crow n Court for abusing boys in a pit dug beneath his floorboards at hom e. H e w as sentenced to life im prisonm ent. T h e significance of th e case for our purposes occurred during the television interview given by a senior police officer follow ing sen tence (BBC Television N ew s, 1 M arch 2004). H e said that the offend er had been 'w ell supervised' under th e MAPPPA arrangem ents. This supervision had not, how ever, discovered the ongoing abuse of children in the pit beneath his lounge floor. H aving the m ost efficient process available is no doubt invaluable, but know ing the offend er as well as possible is priceless! A lthough serious reconviction rates under M APPPA supervised cases rem ains very low , at 1 per cent, there rem ains a case for suggesting that procedure m ust be underp inned by professional skills and expertise. A ssessing and m anaging risk has becom e on e of, if not the, m ost im portant task un dertaken by probation officers. W e have indicated that it is a tim e-consum ing, resource intensive process. It has these features because of th e innate difficulty of th e task itself: attem pting to m ake certainty out of uncertainty is inord inately difficult. Yet politicians and senior m anagers con tin ue to play th e gam e that safety, or greater safety, is achievable if all agencies w ork together, protocols becom e firm er and supervision m ore restrictive. This is a dangerous gam e to play, as any failure will inevitably lead to greater controls, new legislation and probably increased restrictions on professional discretion. Politicians will inevitably chase the unachievable, but perfect safety does not exist, ju st as the perfect assessm ent, prediction, and m anagem ent process does not

28

T he probation service, public protection and dangerous offenders

exist. In Septem ber 2004 the H om e Secretary annou nced that persistent offenders and paedophiles w ould b e tracked b y satellite (piloted in three English counties, Guardian, 2 Septem ber 2004). M aking use of the latest global satellite positioning technology, David Blunkett described this tracking as a prison w ithout bars. Probation officers would have a key role in this new surveillance society - relationships at a distance? The belief in m odern technology, in the pow er of science, has long held sway in crim inal justice. T h e problem rem ains, how ever, that attem pting to regularize hu m an behaviour is difficult, and to regularize very unusual or abnorm al behaviou r next to im possible. M antle and M oore (2004) argue that the best w ay to know about offend ing is to speak with offenders. This was essentially the skill that probation officers used to have. If they are distanced from this by process and technology, a gap m ay arise that will be difficult to fill in the future. D angerousness has becom e a conflated issue. It has assum ed great political im portance and as a result dom inates the practice of crim inal ju stice agencies. N ot only does it hav e a net-w idening effect in term s of the d om inance of the risk agenda, but it also has an excluding effect. By this w e m ean that so-called less serious offenders are no longer seen as the legitim ate territory of the probation service. The need to focus upon the m ost serious and potentially dangerous m eans that m any other offenders are seen as ripe for passing over to other agencies. Thus the m ajority of offend ers, those that spend most tim e in and out of prison, are increasingly seen as insufficiently serious for the probation service, the agency charged with public protection duties. Y et these offenders perhaps contribute m ost to the fear of crim e, as their behaviou r m akes up the everyday crim es that m ake people feel at risk.

C onclusion It is difficult to foresee w hat the future holds for the probation service in its w ork w ith p o ten tial d an gero u sn ess (as d ifficu lt as foreseein g d angerousness itself). In m any w ays the situation is alw ays a calam ity w aiting to happen. An absen ce of disasters can be interpreted as the process w orking well, but this is not possible to prove. N oth in g m ight have hap p en ed anyw ay. O n th e o ther h an d , w hen the calam ity does h app en it will undoubtedly signal a system failure, d em and ing a change in policy and a further tightening of rules and regulations. It could be argued that the agencies have com plied too m uch w ith an unrealistic central plan. H ow ever, it should be noted that organizational survival and financial support was often predicated upon m eeting the challenges

29

C om m u n ity Justice

of the d angerou sn ess agenda. T he risk society is som ething that politicians have used to their advantage and in so doing undoubtedly contributed to its escalation. Yet, in 2004, an unlikely op p onen t to the idea was in evidence. In a twist to the usual run of events, O liver Letw in, the Conservative shadow hom e secretary, argued that concerns with risk had becom e too dom inant and that people w ere living sheltered lives in fear (Guardian, 3 Septem ber 2004). In true political fashion he suggested 'courage' as a m iddle course; perhaps, if w e w ere con sid erin g potential danger, 'reckless' w ould be m ore apt. If w e strip out the politics, how ever, there m ay be a suggestion for the probation service that it should think carefully about pu tting all its eggs in on e basket. It has had a unique position, w orking w ith a diverse range of offenders across the behaviour spectrum . Specialism may en h an ce skills but equally it opens up the prospect of deskilling in other areas. In such a politicized area it is dangerous in itself to lim it on e's position w ithin the sector. D angerous­ ness m ay not be the political hot potato it has been - although w ho can really predict this? W e are not m ean in g to sound unduly pessim istic here. The probation service is rightly one of the key agencies w orking in public protection. It has a history of skilful and effective intervention, although in recent tim es its evidence base has been insufficiently robust. U ndoubtedly the m ore open and regular sharing of inform ation and agency collaboration in risk m anagem ent is a significant step forward. It is also im portant that the probation officer's skill in building relationships and picking up on trigger factors and changes in behaviour rem ains param ount. Inter­ agency w orking will undoubtedly enhan ce the process but this should not b e at the expense of professional skills, w hich for the m om ent are seen as outm oded. In essence the heat need s to be taken out of the dangerousness issue. If this can hap p en staff will be able to spend m ore tim e on the cases w here they m ay be able to m ake a difference. T h e size of the potentially dangerous offend er population need s to b e reduced and should be defined by real behaviour and characteristics rather than politically constructed definitions w hich see the pool grow ing inexorably in size. Effective w ork with this group o f people is painstaking and highly skilled. Staff involved n eed tim e and support from m anagem ent and opportunities to train and reflect upon their work. If the volum e of work continues at its present rate it will m ake this need for professional space m ore difficult to achieve. It has b een argued that d angerousness is a political construction (Pratt 1997) and it now need s to b e politically deconstructed.

30

T h e p ro b a tio n service, public p ro te c tio n and d a n g e ro u s offe n d e rs

R e fe re n c e s ACOP (1988) More Demanding tlmn Prison. Wakefield: Association of Chief Officers of Probation. Burnett, R. (2002) 'The Case for Counselling as a Method for Working with Offenders', Vista, 7: 216-226. Coker, J.B. and Martin, J.P. (1985) Licensed to Live. Oxford: Blackwell. Crawford, A. (1998) 'Com munity Safety and the Quest for Security: Holding Back the Dynamics of Social Exclusion', Policy Studies, 19: 237-253. Dunbar, I. and Langdon, A. (1998) Tough Justice: Sentencing and Penal Policies in the 1990s. London: Blackstone Press Ltd. Feeley, M. and Simon, J. (1992) T h e N ew Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections', Criminology, 30 (4): 449-474. Floud, J. (1982) 'Dangerousness and Criminal Justice', The British Journal o f Criminology, 22 (3): 213-228. Floud, J. and Young, W. (1981) Dangerousness and Criminal Justice. London: Heinemann. Garland, D. (2001) The Culture o f Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences o f Modernity. Oxford: Polity Press. Hawkins, K. (1983) 'Assessing Evil', British Journal o f Criminology, 23: 101-127. Home Office (1995a) National Standards for the Supervision o f Offenders in the Community, London: Home Office. Home Office (1995c) Dealing with Dangerous People: The Probation Service and Public Protection, Report of a Thematic Inspection (HMIP). London: HMSO. Home Office (1995b) Review o f Probation Officers Recruitment and Qualifying Training: Discussion paper by the Home Office. London: Home Office. Home Office (1998) Exercising Constant Vigilance: The Role o f the Probation Service in Protecting tlie Public from Sex Offenders, Report of a Thematic Inspection (HMIP), London: Home Office. Hudson, B. (2001) 'H um an Rights, Public Safety and the Probation Service: Defending Justice in the Risk ¿00161)/, Howard Journal o f Criminal Justice, 40: 103113. Hudson, B. (2003) Justice in the Risk Society. London: Sage. Kemshall, H. (2001) Risk Assessment and M anagement o f Known Sexual and Violent Offenders: A Revieiv o f Current Issues, Police Research Series Paper 140. London: Home Office. Kemshall, H. (2003) Understanding Risk in Criminal Justice. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Kemshall, H. and Maguire, M. (2001) 'Public Protection, Partnership and Risk Penality: The M ulti-agency Risk M anagem ent of Sexual and Violent Offenders', Punishment and Society, April 1 (2): 237-264. Knock, K„ Schlesinger, P., Boyle, R. and Magor, M. (2002) The Police Perspective on Sex Offender Orders: A Preliminary Review o f Policy and Practice, Police Research Series Paper 155, London: Home Office, RDSD. Maguire, M., Kemshall, H., Noaks, L. and Wincup, F„ (2001) Risk Management o f Sexual and Violent Offenders: The Work o f Public Protection Panels, Police Research Series Paper 139. London: Home Office.

31

C o m m u n it y Justice

Mantle, G. and Moore, S. (2004) 'O n Probation: Picked and Nothing to Say', Howard Journal o f Criminal Justice, 43: 299-316. Mawby, R.C. and Worrall, A. (2004) '"P o lib atio n " Revisited: Policing, Probation, and Prolific O ffender Projects', International Journals o f Police Science and Management, 6: 63-73. Morris, N. (1994) 'Dangerousness and Incapacitation', in A. Du ft and D. Harland (eds), A Reader on Punishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nash, M. (1999a) 'Enter the Polibation Officer', International Journal o f Police Science and Management, 1(4): 360-368. Nash, M. (1999b) Police, Probation and Protecting the Public. London: Blackstone Press. Nash, M. (2004) "'Polibation Revisited" - A Reply to M awby and Worrall', International Journals o f Police Science and Management, 6: 74-76. Nash, M. and Ryan, M. (2003) 'M odernizing and Joining-up Government: The Case of the Prison and Probation Services', Contemporary Politics, 9: 157-169. Pearson, G. (1983) Hooligan: A History o f Respectable Fears. London: Macmillan. Pratt, J. (1997) Governing the Dangerous. Sydney: Federation Press. Prins, H. (1988) 'Dangerous Clients: Further Observations on the Limitation of M ayhem ', British Journal of Social Work, 18: 593-609. Rex, S. (1999) 'Desistance from O ffending: Experiences of Probation', Howard Journal o f Criminal Justice, 38, 366-83. Sampson, A. and Smith, D. (1992) 'Probation and Community Crime Prevention', Howard Journal o f Criminal Justice, 3 1 ,1 0 5 -1 9 . Savage, S.P. and Nash, M. (1994) 'Yet Another Agenda for Law and Order: British Criminal Justice Policy and the Conservatives', International Criminal Justice Review, 4: 378-51. Scott, P. (1977) 'Assessing Dangerousness in Criminals', British Journal o f Psychiatry, 131: 127-42. Stevenson, O. (1989) 'Multi-Disciplinary Work in Child Protection' in O. Stevenson (ed.), Child Abuse: Public Policy and Professional Practice. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Worrall, A. (1997) Punishment in the Community: The Future o f Criminal Justice. London: Longman. Young, J. (1999) The Exclusive Society. London: Sage.

32

C h a p te r 3

Dim prospects: humanistic values and the fate of com munity justice Mike Nellis

M o ra l values and co n te m p o ra ry crim inal justice A degree of pragm atism is inevitable in the way we respond to crim e and criminals. H ow ever, it is surely beyond argum ent that the pursuit of crim inal justice should at least try to be a m oral enterprise. The way that w e respond to harm ful individuals need s to be u n d erp in ned by discernible m oral values; otherw ise w e are alm ost certain to treat them harshly, even cruelly, in ways that underm ine our ow n claim to be d ecent and civilized. There is patently room for argum ent about the exact natu re of those values, not least becau se there are various types of crim es and crim inals, and different degrees of danger and harm. N evertheless we m ust find as m uch consensu s as possible as to w hat 'the right thing' to do actually is. These issues have been part of the conversation of the centuries and will not vanish any tim e soon. N ew typ es and perm utations of crim e will em erge, legal, adm inistrative and popular responses to crim e will evolve, and new form s of p u nishm ent will arise as a result of broader cultural and technological changes. But the key idea here, that a society can be ju d g ed b oth by the way it crim inalizes behaviour (the things it deem s harm ful, and the things it seeks to protect) and by the way it responds to those w ho break its laws (the nature of its controls and punishm ent), transcends particular contexts. It is an abiding touchstone of civilization. I w ould like to think that the view s expressed in the above paragraph w ere un con ten tiou s, shared by contem porary policy-m akers, by new s media and the culture industry, and by crim inal justice practitioners

33

C om m u n ity Justice

alike, b u t sadly, it is not so. T he kind o f m oral values I have in m ind, those w hich correspond to a hum anistic vision, are patently in retreat, losing w hatever grip they m ight once have had in the real w orld of crim e control. I take hum anism to be a belief system predicated on the absolute m oral w orth of all hu m an beings, regardless of race, class, creed, colour or culture. It presents hum an beings, collectively and individu­ ally, as capable of great good, w hile acknow ledging that under certain circum stances they are, collectively and individually, easily rendered capable of great evil. H um anism further assum es that hu m an beings are easily m ad e v u ln erab le to p ain , p h y sically an d p sych o log ically , especially but not only w h en you ng, and considers it an ethical im perative to create conditions u n d er w hich the costs and consequences of this vulnerability are kept to a m inim um . W hen hu m an beings do act harm fully tow ards each other, the restraint o f perpetrators is required. As im portantly, if not necessarily as urgently, the causes and sources of harm m ust be ascertained, moral norm s reaffirm ed and every reasonable effort m ad e to provide op p ortu n ities for the red em ption o f the perpetrator(s), regardless o f the difficulty this m ight entail or the opposition it arouses. There are both secular and faith-based versions of hu m anism (M argalit 1996, N orm an 2004, Christie 2004, G orringe 2004) and it m ay be that th e faith-based ones will place greater em phasis on the im portance of redeem ability; rehabilitation (as th e w ord is used in crim inal ju stice debates) is a secular ideal distilled from an essentially religious idea of a person's intrinsic moral w orth and laten t moral capacity, and w ithout a religious inflection it m ay seem an im plausible and ind eed unim portant ideal. Politicians now adays rarely appeal to hum anistic values w hen they explain and justify new crim inal ju stice legislation to the public, and in all honesty, such values m ay not resonate all that d eeply w ith the public them selves. C ertainly such values are regularly disparaged by the m ore populist new s and current affairs m edia, treated as if they w ere nothing m ore than an apologia for leniency, a sure sign of pusillanim ity in the face of d anger and a lack of moral and political realism in anyone w ho expresses them . These m edia create a clim ate in w hich fear of crim e is easily exploited by political parties w ho com pete with each other to offer tough m eans of assuaging it. Politicians som etim es them selves create and am plify fears about crim e in w ays w hich outstrip even w hat som e m edia have attem pted. N ew Labour's four-year Strategic Plan for crim inal ju stice (H om e O ffice 2004), for exam ple, explicitly conflates crim e and terrorism and som e of its proposals for 'ord inary crim e' trade quite disreputably on anxieties about global security in a post-9/11 world. 34

D im prospects: humanistic values and the fate of com m unity justice

C ontem porary H om e O ffice strategy is predom inantly focused on the p rotection of the public, the reduction of crim e and the en h an cem en t of com m unity safety, or at least the feeling of safety. These goals/ideas are largely presented in m anagerial term s, as pragm atic and self-evident social necessities. Entw ined w ith them is a frequent reference to 'th e proper pu nishm ent of offenders', and a som ew hat less frequent reference to 'rehabilitation' w hich, at first sight, does add a hum anistic dim ension to the strategy. Public protection, proper pu nishm ent and rehabilitation, for all the tensions that exist betw een them can never be factored out in m oral argum ents about how best to respond to crim e and crim inals; all are relevant considerations, although there are also others, equally im portant, to w hich governm ent attend s m uch less. Difficulty arises w hen one starts to question who gets punished and w hy, the means by w hich public protection and com m unity safety are to be created, and the ways in w hich offenders are to be punished and, indeed, rehabilitated (w hich can be done coercively, as in A Clockwork O range (Burgess 1962)), in ways that vitiate the moral principles that notionally un derp in the concept. N ew Labour, determ ined to be tough on crim e, has show n a m arked reliance on increased crim inalization, the creation of an array of new crim inal penalties and an approach to pu nishm ent w hich pays scant attention to proportionality in individual cases, or to social ju stice in general. It deploys an anti-crim inal discourse w hich so dem onizes offenders as a 'class' that hardly any of them could be taken seriously as candidates for rehabilitation and resettlem ent. W here rehabilitation is prom oted it is often in form ulaic, target-driven and m icro-m anagerial w ays that preclude expression of hum anistic sentim ents - genuineness, w arm th and em pathy - in face-to-face encounters with offenders. These are left out of the calculus o f w hat m atters. All these developm ents are packaged as the consequ ences of gen uine moral deliberation, but the param eters of debate are often set too narrow ly and too m any hum anistic values are excluded from consideration. This chapter will affirm the im portance of hum anistic values, and the actions derived from them , in crim inal justice and will suggest that the em erging ideas about com m unity justice are, intellectually at least, the best vehicle for realizing them . It will not dwell at length on w hat com m unity justice is or w hat it could becom e. That is the task of other chapters in the book, and there is clearly cogency in the idea. N onetheless, whilst endorsing 'com m unity justice' as an ideal I will em phasize ju st as strongly how m uch it goes against the grain of contem porary developm ents in crim inal justice policy, and express doubts about realizing it in a sustained and system atic way. I would like to be m ore optimistic, but the times, I fear, are deeply uncongenial for hum anistic com m unity justice. I first drew this conclusion several years ago. 35

C om m u n ity Justice

The (initial) com m unity justice debate I initially becam e interested in the idea o f 'com m unity ju stice' as a solution to the problem of 'social w ork values' in probation (Nellis 1995). In the afterm ath o f the 'p u n ish m en t in the com m unity' strategy, lau n ch ed in the late 1980s by the C onservative gov ernm ent, the probation service in England and W ales em barked on a d efiant affirm ation of its traditional social w ork identity and its belief that rehabilitation of offenders w as a principle to be upheld above all others. This seem ed to m e to be both an inappropriate response to 'p u n ish m en t in the com m unity' as it was (a strategy for reducing the use of custody via tougher com m unity penalties) and an inadequate response to the very understandable fears of w hat 'p u n ish m en t in the com m unity' m ight becom e in the longer term (a w holly repressive crim e control strategy in w hich rehabilitative considerations had n o place). A rticulating its identity and its m ission in term s of 'social w ork values' would, I believed, result in the m arginalization of the probation service. Such values, or at least the language in w hich they w ere expressed, had little cachet with either politicians or the public; they m ade the probation service sound as though it was not fully cognizant o f the harm crim e did to com m unities. Ironically, in its actual practice, the probation service was becom ing increasingly aw are of this, becom ing m ore d em and ing in its approach to offenders, and (largely as a result o f fem inist perspectives on dom estic violence) becom ing m ore cognizant of the need s and rights of crim e victim s. B u t the language in w hich it was expressing itself was lagging behind practice, and not doing justice to it. I thou ght at th e tim e that a cluster of ideas built around the core concept of com m unity ju stice w ould be a solution to this, insofar as it would give the service a clearer public identity and a language credible enough to cou nter the w orst excesses of w hat the H om e O ffice w as seeking to im pose on it, in a w ay that social w ork language was not. The cluster of ideas included restorative ju stice, com m unity safety and anti-custodialism (w hich I later renam ed 'hostility to custody'). The em erging discourse on restorative ju stice enabled a reasonably evenhanded approach to th e needs, rights and interests of both offenders and victim s. It m ade concern for victim s central to the probation enterprise, but not at the expense o f rehabilitating offenders. By co-opting the em erging discourse on com m unity safety into 'probation values' I conceded that the overriding aim of crim inal justice was th e protection of the public and the prevention of victim ization, not the rehabilitation of individual offenders, im portant as that rem ained. Anti-custodialism was intend ed to capture the idea that im prisonm ent should always be used as a penalty of last resort, but w as perhaps a little too close to abolitionism , 36

D im prospects: humanistic values and the fate of com m unity justice

h ence m y softening of the phrase. These ideas aroused both positive and negative com m ents at the tim e. Em boldened, I w ent on to suggest that 'com m unity ju stice service' w as a gen uinely apt new nam e for the probation service, fearing that the H om e O ffice (w ho w ere then insisting on a nam e change) would choose som ething far less palatable (Nellis 1998, 1999). Som e of those w ho opposed this idea w ere probation traditionalists w ho felt that probation was such a tim e-honoured and still internationally respected term that it should never be jettisoned . I eventually cam e to understand 'com m unity ju stice' both norm atively, as an ethos rather than a particular set of practices, and descriptively, as a strategy w hich blended the hitherto separate spheres of 'alternatives to prison' and 'crim e prevention' into a single, operational e n tity (N ellis 2000). I v alu ed th e term 'c o m m u n ity ' b e ca u se it sim ultaneously denoted a sense o f place, th e idea of local, devolved responsibility and the inheren t intercon nected ness of people. Effective crim e red uction and effective resettlem en t of reform in g offend ers seem ed to d ep en d on local agencies and officials having sufficient autonom y and discretion to m obilize resources and create system s and cultures that suited their particular circum stances. 'Ju stice', I believed, w as the moral heart of all debate about how we respond to crim e, an ind ispensable ideal how ever m u ch w e m ight argue about its substance, w hich was already being used to designate w orkers in this field, as in 'y o u th ju stice'. As a concept, settling on w hat 'ju stice' m ean t was logically prior to settling questions about punishm ent. It also forced account to be taken of victims as well as offenders, and in terms of sem antics alone it m ade it difficult to avoid the perennially hard questions about the relationship of crim inal justice to social justice. T h e juxtaposition of these tw o term s, 'com m unity' and 'ju stice', and the connotations of each, thus seem ed to be a significant im provem ent on 'social w ork' as a w ay of articulating probation's evolving m ission, and one that the H om e O ffice m ight plausibly be persuaded of. It was not to be. At the tim e of m y initial thinkin g about com m unity ju stice I was not aw are of the pow erful contribution m ade in this field by Todd Clear and his associates in A m erica (Karp 1998, Clear and Karp 1999, Karp and Clear 2002). A subsequent reading o f it am ply confirm ed m y sense that com m unity ju stice could indeed be a p otent idea to organize around, and m ade red und ant such plans as I had had to elaborate the concept m ore fully. I had, how ever, been influenced by the com m unitarian ideas of A m erican w riter Amitai Etzioni (1993), w hich w ere briefly influential w ithin N ew Labour. Etzioni, draw ing on traditions of civic republican w riting in Am erica, and on Jew ish social philosophy, m ounted a pow erful critique of the atom ization of A m erican society and the social problem s attend ant upon loss of integrated, norm ative com m unities. H e 37

C om m u n ity Justice

was as equally and deeply critical o f the w ay in w hich untram m elled m arket forces created atom ization and the egotism that lay behind so m u ch crim e, as he w as of the way A m erica had allow ed its prison population to rise to such alarm ingly high levels. O nly a restoration of inform al social controls at com m unity level could both inhibit crim e and m ak e the u se o f im p riso n m e n t less n ecessary. To this en d he recom m ended policies that em phasized both rights and responsibilities, distancing him self from the traditionally rights-oriented liberalism . This w as the aspect of com m unitarianism that N ew Labour latched onto, but their attraction to Etzioni collapsed w hen they realized that he placed far m ore em phasis on the developm ent of character and personal virtue; a long-term solution via socialization w as at odds w ith the governm ent dem ands for quick results and the m anagerial approach that they felt w ould brin g them about. O ntologically, the gen u in ely hu m anistic em phasis in Etzioni's com m unitarianism was deeply at odds w ith com m ercially derived m anagerialist ideology, w hich had a far stronger hold over N ew Labour (M cLaughlin, M u n cie and H ughes 2001, N ash and Ryan 2003).

C o m m u n ity justice in (official) practice Given the dropping of Etzioni, there is faint irony in the fact that N ew Labour's single experim ent (to date) w ith com m unity justice does ow e som ething to the influence of his com m unitarianism in A m erica itself. T he N orth Liverpool C om m unity Justice C entre began operation in D ecem ber 2004, jointly run by the H om e O ffice, the Lord C hancellor's D epartm ent and the A ttorney G eneral's O ffice. It has been inspired by th e Red H ook court, established to deal w ith drug-related and violent crim e in Brooklyn, N ew York (see also Pakes and W instone, this volum e). This has been deem ed successful at increasing public support for, and interest in, local com m unity ju stice processes, for constructive use of com m unity sen tences and for reducing the local m urder rate. It has expanded from its original brief to deal w ith drug-using thieves and burglars and to h ear property and dom estic violence cases, and now includes a youth court in w hich 10-16-year-old s serve as ju rors in peer trials - the latter being som ething that has surfaced elsew here in the USA (and not em ulated here in Britain). The N orth Liverpool schem e consists o f a court backed up by an array of support w orkers w ho will address the types of crim es that m ost concern local residents, for exam ple vandalism , petty theft, drunk and disorderly behaviou r and prostitution, and the drug and alcohol use that often underpins them . The support w orkers will consist of police, crow n 38

D im prospects: humanistic values and the fate of com m unity justice

prosecutors, probation and you th offend in g teams. T h e court itself will be run by a ju d g e rather than, as w ould have been m ore likely in the past, a m agistrate or team of magistrates. Crucially, and distinctively, the court will take accoun t of the view s of local people, acquired through public 'm eet the ju d g e' evenings, as to how locally appreh end ed offenders should be dealt w ith; victim s in particular will be enabled to m eet the o ffend er and express their views. T h e aim is to give som e sem blance of ow nership to a local com m unity as to how crim inal ju stice is d one in its area, but it rem ains to be seen how autonom ous and responsive it can actually be w ithin existing and anticipated sen tencing fram ew orks. The ju d g e appointed to pioneer this w ork has expressed hopes that his court will be less form al than other courts, but has nonetheless used the same zero-tolerance language regarding enforcem ent that pervades the rest of the com m unity supervision world. There is an obvious paradox about this initiative. T he N orth Liverpool Com m unity Justice C entre could ju st as easily be understood, not as a policy transfer from the U nited States, but as a reinvention of the locally based ju stice once ad m inistered by m agistrates' cou rts and th eir probation officers. For the governm ent to hav e described it thus w ould, how ever, have been at odds w ith its hostile attitude tow ards probation, w hich it seem ingly regards as anachronistic and w ithout credibility in crim inal ju stice debate. Linking the N orth Liverpool schem e to an evolving probation tradition would have entailed public acknow ledge­ m en t that there was som ething w orth d efen ding about probation, som ething w orth carrying forward. N ew Labour eschew s this, preferring in stead to d etrad ition alize co m m u n ity su p erv ision, of w h ich the apotheosis has been the creation of the N ational O ffend er M anagem ent Service (N O M S), w hich, by m erging prisons and probation into a single 'correctional service', in effect abolishes probation. D espite its provenance, how ever, th e N orth Liverpool C om m unity Justice C entre w arrants support. Its standing w ithin N ew Labour's crim inal ju stice policy as a w hole is am biguous, and there is no indication that it is the harbinger of any m ore such projects. In itself, it seem s at odds w ith the m arked neglect o f localism w ithin N O M S (w hich will be regionally organized), but it does represent a w orthw hile attem pt to realize a credible version of com m unity ju stice, and should be w atched w ith interest. It m ay w ork in that particular area, but if com m unity justice is to m ean anything substantial and becom e the basis of a hum anistic reform m ovem ent, and a credible challenge to prevailing trends in crim inal ju stice, it m ust be m odulated to suit all the settings w here crim e occurs - racially tense provincial tow ns and inner cities, workless peripheral estates and alcohol-saturated tow n centres. It m ust offer viable

39

C om m u n ity Justice

local solutions to everything from hate crim e to binge-d rinking and its associated v iolence. It m u st avoid th e sen tim entality w ith w hich hum anism can som etim es be tainted by its friends and enem ies alike, and m ust understand both the nature of m u ch contem porary crim e and th e appeal of the vindictive pu nishm ents that are b ein g called forth to deal with it.

T h e problem of transgressive crim inality C ontrary to the rational choice theorists o f crim inality for w hom there is no such thing as society (or 'com m unity'), globalized m arket forces and th e egotistic, hedonistic cultural ideals that are related to them underpin and shape a great m any crim inal careers, at local level, even if som e of the players them selves are unaw are o f it. Crim e is a quintessentially capitalist enterprise, a business, a way o f m aking a living, a form of w ork, a m eans to achieve a certain sort of lifestyle and status and - not by any m eans at odds with this - an opportunity to indulge a certain tem peram ent, to b e a con su m er of illicit goods and pleasures. T here are hierarchies of status, com p eten ce and capacity, and ten sio n s associated w ith class and ethnicity, w ithin and across crim inal organizations and netw orks, ju st as there are in the 'legitim ate' business w orld, w hich segues im p ercept­ ibly into the illegitim ate one. If it m akes com m ercial sense to do so, som e people w ork in both sim ultaneously: 'th e duality of the crim inalbusiness-m an identity . .. is a crucial device in structuring th e identities of those practitioners engaging in local leisure m arkets' (H obbs 1995:117). Crim inal netw orks are am orphous, w ith solid end uring cores and m ore transient peripheries, w here personnel m ay regularly change. Som e people are involved in crim inal activity full tim e and long term , others are involved only sporadically and tem porarily, d epending on patronage, talent, tem peram ent, interests, opportunities and luck. W hat the m ore end uring participants have in com m on, as H obbs describes them , is a certain set of values, a certain m entality - w hich those on th e periphery, if they wish to get on, m ay seek to ad opt and reproduce: N ot only does the straight world not offer them the sam e financial rew ards as the crim inal life, it also does not offer the sam e frisson of excitem ent and exclusivity, as they share w ith their peers the am bience of spontaneity, autonom y, ind ep en d en ce and resource­ fulness that constitutes their outlaw status. They have no preten ­ sions to legitim acy, and there is little am biguity con cern in g their lifestyle. W hen all is right in their world they stand out from the

40

D im prospects: humanistic values and the fate of com m unity justice

m ajority of citizens w ho are [seen as] 'a greed y m ob of m ug punters sim ply asking to be taken'. T hey consid er that they have seen through the system - they are above the piffling m undanities of everyday life and stand apart from its petty aspirations. (Hobbs 1995: 116) T he precise pattern and organization of crim inality in a given locality m ay vary according to specific historical and geographical circum stances, but no contem porary com m unity in Britain is w ithout the influence, if not always the im m ediate physical presence, of businessm en-crim inals. T he root of their activity m ay lie well outside the particular locality in w hich their crim es first becom e visible; they are nodes in a chain of supply and d em and . D em an d , for exam ple, for ch eap labour in agribusiness and for sex w orkers in the leisure industry can both be satisfied by internationally con nected people-traffickers, and their local agents, preying on people in failed states and collapsed econom ies m any thousands of m iles from the places in w hich they end up working. C onversely, top-of-the-range cars can be stolen to order from com m u­ nities in Britain to supply custom ers elsew here in Europe or in Asia. The in te n sity an d scale of d em an d for illegal su b stan ces can create com petition for profits and status am ong the suppliers, w hich in turn generates violence and taps into m arkets for illegal w eapons. The dem and for illegal substances (and alcohol) m ay be indirectly related to the banality and existential em ptiness of the w orkaday world and in the absence of a culture of constraint - w hich consum erism corrodes - both, but especially alcohol, can fuel routine patterns of violence. Such are the econom ics of contem porary crim inality, w ith w hich com m unity ju stice m ust reckon, if it can, if it is n o t to replicate the naivety and sentim entality of earlier hum anistic interventions. It m ay w ell be that som e you ng and you ng adults on th e fringes of serious crim e netw orks - low -level drug-dealers, proto-gangsters in particular neigh­ bourhoods and drug-using burglars on particular estates - are am enable to com m unity-oriented interventions specific to a given locality, but agencies involved in this should b e u n d er no illusions about the extracom m u nal forces that stim ulate this activity. O v er tim e they can regenerate new crim inal netw orks to replace those that are broken up (not least because a new generation of kids m ay grow up w ith the sam e am bitions) and they persistently hold out an alternative value system , o n e that m akes far m ore sense to excluded, lower-class youngsters than th e nostrum s of teachers, social w orkers and o ther crim e control professionals. Local com m unities cannot be herm etically sealed; ind i­ gen ou s forces alone, w hilst still im portant, never properly explain the

41

C om m u n ity Justice

styles and patterns of contem porary crim inality. As H obbs (1995: 106) puts it: 'th e em ergence of th e m arket-place as the crucial dynam ic w ithin contem porary society stresses the red und ancy of any analysis of serious crim e that is restricted to the param eters of traditional neighbourhoods'. Jo ck Y oung has developed a larger scale version of the m arket-createscrim inals argum ent, in an attem pt to explain the visceral energy of underclass crim e, th e intensifying public concern about crim e and anti­ social behaviou r and the m anifestly vindictive, punitive 'tu rn ' in criminal ju stice policy. H e suggests that w idening incom e differentials, increasing relative deprivation (a d eepen in g sense of exclusion and hum iliation am ong those w ith least options), the destabilizing im pact of globalization on m iddle-class careers and traditions, leading to ontological insecurity and resentm ent tow ards perceived social inferiors w ho appear to abjure the self-discipline required to legitim ate m aterial success, lie at the root of these developm ents. The crim inality of the underclass is not sim ply a utilitarian affair involving the stealing of m on ey or property or food or drink or drugs although all of these elem ents are indeed part of the m otivation. V iolence is n o t ju st a sim ple instrum ent for persuading people to part w ith their cash, nor a m anagem ent technique in th e world of organized crim e. Drug use is not a prosaic m atter of being a pleasure of the poor - an alternative psychoactive experience to a gin and tonic or a light and bitter after a hard day at the office. Rather it involves all of these things, but above all it has a transgressive edge. For the transgressors are driven by the energies o f hum iliation - the utilitarian core is often there but around it is constructed a frequ en t delight in excess, a glee in breaking the rules, a reassertion of dignity and identity (Young 2003: 408). Arguably this underplays the nihilistic, as opposed to the (rationally) hedonistic, elem ents in contem porary underclass crim e, but Young is surely right to stress the em otionally driven character of m uch alcoholfuelled fighting, gangland turf wars, dom estic and sexual violence and seem in gly 'sen seless' p rop erty d estru ction. T h o se con cern ed w ith prom oting com m unity justice m ust surely take account of th e kind of transgressive crim inality that is b ein g gen erated by con tem porary econom ic and cultural arrangem ents, but w hether a viable, local practical response to such crim e is possible is a difficult question. W ithout a sim ultaneous strategy for increasing social justice and am eliorating inequality, the answ er is probably 'no'. The sym m etry of Young's argum ent is perhaps its m ost intriguing aspect. Just as m uch low er-class crim inal activity is driven by resentm ent at exclusion and hum iliation, so state p u nishm ent is (at least in part) driven by th e resentm ent and insecurities of the m iddle classes and the

42

D im prospects: humanistic values and the fate of com m unity justice

political elites w ho represent them . 'T h e punitive turn' of recent years Y oun g w rites (2003: 408), 'h as a vindictiveness that goes beyond the principles of neo-classicism and deserved p u nishm ent'. There m ay well be a rational elem ent (evidenced by m anagerialism ) in contem porary crim e control strategies, but 'there is [also] a vituperative quality pasted on the back of the rationale o f control' (Young 2003: 408) w hich is m ore than m ere rhetoric; it expresses the anger, fear and desperation of the once contented and stable. So ju st as m arket forces produce a type of offender and a crim inal way of life upon w hich hum anistic form s of com m unity ju stice m ay not easily get a grip, so too do m arket forces shape the culture that responds to them .

U nd erstanding the new punitiveness Talk of a 'n ew punitiveness' in England and W ales (Pratt 2002) is understandable, but the idea needs u n packing nonetheless. It is not difficult to infer from the rising use o f im prisonm ent (both increased adm issions and longer sentences), and ind eed of com m unity penalties since the m id-1990s, that there has been a 'punitive turn' in A nglo-W elsh crim inal justice. The initial em phasis under the early 1990s Conservative gov ern m en t on 'ju st deserts' was su p p lem ented by a subsequ ent C onservative em phasis on incapacitation ('prison w orks'). U nder New Labour the em phasis shifted decisively tow ards public protection, coupled with both the creation o f m any new crim inal and im prisonable offences and a notional com m itm ent to 'evid ence-led ' rehabilitative practices, based on the supposed efficacy o f intervention program m es draw n from cognitive behavioural psychology. The introduction of AntiSocial Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) (w hich blurred traditional distinctions betw een civil and crim inal penalties) and the national roll-out of innovative new penalties like electronic m onitoring signalled significant transform ations in the supervision of offenders in the com m unity. The em ergence of 'seam less sen tences' in the Crim inal Justice Act 2003, derived from a sen tencing review and W hite Paper that had preceded it, betokened a w eaken ing of a tim e-honou red polarity betw een custodial an d com m u n ity pen alties. T h e ad v en t of th e N ational O ffe n d er M an ag em en t Service (N O M S), w hich op ens up the possibility of increased privatization of 'corrections', has taken place with astonish­ ingly little public deliberation. All of these developm ents have, u n d er­ standably, given rise to concern am ong individuals, organizations and interest groups w ho have traditionally subscribed to more hum anistic (liberal) narratives of crim e control. In a very real sense the shift has

43

C om m u n ity Justice

precipitated a crisis of values in crim inal ju stice, w hich grow s ever deeper. To m ake sense o f these various developm ents, and of the likely fortunes of com m unity justice, requires a grasp of the three distinct and com petin g discourses that continue to pervade 'w estern European' penality (Peters 1988, Rutherford 1993, Feeley and Sim on 1994, Cavadino, Crow and D ignan 2000, Scheerer 2000). There is no com plete consensus on the characteristics and boundaries of the three discourses, but there is sufficient com m on ground am ong the various w riters to suggest that they have discerned 'real' distinctions. For the purpose of this chapter I will use the term s 'pu nitive-repressive', 'surveillant-m anagerial' and 'hum anistic-rehabilitative' to signify the ethos o f each discourse. There are national variations am ong them , points o f overlap betw een them , and tensions, inconsistencies and gradations of opinion w ithin them , som e com m entators subscribing (quite reasonably) to parts of them but not all of them . T hese inflections and nu ances do affect the precise way in w hich penal politics play out, but I am con cern ed h ere first with m apping the general contours of all three discourses, second w ith th e probable and possible developm ental trajectories o f each one, and third w ith the m ore general im pact that each has on the others. Punitive-repressive discourse aim s to m axim ize the delivery of pain to offenders. It tends to privilege the use of im prisonm ent, either for short periods to teach errant young people a lesson, or for natural life in the case of som e m urderers. Som e w ithin it subscribe to capital punishm ent, and som etim es corporal punishm ent. It can be both elitist or populist, although punitive elites in dem ocracies often justify th eir sentim ents by appealing to the allegedly visceral instincts of ordinary, d ecent citizens. T he suffering of crim e victim s is invariably cited as a m oral basis for inflicting equivalent or greater suffering on th e offender. There tends to be no belief that offenders are reform able or redeem able, m erely that they can be frightened (deterred) into law -abidingness or have their spirits broken, in or out o f prison. T h e fiscal costs of pu nishm ent are largely dism issed as irrelevant, although it is im agined that costs would be reduced if prisons had 'n o frills', that is, w ere m ade m ore austere. In the m ore recent past, com m unity penalties have m ostly figured in the punitive-repressive discourse as objects of derision. W ith the exception of corporal punishm ent, they have m ostly been regarded as anodyne and inadequate m easures, and if new form s o f com m unity pu nishm ent are to be introduced now they should be highly controlling, visibly hum iliating, enforced on a zero-tolerance basis and alw ays backed by im prisonm ent. A lthough a fair degree of this discourse is based on sound philosophical analysis and legal practice it is also from it that the baneful sen tim ent of

44

D im prospects: humanistic values and the fate of com m unity justice

'p opu list punitiveness' (Bottom s 1995) is derived. This sentim ent ow es a great deal to m ed ia h y p e an d to th e vicissitudes of adversarial, opportunistic debate am ong political parties, but to d eny that it has any roots in public opinion, and that it does not reflect gen u ine anger about certain types of crim e, would be wishful thinking. M anagerial-surveillant d iscourse insists up on the application of technocratic rationality - the defining ethos of w estern m odernity - to the grow ing (and otherw ise unm anageable) problem posed by crim e and crim inals. Since the late tw entieth cen tury the body of know ledge called 'n ew public m anagem ent' (N PM ), glossed sim ply as 'm anagerialism ' by a nu m ber of com m entators, has given refined and sophisticated expression to it, at the m acro, m ezzo and m icro levels of intervention. N PM im ports concepts, practices and standards from the com m ercial world as part of a strategy for im proving the efficiency and effectiveness of putatively ailing public services. It focuses prim arily on th e assessm ent and am elioration of certain pre-specified risks, m irroring the 'actuarialism ' of the insurance industry. It em bodies neoliberal values, favouring com m and and control structures, com petition, com m odification, and m arketization. By setting tight targets and deadlines, specifying outcom es, constantly m onitoring their attainm ent, perhaps penalizing their non-attainm ent, traditional organizational cultures can be 're-eng in eered '. C ost-efficiency becom es an end in itself, superseding values that m ay hitherto have given a transcen den t purpose to an organization and m otivated its professional staff. Surveillance (in the broad sense of inform ation gathering and data processing) is integral to the operation of m anagerialism (D andeker 1990, Jones 2000) and w ithin such discourse new interventions like the electronic m onitoring of offend ers can gain particular credence. W ithin m anagerial discourse conventional understandings of m oral ju d g em ent m atter little; an attem pt can be m ade to graft ethics on, but they are never central or intrinsic to it. All that m atters is th e m anipulability, m alleability and com pliance of the objects of m anagerial intervention. If 'm orality' m eans anything here it is n othing m ore than fidelity to the rules and procedures one is b ein g required to com ply with, w hether one is a crim inal ju stice em ployee or an offender. A good person is thus one w ho follow s orders and achieves targets, nothing m ore, n othing less. A w hole tranche of hum an values - authenticity, em pathy, kindness, com passion, the deeper sorts of respect, love, in short, the stuff that ethics is usually understood to consist of - are derogated by m anagerialism . This process is insufficiently acknow ledged in public debate on the m anagerialization of public services generally, not ju st crim inal justice. It is usually m isrepresented by its ow n supporters as a positive good and often m isrepresen ted by technocratically-inclined academ ics as less

45

C om m u n ity Justice

pernicious than it is. Even Feeley and Sim on's (1994) term , 'actuarial ju stice', actually m isrepresents processes that it otherw ise depicts and analyses accurately, for 'ju stice' in the traditional norm ative sense (procedural fairness, ethically defensible, desert-based ju dgem ents) is precisely w hat atrophies w hen actuarial/m anagerial im peratives pre­ dom inate. T hey inadvertently reduce 'ju stice' to little m ore than a synonym for processing offenders (or 'o ffen d er m anagem ent'), m aking it harder to use the term to d enote a vital moral ideal. Zygm unt Baum an (1989) has coined the word 'ad iaphorization' to capture the socio-political process of expu ngin g ethical considerations from m anagerial regim es. It is a rather ungainly term, but at present it is all w e have to identify the process, and w e should learn to use it. H um anist-rehabilitative discourse has traditionally articulated a belief th at crim inality can be ed u cated or cou nselled o ut of ind ividual offenders, especially if certain kinds of practical help with em ploym ent, accom m odation, addiction and family relationships are also offered, and if equality of opportunity prevails. At its m ost expansive, w ith reference to you ng people in particular, it encom passes the view that with appropriate support in families, schools and neighbourhoods, crim e can actually be prevented from occurring. In its narrow er, m ore reactive form s it con ced es that offen d ers m ay have to b e coerced , even im prisoned, b u t such constraints are only considered defensible in the service of high er moral ends, and their w orst 'sid e-effects' are deliberately am eliorated to ensure attainm ent of those ends. T he probation service built its mid to late tw entieth-centu ry identity around these beliefs, its in terv en tio n s ran ging from 'to u g h love' to psycholog ically based behavioural interventions. Latterly, restorative ju stice, citizenship and a com m itm ent to hu m an rights have been encom passed by this discourse, the latter reflecting the insight that hum anistic values are largely unsustainable in the specific sphere of crim inal ju stice if they are not also w idespread, and firmly anchored , in civil society m ore generally. Such values can - and for popular consum ption must - be expressed in secular language, b u t defences o f restorative justice, for exam ple, and the m ore general idea of an offend er's in h eren t m oral w orth, are increasingly underp inned by theological argum ents (G orringe 2004). It is largely from resources in this discursive fram ew ork that a m eaningful and morally w orthw hile idea of com m unity ju stice, even those versions that draw directly on com m unitarianism , m ust be draw n. Rehabilitation need not be aband oned , but it should be dow ngraded from being a principle above all others to being one im portant principle am ong several. N ew Labour's substantive crim inal ju stice policy is predom inantly 'm anagerial-surveillant' (Fionda 2000, Carter 2003, H om e O ffice 2004,

46

D im prospects: humanistic values and the fate of com m unity justice

Tonry 2004). It is driven by a desire to reduce crim e by a set am ount and to avoid the unnecessary use o f im prisonm ent and the high costs that this entails. N onetheless, N ew Labour politicians still m ake very ready use of punitive rhetoric in their public pron ou ncem ents, partly in order to out-m anoeuvre the Conservative Party, w hose orientation (at least w hile in opposition) tilts m ore tow ards the 'punitive-repressive', and partly to appease its ow n punitive constituencies. W hilst nom inally rational and quite possibly effective in their ow n term s, m anageriallysurveillant practices cannot alw ays be m ade intelligible or palatable to an electorate schooled in, and perhaps m ore em otionally attuned to, the idea that real pu nishm ent m ust necessarily be retributive or vengeful in intent and painful in consequ ence, rather than effective. It is for this reason, for exam ple, that electronically m onitored curfew s, w hilst initially billed by governm ent as a very tough com m unity penalty, have not particularly been accepted as such in th e m edia; being sen tenced to stay at hom e for part of the day does not seem unduly onerous - onerous enough to be truly punitive - b y everyone (Nellis 2004a, 2004b). Thus, w hilst m anagerial-surveillant practices can and are pursued by stealth (at least as far as som e aud iences are con cern ed) pu nitive-repressive discourses are a gen uine constraint on their developm ent, som etim es frustratingly so to governm ent, although they cannot say so publicly w ithout alienating voters they need. It is becau se there are real and obvious tensions betw een punitiverepressive and m anagerial-surveillant discourses (and often practices) that subscribers to the latter can som etim es pose as liberals, d oing w hat they can to resist the excesses o f populist punitivism , offering the only possible alternative to it. It is on this basis that m any form er supporters of hum anistic-rehabilitative discourse have sw itched, with varying degrees of reluctance and enthusiasm , to a m anagerial-surveillant discourse, as the next best thing to their original ideal. This seem s to have happ en ed on a large scale in th e probation service over the last ten years. But this sw itch is m isleading, and dangerous, even if those w ho have m ade it do not realize it. Just because it is not as viscerally, aggressively punitive as populist punitiveness, that does not m ean that there is n othing to fear from m anagerialism . Its regulatory potential is greater, its inhu m anity m ore insidious. The logic o f scorched earth m anagerialism , of the kind w e have now , epitom ized at th e strategic level by N O M S, interm inably restructuring organizations in a quest for an ever m ore chim erical vision of efficiency, is totalitarian; the m eticulous, if disorienting, regulation of everything. It is here that B aum an's (1989) insight into adiaphorization is so im portant. M anagerially driven interventions first of all suppress internal ethical considerations of the kind that are alm ost unavoidable in

47

C om m u n ity Justice

face-to-face encounters, bu t w hich are denied by m anagerialism . In addition they disregard external ethical standards that m ight place constraints on them , on the grounds that their m ission is dem onstrably superior, and not bound by those standards.

Conclusion: d im m e d prospects for co m m u n ity justice W here do these developm ents, trends and tendencies leave hum anisticrehabilitative discourse? Its institutional agents - professionals in the probation and youth justice services, various voluntary sector staff, the netw ork of penal reform groups and several faith-based organizations are undou bted ly threatened by both punitive-repressive and m anagerialsurveillant discourses, as articulated by various m edia and political cham pions. B oth can - and do - claim that hum anism is an anachronism in an era of volum e crim e, a m oral luxury from a bygone age that is no longer adequate as a m eans o f generating security and public confidence in a post-9/11 w orld: in essence that hum anism is 'soft on crim e'. Populist punitivists som etim es go further, and blam e hum anistic-rehabilitative discourse for causing (or at least aggravating) the ravages of crim e in the first place, claim ing, for exam ple, that allow ing offenders the alibi of poverty and dysfunctional fam ilies and perm itting too m any 'second chances' in court m akes them worse. This strand of punitive-repressive discourse tends to portray hum anistic-rehabilitative discourse as a kind of sentim ental liberalism in w hich offenders are considered to be essentially benign, easily rehabilitated if only 'th e system ' gives them adequate support and ceases to oppress them . To the extent that there have been occasions in the past 20 years w hen probation officers have indeed given th e im pression that they subscribed to sentim ental liberalism - d efending a naive version of social w ork values, insisting on the prim acy of rehabilitation as a crim inal ju stice ideal - it m ight be said that they b ro u ght this criticism on them selves, and m ade it easy for their o pponents. Perhaps, but it need s to be rem em bered that criticisms of hum anitarian concern for offenders, even o f the hard-headed variety, has a long history; populist punitivists in the 1990s w ould have sought to sm ear hu m anistic-rehabilitative discou rse as sen tim ental liberalism regardless of w h eth er probation had played into the stereotype. T he taint of sentim ental liberalism , how ever, has undoubtedly stuck, and th reaten s to d iscred it and m arginalize th e en tire ed ifice of h u m an istic-reh abilitative d iscou rse. T h e problem w ith sen tim ental liberalism is the anod yne nature o f its im age of offenders. It denies

48

D im prospects: humanistic values and the fate of com m unity justice

how bad or h arm ful th ey can ch o o se to be. It u n d erp lay s the transgressive nature of m uch crim inality and fails to grasp th e nature of the econom ic and cultural forces that create it. To anyone w ho know s anything about the layers and circles of real crim inals in a given com m unity, sentim ental liberalism never sounds equal to the challenge of dealing w ith them . W ithin the discourse as a w hole there are ideas and understandings that are m ore adequate to the challenge, th at do not rely on sentim ental im agery and accept the limits of liberal em phasis on individual rights, but, for the tim e being at least, these have been eclipsed by the force of penal populism 's caricature and by the apparen t potency of m anagerial-surveillant argum ents and practices. T he m ost needful thing in contem porary crim inal ju stice is to find a new w ay of articulating hum anistic-rehabilitative discourse, otherw ise w e are locked into a future that will see th e ascendancy of a soulless m anagerialism - th e end poin t of w hich will be a new , m ore technologically sophisticated variant of totalitarianism . ¿Managerialism will periodically be checked and im peded by outbursts of populist punitivism , but will not be eclipsed by them ; rather it will absorb their vindictive energy and transform it into som ething equally repressive. It will thus w ithstand excoriation better than the ostensibly 'softer' hum anistic-rehabilitative discourse, w hich u n d er the w eight of both its com petitor discourses will be drow ned out as a voice. T herein lies the im portance of com m unity ju stice; intellectually and philosophically it represents the last best hope of reinventing and sustaining hum anistic values in tw enty-first century crim inal ju stice in Britain. T hat said, I have tried to show here w hat com m unity justice is up against, ideologically, and how w eak its 'starting position' in contem ­ porary debate actually is. Because of the dynam ics outlined in this chapter, in relation to th e origins of both transgressive crim e and vindictive punishm ents, I do entertain th e possibility that com m unity ju stice m ay even - already - be a non-starter, that w e have passed the point of no return, gone beyond th e m om ent w here any kind of hum anism can b e retrieved and refashioned into a real influence on the practice of crim inal justice. 'Punitive-repressive' or 'm anagerial-surveillant' versions of com m unity ju stice m ay of course develop, adopting the rhetoric w hilst subverting th e substance, but this w ould change nothing, except for th e w orse - not for th e first tim e in penal history a prom ising reform w ould be co-opted and neutralized. The trouble w ith such a stance, I recognize, is th at it can be dem oralizing; its very pessim ism can assist the trium ph of th e forces to w hich one is opposed. But that, I think, is w here we are. I can only hope that the im pact of this book overall will prove m e w rong, and lead to local

49

C o m m u n it y Justice

experiments in hum anistic com m unity justice which, who knows, may eventually coalesce into som ething more significant. There is nothing to be lost by arguing and campaigning. Indeed it is desirable that we do. We may not win, or accomplish much, but we can at least choose how we lose.

References Bauman, Z. (1989) Modernity and the Holocaust. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bottoms, A. E. (1995) 'The Philosophy and Politics of Punishment and Sentencing', in C. Clarkson and R. Morgan (eds), The Politics o f Sentencing Reform. Oxford: Q arend on Press. Burgess, A. (1962) A Clockwork Orange. London: Heinemann Carter, P. (2003) Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime: A New Approach. London: Cabinet Office. Cavadino, M., Crow, I. and Dignan, J. (2000) Criminal Justice 2000: Strategies fo r a New Century. W inchester: Waterside. Christie, N. (2004) A Suitable Amount o f Crime. London: Routledge. Clear, T. and Karp, T. (1999) The Community Justice Ideal: Preventing Crime and Achieving Justice. Oxford: Westview Press. Dandeker, C. (1990) Surveillance, Power and Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Etzioni, A. (1993) The Spirit o f Community. New York: Simon and Schuster. (English edition 1995, London: Fontana). Feeley, M. and Simon, J. (1994) 'Actuarial Justice: The Emerging New Criminal Law', in D. Nelken (ed), The Future(s) o f Criminology. London: Sage, pp. 173-201. Fionda, J. (2000) 'N ew Managerialism, Credibility and the Sanitisation of Criminal Justice', in P. Green and P. Rutherford (eds), Criminal Policy in Transition. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 109-130. Gorringe, T. (2004) Crime. London: SPCK. Hobbs, D. (1995) Bad Business. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Home Office (2004) Confident Communities in a Secure Society: The Ilom e Office Strategic Plan 2004-08. London: The Stationery Office, Cm 6287. Jones, R. (2000) 'Digital Rule: Punishment, Control and Technology', Punishment and Society 2: 5-22. Karp, D. (ed.) (1998) Community Justice: An Emerging Field. Oxford: Rowan and Littlefield. Karp, D. and Clear, T. (eds) (2002) What is Community Justice? London: Sage. Margalit, A. (1996) The Decent Society. Harvard: Harvard University Press. McLaughlin E., Muncie, J. and Hughes, G. (2001) 'The Permanent Revolution: New Labour, New Public M anagem ent and the Modernisation of Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice 1: 301-318. N ash, M. and Ryan, M. (2003) 'M odernising and Joining-Up Government: The Case of the Prison and Probation Services', Contemporary Politics 9: 157-169. K ellis, M. (1995) 'Probation Values for the 1990s', Howard Journal o f Criminal Justice, 34: 344-349. K ellis, M. (1998) 'Com m unity Justice: A New Name for the Probation Service?, Justice o f the Peace, 25 April, 162 (17). 50

D im p ro sp e cts: hum anistic valu es and the fate o f c o m m u n it y justice

Kellis, M. (1999) 'Politics, Probation and the English Language', Vista: Perspectives on Probation 4: 233-240. Nellis, M. (2000) 'Creating Community Justice', in S. Ballintyne, K. Pease and V. McLaren (eds), Secure Foundations: Key Issues in Crime Prevention, Crime Reduction and Community Safety. London. Institute for Public Policy Research, pp. 67-66. Nellis, M. (2004a) " ' I Know Where You Live": Electronic M onitoring and Penal Policy in England and Wales 1999-2004', British Journal o f Community Justice 2: 3 3 59. Nellis, M. (2004b) 'Electronic Monitoring and the Community Supervision of O ffenders', in A. E. Bottoms, S. Rex and G. Robinson (eds) Alternatives to Prison. Cullompton: Willan. Norman, R. (2004) On Humanism. London: Routledge. Peters, A. G. (1988) 'M ain Currents in Criminal Law T heory , in Jan van Dijk et al (eds) Criminal Law in Action. Deventer: Kluwer, pp. 19-36. Pratt, J. (2002) Punishment and Civilization. London: Sage. Rutherford, A. (1993) Criminal Justice and the Pursuit o f Decency. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scheerer, S. (2000) 'Three Trends into the New Millennium: The Managerial, the Populist and the Road Towards Global Ju s tic e ', in P. Green and A. Rutherford (eds), Criminal Policy in Transition. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 243-260. Tonry, M. (2004) Punishment and Politics: Evidence and Emulation in the Making o f English Crime Control Policy. Cullompton: Willan. Young, J. (2003) 'M erton with Energy, Katz with Structure; The Sociology of Vindictiveness and the Criminology of Transgression', Theoretical Criminology 7: 389-414.

51

C h a p te r 4

The police service: from enforcem ent to management Robin Fletcher

The last quarter of the tw entieth cen tury saw a num ber of fundam ental changes in the m anagem ent of crim e w ithin our com m unities and one of the m ost visible was the w ay in w hich the police changed its philosophy from law enforcem ent to crim e m anagem ent. T he traditional view of the police is that of a law enforcem ent agen cy tasked by the state to m aintain the 'Q u ee n 's peace' and prosecute offenders. W hilst this will always be one of its core functions, it has also becom e an integral m em ber of a m ulti-partnered 'responsible authority7, created by the Crim e and Disorder Act 1998, tasked w ith addressing broader social issues that are thou ght to be influential in the causation of crim e and also anti-social behaviour. The jou rn ey from 'law enforcer' to 'problem solver' evolved as sustained political, econom ic and social pressures questioned the ability of the police to deliver a service that fulfilled society's needs. The police have increasingly engaged in crim e reduction program m es that deal not only w ith actual crim es but also w ith th e fear of crim e; concepts of com m unity safety (H om e O ffice 1991) that focus on crim es com m itted against the person rather than property; and the use of pre-em ptive legislation (Crime and Disorder Act 1998) that encourages com m unities to becom e actively involved in protecting them selves through pro­ gram m es of partnership crim e prevention. This chapter will exam ine how the police evolved (M atthew s 1994) to accom m odate these changes and identify som e of the influences that w ere responsible. The delivery of com m unity justice is, how ever, not im plem ented on a stand-alone basis; it involves m ulti-agency statutory

52

The police service: from enforcem ent to management

and non-statutory arrangem ents and it should be borne in m ind that as th e functions of th e police change, so too m ust th e functions of these other service deliverers to accom m odate this. To understand the context of these changes I will begin by exam ining the role of th e police, acknow ledging th at they do not exist in isolation of other providers.

Functions of the police W hilst 'policing' has a long history, d ating back to th e tenth century (Critchley 1978), the M etropolitan Police (M PS), form ed in 1829, is recognized internationally as b ein g the first 'm od ern ' police organization to have crim e prevention specified as a policing objective. The H om e Secretary of the day, Sir Robert Peel, declared o f the police: 'It should be understood at th e outset, that th e o bject to b e attained is th e prevention of crim e . . . To this great end every effort of the police is to be directed' (Critchley 1978: 52). Thus the prim ary role of the police was established, although the m an n er in w hich it w as to be carried out changed in the fullness of time. H aving identified that the prim ary function of th e police was to prevent crim e the original process for achieving this was by highly visible patrols (Critchley 1978) that deterred 'n e 'e r do wells' by their m ere presence (R einer 1992, 1999). C onstables w ere provided w ith a recognizable uniform that w as sym bolically 'p rev entativ e but not threatening' (Brogden, Jefferson and W alklate 1988: 4) and a hidden tru ncheon for defence. Thus policing established the principle that it was to be achieved through coercion and public support, or 'policing by con sent', although N ew m an (1985: 260) rem inds us that 'T h e police . .. exist in part to apply authorised coercion w hen willing com pliance is not forthcom ing.' O riginally a constable's pow er of arrest was m inim al, relying on the discretionary use of com m on law. Later these pow ers w ere added to by legislation that w as enacted w h en ev er a particular problem arose. It was not until the introduction of the Police and Crim inal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) th at police pow ers o f arrest, d etention and accountability w ere rationalized under a single piece of legislation. There w as no 'm aster' plan of national policing but a 'higgledypiggledy' (Boyle 1962: 596) approach that absorbed w hatever problem s had to be faced. This haphazard approach resulted in the police taking on m any functions, w hich included 'inspectors of nuisance; w eights and m easures; diseases of anim als, dairies and shops; contagious diseases; explosives and bridges; in the case of som e borough forces, the running 53

C om m u n ity Justice

of fire and am bulance services' (M organ and N ew burn 1997: 76). These functions indicate the breadth of 'service' provision that police w ere expected to provide to the public. It was n o t until the latter half of the tw entieth century that a m ore contem porary function of the police was established, w hich saw an increasing focus on law enforcem ent through 'ord er m aintenan ce; crim e control [and] environm en tal and traffic functions' (M organ and N ew burn 1997: 75). Brogden et al (1988: 49) offer three theoretical perspectives to explain this haphazard approach: 1 2

3

T h e ev olu tio n ary th eory : p olicin g d ev elop ed in resp o n se to increasing public disorder and rising crim e. T h e class-based theory: the changin g social structure of the m id n in eteen th century, and the rise o f the industrial revolution, required a subordinate w orking class in order to staff the factories. T h e police w ere introduced to prom ote the interest of the dom inant class. T h e accidental theory: w hich considers the im portance of local contingencies and u nforeseen accidents that have no recognizable pattern.

The rationalization of police responsibilities into a service that we recognize today was driven by the Royal Com m ission of 1962, w hich review ed police activity and recom m ended a change in the prim ary objective of the police (Critchley 1978: 298). W hilst P eel's policing philosophy m ade crim e prevention the prim ary objective, the Com m is­ sion adjudged this to be o f secondary im portance (Alderson 1979: 198). The Com m ission prom oted the enforcem ent o f law and order over other m atters, m easuring success through recorded crim e statistics (Critchley 1978: 309), placing an em phasis on arrest, prosecution and short-term solutions. Som e tension appears to exist w ith this decision as the governm entsponsored C ornish Com m ittee (H om e O ffice 1965) prom oted crim e prevention as a 'su bject in its ow n right' (W eatheritt 1986: 45) to be developed in tandem w ith o th er policing duties. This dilem m a was reasserted again in 1991 w hen a governm ent W hite Paper described the role of the police sim ply as: 'T h e m ain jo b o f the police is to catch crim inals' (H om e O ffice 1991: 5). This focus on the police as prosecutors of crim inal behaviou r is understandable as they are the only agency equipped w ith the pow er to investigate and arrest all offenders, particularly w hen th e use of force is necessary. But research has identified that crim e is only a small elem ent of the policing w orkload (H ough 1985) w ith the m ajority generally m ore 54

The police service: from enforcem ent to management

con cern ed w ith com m unity m anagem ent and dealing w ith non-crim e em ergencies. This is due in part to the police bein g the only 24-hour service that is able to respond to any incid ent from unexpected child birth, noise, fam ily disputes, escap ed anim als and occasional incidents of crim e (M organ and N ew burn 1997: 79). They are, in fact, an all-purpose social service and attem pts to redefine their role more narrow ly have been consistently underm ined by this m osaic of functions in actual practice. In recent years a num ber of reviews (ISTD 1993, H om e Office 1993a, 1993b, 1995, Posen 1994) have tried to determ ine police core activity and d efine their role in m odern society. The reason for these review s was to establish police efficien cy and effectiv en ess; internal and external accountability, and ways o f red ucing an increasing w orkload that appeared to prevent a focus on red ucing rising crim e rates. This was in addition for a n eed to respond to the governm ent Financial M anagem ent Initiatives (FMI), introduced in 1982 (M organ and N ew burn 1997: 47) by the Thatcher governm ent's drive to im prove public service provision throu gh intense financial scrutiny (H om e O ffice circular 114/1983, M aw by 2002). Collectively these review s caused the police to adopt new m anagerial system s (Craw ford 1998), a variety of policing styles, localization of governance and greater cooperation with the com m unity.

Professionalisation of the police Until the middle of the tw entieth century, the police had followed a traditional philosophy of policing that required intervention only to deal w ith those 'situations in w hich a citizen could request their attention, and problems on the street that officers could see required attention' (Brogden et al 1988: 4). Police w ere not encouraged to uncover crim e unless it was called to their attention, and this was a m ain factor in the low crime reporting rate. The Royal Com m ission o f 1962 considered that policing in this fashion was inefficient and no longer appropriate to society's needs (Oliver 1997). This view was partially driven by the public w ho were finding their voice on m any social issues, of w hich crim e was one. To help im prove the effectiveness of the police, the Com m ission recom m ended the creation of a central governm ent Police Research and P lanning Branch (Critchley 1978: 314) that could analyse crim e problem s and develop new m ethods o f policing that w ould im prove efficiency in tacklin g th e in creasin g crim e problem w ith in ad equ ate resources (Critchley 1967, W eatheritt 1986). O n e of its first responses was to prom ote 'U nit Beat' policing (H om e O ffice 1967, Em sley 1996), w hich effectively created a tw o-tiered policing system . This consisted of police 55

C om m u n ity Justice

o fficers w ho patrolled the com m u n ity in v ehicles, resp o n d in g to incidents quickly, in a style often referred to as 'fire brigade' policing (M cLaughlin and M uncie 1996: 55), and on a second level, resident police officers w ho patrolled on foot in an effort to m aintain com m unity contact (Em sley 1996). It w as intend ed that these officers w ould retain the con fid ence of the com m unity and m aintain the necessary inform ation flow that ensured local policing satisfied the requirem ents o f the com m unity. This tw o-tier system was eventually to have a negative im pact on crim e control w ithin the com m unity. As frontline policing began to w ithdraw from the com m unity, so the notion of patrol as a preventative m ethod declined (Kettle and H odges 1982, W eatheritt 1986). O fficers w ere no longer gathering inform ation that could w arn of im pend ing problem s, or assist in solving those that had already occurred, nor w ere they able to support any inform al control m echanism s that could reduce levels o f anti-social behaviour (W ilson and Kelling 1982). Lea and Young's (1993) critique o f policing recognized the dangers of m arginalization by this process and argued the im portance of m aintaining a close relationship w ith the com m unity. The separation of police skills that began w ith the U nit B eat system later extended to other areas o f policing, such as 'crim e prevention', with the creation of specialist posts that took even m ore constables aw ay from direct com m u n ity contact. C raw ford (1998) id en tified this as the b eginn ing of an institutional change in police thinking that was seeking speed y solutions, w hich could be m easured in sim ple term s, as proof of efficiency. It w as a m ove that began w ith good intentions, but becam e sw am ped by a police 'action ' culture (Reiner 1992) that sacrificed long­ term holistic problem solving for instant m easurable success.

Political and social influences T he 1960s w as a tim e of m ajor social change w h en the post-W orld W ar II welfare state experim ent began to falter, leading to social disharm ony and increasing conflict w ith the police. T he first sign of this social change w as a collapsing global m arket that caused H arold W ilson's Labour governm ent to w ithdraw support for the inefficient and overstaffed nationalized industries. This was challenged by the pow erful trade unions (Jefferson 1990: 32; Hall et al 1978: 272) through a series of strikes, causing national chaos w ith m ajor pow er cuts and the introd uction of a three-d ay w orking w eek. The friendly co-existence of the governm ent and trade unions w as com ing to an end and this set up a collision course for future governm ents. T he follow ing Conservative H eath governm ent fared no better, failing to stem the tide of rising inflation and increasing 56

The police service: from enforcem ent to management

unem ploym ent. A ttem pts to reduce the pow er of the trade unions included the introduction of the Industrial Relations Act 1971, to try to prevent the use of 'flying pickets' that w ere seen by the establishm ent as a deliberate and unnecessary act of confrontation. This caused m uch resentm ent am on g trade unionists and resulted in serious conflict with the police w ho were required to intervene (Lea and Y oun g 1993) in these disputes. Subsequent aggressive and violent trade union activity was met by increasing levels of police 'force', w hich eventually led to the deploym ent of full riot equipm ent (M organ and N ew burn 1997). U sing the police to intervene in trade disputes of this nature alienated them even further from the com m unities they w ould ordinarily patrol and identified them as an overt tool o f the state. W hilst the industrial and political conflicts of the 1970s dom inated public perception on law and order issues, a more serious breakdow n in police/public confidence began to em erge. D uring the 1950s and 1960s there had been an influx of im m igrant fam ilies (M organ and N ew burn 1997) to supplem ent a w orkforce that had been decim ated by W orld W ar II. O n arrival in Britain they had taken up residence in m any of the deprived inner-city areas w here sub-standard housing, poor education and few em ploym ent opportunities existed (Saunders 1984, Fitzpatrick 1994, Thom as 1986). This created new social problem s, one of w hich was an increase in the involvem ent o f black youths in crim e (C ohen 1972, Hall et al 1978), particularly w ithin London. At the beginning of the 1980s, crim e in Brixton, south London, had risen to such levels that local senior police officers decided to use saturation tactics to stop and search you ng people who were thought to be potential offenders. The operation, know n as 'Sw am p 81' (Scarman 1981, Com m is­ sion for Racial Equality 1981, Brake and H ale 1992, Lea and Young 1993), involved a large num ber o f officers that had been supplem ented by constables from other areas. T he operation began on 6 April 1981 and within four days nearly 1,000 predom inantly black youths were stopped and searched (M cLaughlin 1996: 59), causing trem endous resentm ent (Reiner 1992, Lea and Young 1993). O n e factor for this dissent was the use of officers w ho did not w ork w ithin the com m unity and w ho failed to understand the im portance of cultural issues, diversity and victimization. The result was a m ajor street riot that had an unprecedented impact on the w ay in w hich the police w ere to evolve.

Police m arginalisation The introduction of the Unit Beat policing system had produced a generation of police officers w ho no longer understood the com m unity in 57

C om m unity Justice

w hich they w orked (Lea and Y oung 1993, Reiner 1994, iMcLaughlin 1996). This loss of contact had stopped the inform ation flow that had enabled the police to hear and understand com m unity concerns and build up a d egree of trust that helped support the inform al control m echanism s that exist w ithin all com m unities. As G oldstein's (1990: 8) research was to show , successful policing involves 'a variety o f inform al m ethods' that require the full support and cooperation of the citizenry, w ho have to accept som e responsibility in policing their com m unity. Unit Beat policing did not help with this process. Even before 'Sw am p 81', the police w ere not trusted or w elcom ed by the local com m unity (GLC 1982), a p osition th at w as fuelled by local p oliticians w ho con tin u ally questioned police m otives w hilst calling for greater local accountability (Jefferson and Shapland 1994). The subsequent inquiry (Scarm an 1981) into the Brixton riot acknow l­ edged that som e attem pts had been m ade to develop a police/com m unity consultation process but that these had failed because both sides had stopped talking to each other, at a time w hen working together was of param ount im portance (Police Review, 27 N ovem ber 1981). To Scarm an, to overcom e this type of breakdow n in com m unication required a statutory process that would force the three primary stakeholders - the com m unity, the state and the police - to w ork together and share inform ation. He believed that such cooperation would assist the police to focus attention on the small num ber of people who com m it crim e and disproportionally affect the quality of life of the com m unity. The alternative m ethod of trying to stum ble across useful inform ation (Lea and Young 1993) through the random use of stop and search tactics had already resulted in a m ajor catastrophe that had to be avoided in the future.

Police as a m ulti-agency p rovider As a result of increased tensions betw een the police and the com m unity, Scarm an recom m ended the creation o f Police C om m unity Consultation Groups (PCCG) for 'th e prevention of crim e, and the m aintenance of an orderly society' b y d eveloping a 'tw o w ay flow of inform ation' (Hope 1985: 27), a process intended to prioritize action and provide a degree of local accountability. This structure was later form alized w ithin PACE. PCCG s w ere form alized bodies o f local councillors, m em bers of the com m unity and police who w ere expected to w ork together to develop appropriate policing initiatives that w ould reduce crim e, the fear of crim e and prevent further riotous confrontations. This was to be achieved by exchanging inform ation that w ould identify com m unity priorities and

58

The police service: from enforcem ent to management

help the police to develop tactical responses that w ere acceptable to the com m unity. H ow ever, these groups soon becam e forum s in w hich statutory agencies, prim arily the police, sought to legitim ize their actions (C raw ford 1998), w hilst the com m u n ity m em b ers used it as an accountability process (Fletcher 2000) to supervise police action. The ability of these groups to develop useful inform ation was eventually challenged by the Crim e and D isorder Act 1998 w hich accused them of being 'a rather narrow group of people, w ho often pursue sectional interests' (CDA para. 3.51), and recom m ended that they be excluded from the public consultation process. W hilst the creation of PCCG s was a legislative requirem ent, the police, along with other public agencies, began to reassess their ability to provide an adequate service to the public. The police accepted th e need to adopt a less aggressive policing style that w ould enable them to re-engage with the com m unity and return to the idealism o f a m ythical 'G old en Age' (Elm sley 1996: 170) w hen the com m unity supported th e police. It was at this tim e that politicians and public began to dem and that the police return to th e m ore traditional 'com m unity policing' style that pervaded the 'old days', even though this style o f policing still has to be defined. A lthough the police w ere able to re-organize and restructure their resources, they w ere unable to find the sim ple 'com m unity' of the 1950s, d escribed b y Jo h n sto n (1997: 186) as 'co m m u n itie s o f co llectiv e sen tim ent', but instead uncovered a m ore com plex group of 'co m m u ­ nities at risk' that had a diverse set of values. As a result of this revelation tw o fundam ental changes in policing p h ilo so p h y occurred. First, the police b eg an to en g age in social engin eering program m es that no longer focused on the offender, but sou ght to tackle causational issues, m any of w hich w ere beyond their remit. Second, it accepted that th e police alone could not p revent all crim e, and a w ider view of crim e control had to be em braced. To this end th e governm ent prom oted a new policing philosophy (H om e O ffice circular 8/84, Tilley 1992, Liddle and G elsthorpe 1994) that required a m ulti-agency approach, w hich would holistically address com m unity problem s and positively im pact th e quality o f life of the citizens. The role of crim e prevention, as a specialist function, began to be taken seriously by the UK governm ent in the early 1960s follow ing the findings of the C ornish Report (H om e O ffice 1965), w hich m ade 71 recom m en da­ tions. T he report argued that crim e could be reduced through situational prevention that concentrated on physical security system s, and this philosophy w as to becom e the m ainstay of H om e O ffice thinking for m any years. T h e original focus on situational m easures was led by Ron C larke, at that tim e the leading theorist in situational crim e prevention,

59

C om m u n ity Justice

w hich con centrated on increased physical security as a m eans of preventing crim e. D espite th e focus on situational prevention, the report also acknow l­ edged that a m ulti-agency/partnership approach (H om e O ffice 1965, para 233, 241-243, 246-247, 249) was an im portant part of the w hole crim e reduction process. H ow ever, m any years w ere to pass before this becam e a reality. To em phasize the specialist nature of crim e prevention, the H om e O ffice opened a Crim e Prevention College (CPU) to train police officers in the art of situational prevention, w hich then becam e the m ain elem ent of their prevention program m es. T h e CPU also began an intense program m e of research and evaluation that soon becam e 'th e m ajor driving force' (Tilley 1991: 11) behind governm ent thinking on crim e prevention. It was n o t a central planning u n it but acted in an advisory capacity w ith a prodigious output of official reports and statem ents, aim ed at 'th e elevation of crim e prevention objectives to be the prim ary purpose of policing' (W eatheritt 1986: 49). It was a concept that appears encouraging to W eatheritt, w ho saw it as a 'sound base of inform ed rhetorical deliberation and activity' although others accuse it of indulging in 'adm inistrative crim inology' that prom oted bureaucracy rather than pragm atic outcom es. In 1996, how ever, the CPU was m erged with other 'parts of th e crim inal policy d ep artm ent' (Koch 1998: 75) to form the Crim e Prevention A gency and to develop crim e prevention policy for o ther agencies, in addition to the police, thus em bracing a true m ulti­ agency approach. Crim e prevention had by now m oved beyond physical security and w as em bracing social, architectu ral and env ironm en tal issues that im pacted com m unity safety. T h e situational theories of Clarke (1997) had been added to b y N ew m an's (1972) 'd efen sible space' theory, Jacobs (1961) description of urban p lanning and latterly C olem an's (1989) critique of public sector housing estates. Essentially these academ ic tom es argued that m u ch of crim e could b e red uced at the architectural and design stages of urban building projects. A con sequ ence of this theorizing w as that police crim e prevention officers w ere further trained in architectural design (Craw ford 1998) so that they could advise local auth ority p lan n in g d ep artm ents on aspects that m ight encourage crim inal activity. D espite the efforts of the H om e O ffice (see Jo hnston, Shapland and W iles 1993) to elevate crim e prevention to a m ore central role in strategic police thinking, less than 1 per cen t of its staff (H arvey et al 1989) are actively engaged in preventative strategies. Even w orse is that those w ho are engaged in this type of w ork have found them selves in a m argin­

60

The police service: from enforcem ent to management

alized role becau se, as W eatheritt (1986, in G raef 1989: 49) notes, it is not a 'glam orous specialism ' and is of 'low status'.

C rim e prevention models: the em ergence of m ulti-agency perspectives To try and explain w hy crim e prevention is not recognized as a m ajor crim e control function W eatheritt (1986: 49) developed tw o histories of crim e prevention. The first, the 'H om e O ffice m odel', is identified with the grow th of official reports, statem ents, d ep artm ents and organizations, aim ed at the elevation of crim e prevention objectives to be the prim ary purpose of policing. The second history, the 'police m odel', is a review o f crim e prevention 'beh in d the statem ents of inten tio n ' (W eatheritt 1986: 49) and is a less successful story. It focuses on the d evelopm ent of prevention activity by the police w ho w ere, at the tim e, considered to be the prim ary agency tasked w ith this work. There is an elem en t of frustration in her review as she declares: 'C rim e prevention has not becom e a part of m ainstream policing and the specialist crim e prevention service has been left to languish in som ething of a policing backw ater' (W eatheritt 1986: 49). For W eatheritt crim e prevention was a m arginalized specialism that was not threaded through all police activity. Since then, two other histories have em erged: the 'business m odel' and the 'com m unity m odel'. T he business m odel is im portant because it is influential on all of the other histories. It tells of the growth of private sector security in all its forms (Jones and N ew bum 1997, Crawford 1998), and is concerned with m aking legitim ate profit out o f crime. It extends to the growth in the media markets, including the num erous factual television appeal program m es w hose good intent has to b e balanced by the increase of concern, if not fear, of crim e am ong the w atching public. It is also concerned with the use of private security com panies to patrol public spaces, copying the deterrent factor o f Peel's first constables, w hich is now being further legitim ized by governm ent support for quasi-police patrols in the form of 'com m unity support officers' (w w w .hom eoffice.gov.uk). The com m unity m odel is con cern ed w ith the developm ent of crim e prevention beyond the police, as a m ulti-agency partnership. It began in the m id 1980s w ith governm ent recognition that crim e is a problem for all. Changes in legislation have now spread the function of crim e prevention, crim e reduction and com m unity safety across a wider forum , m aking it a statutory requirem ent for the police to w ork as equal partners w ith local authorities (Crim e and Disorder Act 1998). The difference betw een this history and that of the H om e O ffice m odel can best be

61

C om m u n ity Justice

understood by using Craw ford's (1998) description of the differences betw een 'm ulti-tasking' and 'inter-tasking'. T h e first attem pt at d evelop­ ing a m ulti-agency approach to crim e prevention is an exam ple of centralist governm ent developing 'm ulti-tasking' reactivity w ithout fully u n derstand ing the problem s they sought to overcom e. It was m erely 'a com ing together of various agencies, in relation to a given problem , w ithout this significantly affecting or transform ing the w ork that they do' (Craw ford 1998: 174). The com m unity m odel recognized m ulti-tasking as a fragm ented approach, w hich undoubtedly serviced the agenda of the participants, w ithout necessarily assisting the com m unity. From this beginn ing they progressed to a partnership approach w hich required inter-tasking, defined by Crawford (1998: 174) as 'th ose relations which interpret and thus affect norm al internal w orking relations. They entail som e degree of fusion and m elding betw een agencies. T h ey involved collaboration and interd ep en d en ce.' M ore im portantly, this new relationship often created new structures that challenged old practices and achieved solutions, w hich w ere not driven by organizational hid den agendas. M uch of this history has yet to b e acted out, b u t it has raised the profile o f crim e prevention to new levels from w hich it is hoped safer com m unities will em erge, not as an isolated C inderella (W eatheritt 1986: 45) w aiting to be rescued but as a conquering hero cutting through the sw athe of bureaucratic red tape to unite the forces of the com m unity. Y et in true postm odernist thinking, it would be w rong to see each history as having developed in isolation. Each has evolved as an intricate part of th e other, developing in response, and in som e cases as a reaction to, the various theories and practices that have em erged in recent years. Successful crim e prevention does not rely up on on e theory, history or con cept, it develops as a set o f contexualized solutions to specific problem s.

Partnership and social crim e prevention In the afterm ath of the street violence and public disorder of the early 1980s, the gov ernm ent changed its crim e reduction strategy as it reluctantly accepted the need to tackle m any of the socio-econom ic factors that w ere beyond the rem it o f the police (Koch 1998). Their response was to circulate m em o 8/84, w hich had been signed by officials from various governm ent agencies including the H om e O ffice, D epart­ m ents of E nvironm ent, Education and Science, H ealth and Social Services and the W elsh O ffice (H om e O ffice et al 1984, Koch 1998), calling on each

62

The police service: from enforcem ent to management

governm ent d ep artm ent to consider how they could help tackle crime. This circular becam e the driving force b ehind m ulti-agency activity and began the process of changin g th e focus aw ay from situational towards social prevention. H ow ever, the first attem pts at m ulti-agency coopera­ tion saw various agencies w orking ind ep en den tly tow ards solutions that were driven by internal perform ance regim es (H ughes 1998, Adams 1998, Fletcher 2000). As a consequ ence agencies som etim es found them selves in conflict as they tried to im pose a solution that was not in accord with other organizations. This conflict raised issues of m onitoring and evaluation as the governm ent tried to show value for m oney. Eventually the governm ent ordered a full evaluation o f partnership activity (H om e Office m em o 4/ 90), w hich was conducted under th e auspices of the H om e Office Stand in g C onference on Crim e Prevention, by a w orking group, that becam e know n as the M organ Report (H om e Office 1991).

Partnership and social engineering O ne of the first partnership initiatives to be developed by the police was N eighbourhood W atch (N H W ), as an attem pt to rebuild com m unity bridges in the afterm ath of the street riots of the early 1980s. It was a N orth A m erican con cept (Turner and Barker 1983) that soon involved 2.5 million people nationally in 42,000 schem es increasing to 130,000 schem es by 1995, with an ind eterm inate nu m ber of participants. N eighbourhood W atch began the process o f changin g policing philosophy from that of 'crim e busters' to 'problem busters' (B ennett 1992: 26). A criticism of this type of initiative was that it initially developed in those com m unities w here form al/inform al social structures, like tenant/ resident/com m unity groups, already existed, w hilst m ore vulnerable com m unities w ithout recognizable structures were ignored (Skogan and M axfield 1981), thereby servicing com m unities that had few crim e problem s but m ore im portantly con tin uing to ignore those com m unities with w hom the police need ed to im prove their dialogue. As a result these schem es becam e dom inated by w hite m iddle-class values (H ussain 1988, Rosenbaum 1986), w hose views w ere often used to counter those of the new ly form ed PCCG s that w ere developing m ore political agendas. A lthough N H W was an exercise in social engin eering by the police to produce a 'village com m unity' in w hich com m unity policing could flou rish (B en n e tt 1992) situ atio nal crim e p rev en tio n program m es dom inated it. It was clearly too difficult for the few specialist police crim e prevention officers to change social structures, so they initially used

63

C om m u n ity Justice

property m arking, hom e security surveys and increased physical security as a w ay of 'selling' the N H W program m e. A ny positive social changes w ere m ore by accident than design, even thou gh a review by Laycock and Tilley (1995) noted an increase in social intervention, even though it failed to reduce crime. In th e afterm ath of the Scarm an (1981) Report the 1980s becam e a halcyon tim e for developing social crim e prevention activity. H om e O ffice circular 8/84 was followed by circular 44/90, w hich created the 'partnership ' forum in w hich a new generation of social engineering flourished.

Partnership and safer cities T he next governm ent attem pt to reduce crim e through social engineering began in 1986 w ith the Five T ow ns Initiative, followed by the Safer Cities program m e (H ughes 1998), w hich aim ed to 'R ed uce crim e; Lessen the fear of crim e; and create Safer Cities' (Craw ford 1998: 52) by encouraging econom ic enterprise and com m unity life. T h ese w ere program m es that required the local authority, the police and oth er agencies to w ork together to identify local com m unity problem s through a crim e audit and then develop strategies to solve them . But because of governm ent (H ughes 1998) m istrust of the w ay in w hich local authorities had previously used financial aid, only lim ited funds w ere m ade available, w ith an expectation that it w ould be used to pum p-prim e other resources (Tilley 1992, H ughes 1998) from w ithin the com m unity and local businesses. To ensure that political or hidden agendas w ould not usurp the Safer Cities program m e, a neutral coordinator was introduced to override prejudices of the various agencies that w ere involved and help produce solutions that crossed the dem arcation lines of those organizations (Tilley 1992). W hilst the idea of a neutral coordinator had som e appeal, it brou ght other tensions. The introduction o f an 'ou tsider' was challenged by som e w ho believed that they would be incapable of understand ing local culture, w hilst others accused them of being lackeys of the governm ent (Tilley 1992) and a new form of central control. The police believed they should be the prim ary coordinator as they had the most experience of crim e prevention. T h e local authorities challenged this, believing that they controlled the resources that could have the greatest im pact on im proving com m unity safety. A lthough each schem e w as coordinated by a neutral 'ou tsider', they w ere individually m anaged by an in d ep en d en t agency that was expected

64

The police service: from enforcem ent to management

to consult w ith th e local com m unity. T h e agencies w ere chosen for their ability to analyse inform ation gathered from a variety of sources and to produce a strategy that w ould have a long-term im pact on crim e and anti-social behaviour. T hey w ere also required to engage w ith the police, local authorities and other voluntary and statutory agencies in order to develop full partnership crim e reduction projects. These relationships caused som e tension, as each agency believed it should have led the program m e or at least been m ore influential in deciding how projects w ere selected and financed (Tilley 1992). In som e local authority areas, the involvem ent of the police in these partnerships was considered to be extra difficult because of 'historical tensions' (Tilley 1992: 21), m ost notably those w ith a local authority that had a 'left-w ing' bias. In L ondon the police/local authority relationship w as particularly difficult in som e boroughs, causing new legislation to be passed that required local authorities to consult with the Com m issioner of Police w hen prom oting 'th e prevention of crim e or the w elfare of victim s in their area' (London Local A uthorities Act 1989: S5.3). To ensure a partnership approach was bein g m ade to tackle crim e, the governm ent later stipulated that bids for regeneration funding w ould only be considered if it could b e show n that there had b een a police involvem ent in the bidding process. Such action forced those local authorities that had refused to w ork w ith the police to overcom e their various prejudices and create w orkable partnerships. This w as particu­ larly p oignant as m any of the areas with a serious regeneration problem , requiring the m ost extensive funding, w ere u n d er the control of left-w ing authorities and w ere probably the last organization that a 'right-w ing' governm ent would w ished to be associated with. Regardless of the political anim osity betw een the dom inant partners, these program m es cam e u n d er attack for o ther reasons. Tilley's (1994) review of the Safer Cities program m e identified a lack of leadership in m any schem es and m inim al support by the private sector, leading to poorly selected activities that w ere often badly funded and rarely evaluated. This view was reinforced by Liddle and G elsthorpe (1994), w hose later research also questioned the objectivity of m any of the m ulti­ agency partnerships. A nother problem highlighted w as the desire of the governm ent to retain control, even w hen their declared in ten t was to localize. It is suggested by H ughes (1998) that the use of Crim e C oncern and N A CRO to m anage these program m es w as the H om e O ffice's way of m aintaining indirect control, as they are all governm ent sponsored quangos (quasi autonom ous non-governm ental organizations).

65

Com m unity Justice

The Morgan Report: A new crime managem ent ideology By the start of 1990, it was clear that many agencies were engaged in partnership activity, but the lack of m onitoring and evaluating called into question its impact. Consequently a review of all multi-agency activity was called for by the governm ent, resulting in the Morgan Report (Home Office 1991), which made m any radical recommendations. This was a farreaching exam ination, w hich recognized that despite the obvious advantages of full partnership programm es, their objectives were rarely achieved, because agencies often performed to their own agendas. The review identified that because crime prevention had rem ained almost exclusively within the rem it of the police, it had becom e limited in its scope. The term 'crim e prevention' is often narrowly interpreted and this reinforces the view that it is solely the responsibility of the police. O n the other hand, the term com m unity safety, is open to wider interpretation and could encourage greater participation from all sections of the com m unity to fight crime. (Home Office 1991: 3) By redefining crime prevention to a broader concept, Morgan hoped to re-engage the com m unity in solving problems that were often due to a lack of informal control mechanism s that in earlier generations had prevented crime. However, being aware of the administrative functions of governm ent reports, he then made several practical suggestions as to how this could be im plemented. The M organ Report was a new crime m anagem ent ideology that prom oted greater com m unity involvem ent, increased partnership activ­ ity and better leadership to provide locally supported holistic solutions. It recom m ended legislation be used to force the police, local authority and other statutory agencies to w ork together and, more radically, that the local authority should becom e the lead agency. To assist with this M organ suggested a need for a local crime prevention coordinator to pull together joint agency activity. The Conservative governm ent dismissed these suggestions due to financial cost, believing they would be responsible for funding this initiative. Its reticence was due to a financial policy that was trying to reduce local authority funding by capping expenditure. The employm ent of local crime prevention coordinators was, however, recognised as a positive suggestion and local authorities began to engage personnel for this function from within existing budgets.

66

The police service: from enforcement to management

C rim e and D iso rd e r A c t 1998: Tow ard s a stakeholder society W hilst the governm ent response was not encouraging, many of M organ's recom m endations were to em erge later in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (CDA) (see also Loveday, this volume). In reviewing the M organ Report, Koch (1998: 43) identified five of recom m endations that appear to be the basis for the CDA: 1 2 3 4 5

Local authorities and the police should have a joint statutory responsibility for crime prevention and com munity safety. Com munity safety strategy should operate at the highest tier of local governm ent. Local authorities' involvem ent should be directed by a published Code of Practice. Local partnerships should focus on young people and crime. A coordinator with administrative support should be appointed in each unitary or county level local authority with direct access to chief executives and the local police com m ander. (Home Office 1991)

Although the M organ Report failed to find favour with the Conservative Governm ent, the opposition Labour Party embraced its philosophies with open arms. They promised to im plem ent its findings w hen they returned to office and did so through the CDA. The M organ Report, a new crime m anagem ent ideology, promoted qualities that pervaded the New Labour m ovem ent's new political ideology called 'The Third Way' (Blair 1998). It was a concept that sought a 'stakeholder society' (Adams 1998: 150) that, whilst finding its theoretical base in m anagem ent theory, promoted the idea of citizens being treated as customers of the state. With regard to the particular problem of reducing crime and anti-social behaviour this concept drew from the theorizing of Etzioni (2000: 24), who considers the relationship betw een the com m unity and the police also to be one of extreme importance. H e states: Public safety and com munity welfare benefit from the introduction of 'thick' com munity policing that entails much more than merely getting police officers on the beat. This involves the com m unity in setting priorities for the police and in overseeing their conduct. And it requires involving the police in conflict resolution and in the protection of the overall quality of life. (Etzioni 2000: 24)

67

C om m unity Justice

The m oral positioning of Etzioni was shared by Blair w ho, as the leader of the N ew Labour Party, extolled the value of shared responsibility. A dam s' analysis of Blair's philosophy considers this em phasis. Like those in the com m unitarian m ovem ent he [Blair] believes that people should start rebuilding com m unities by taking responsi­ bility, and that, m ore generally, people should be responsible for their actions. There m ust be duties and obligations to m atch freedom s and rights. There m ust be a greater spirit of self-help and civic duty and a renew ed em phasis upon the family. (Adams 1998: 149) The CDA is the next logical step in reducing crim e and anti-social behaviou r for the ben efit of the com m unity. It places a statutory responsibility upon those agencies that have the pow er and resources to d eter those w ho seek to cause disruption within the com m unity, but m ore im portantly places pow er in the hands of those w ho live w ithin that com m unity to determ ine how they should be policed.

C onclusion In m ore recent tim es the once forgotten original objective of 'th e prevention of crim e' has been reintroduced into policing as a m ulti­ agency process that requires the police to becom e a full partner in local, com m unity-driven com m unity safety and crim e prevention activities. In pursuit of that process the police have em braced com m unity policing m ethods in con jun ction w ith situational and social crim e prevention theories. This has developed a solid base on w hich to progress the legislative requirem ents of the Crim e and Disorder Act 1998, w hich im pose a statu tory duty on th e police to w ork tow ards a safer com m unity.

References Adams, I. (1998) Ideology and Politics. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Alderson, J. (1979) Policing freedom. Plymouth: Latimer Trend. Bennett, T. (1992) 'Community Policing', Criminal Justice Matters, June, London: King's College. Blair, T. (1998) The Third Way: New Politics for the Neiv Century. London: Fabian Society. Boyle, A. (1962) Trenchard. London: Collins.

68

T h e p olice service: fro m e n fo rc e m e n t t o m a na g em en t

Brake, M. and Hale, C. (1992) Public Order and Private Lii>es. London: Routledge. Brogden, M„ Jefferson, T. and Walklate, S. (1988) Introducing Policework. London: Unwin Hyman. Clarke, R. (1997) Rational Choice and Situational Crime Prevention: Theoretical Foundations. Aldershot: Ashgate. Cohen, S. (1972) Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation o f the Mods and Rockers. London, Routledge. Coleman, A. (1989) 'Disposition and Situation: Two Sides of the Same Crime', in D.J. Evans and D.T. Herbert (eds), The Geography o f Crime. London: Routledge. Commission for Racial Equality (1981) CRE's Submission under Part II o f Ijord Scarman's Enquiry into the Brixton Disorders. London, CRE. Crawford, A. (1998) Crime Prevention and Community Safety. London: Longman. Critchley, T.A. (1978) A History o f the Police in England and Wales, 2nd edition. London: Constable. Emsley, C. (1996) 'The History of Crime and Crime Control Institutions c.1770c.1945', in M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner, (eds) The Oxford Handbook o f Criminology. Oxford; Clarendon Press. Etzioni, A. (2000) The Third Way to a Good Society. London: Demos. Fitzpatrick, P. (1994) 'Racism and the Innocence of Law', in D.T. Goldberg (ed.), Anatomy o f Racism. London: University of M innesota Press. Fletcher, R. (2000) 'An Intelligent Use of Intelligence', in A. Marlow and B. Loveday (eds), After Macpherson. Sheffield: Hallamshire Press. GLC (1982) Policing London: The Policing Aspects o f Lord Scarman's Report on the Brixton Disorders. London: GLC. Goldstein, H. (1990) Problem Oriented Policing. London: McGraw. Graef, R. (1989) Talking Blues. London: Fontana. Hall, S., Chrichter, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J. and Roberts, B. (1978) Policing the Crisis: Mugging the State and Law and Order. London: Macmillan. Harvey, L., Grimshaw, P. and Pease, K. (1989) 'Crim e Prevention Delivery: The Work of the Crime Prevention Officers', in R. Morgan and D.J. Smith (eds), Coming to Terms with Policing: Perspective on Policy. London: Routledge. H ome O ffice (1965) Report o f the Committee on the Prevention and Detection o f Crime (Cornish Report). London: HMSO. Home Office (1967) Police Manpoiuer, Equipment and Efficiency. London: HMSO. Home Office (1991) Safer Communities: The Local Delivery o f Crime Prevention Through the Partnership Approach (Morgan Report). London: Home Office. Home Office (1993a) Police Reform: A Police Seroice for the Twenty First Century, Cm 2281. London: HMSO. Home Office (1993b) Performance Indicators fo r the Police. (Circular 17/93) London: HMSO. Home Office (1995) Review o f the Police Core and Ancillary Tasks: Final Report. (Posen Report). London HMSO. Home Office, Departm ent of Education and Science, Departm ent of the Environ­ ment, Departm ent of Health and Social Security, Welsh Office (1984) Crime Prevention, Home Office Circular 8/1984. London: Home Office. Hope, T. (1985) Implementing Crime Prevention Measures, Home Office Research Study 86. London: HMSO. Hough M. (1985) 'Organisation and Resource M anagem ent of the Uniformed Police', in K. Heal, R. Tarling and J. Burrows (eds), Situational Crime Prevention.

69

C o m m u n it y Justice

London: HMSO. Hughes, G. (1998) Understanding Crime Prevention. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Hussain, S. (1988) Neighbourhood Watch in England and Wales: A Locational Analysis, Home Office Crime Prevention Unit, Paper 12. London: HMSO. 1STD (1993) Changing Police: Business or Service? London: 1STD. Jacobs, J. (1961) The Life and Death o f a Great American City. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Jefferson, T. (1990) Tlie Case Against Paramilitary Policing. Milton Keynes: Open University. Jefferson, T. and Shapland, J. (1994) 'Criminal Justice and the Production of Order and Control', Journal o f Criminology, 34: 265-290. Johnston, L. (1997) 'Policing Communities at Risk', in P. Francis, P. Davies and V. Jupp (eds), Policing futures. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Johnston, V., Shapland, J. and Wiles, P. (1993) Developing Police Crime Prevention: Management and Organisational Change, Police Research Group Paper 55. London: Home Office. Jones, T., and Newburn, T. (1997) Policing after the Act: Police and Magistrates Court Act 1994. London: Police Studies Institute. Kettle, M. and Hodges, L. (1982) Uprising: The Police, the People and the Riots in Britain's Cities. London: Pan. Koch, B. (1998) The Politics of Crime Prevention. Aldershot: Ashgate. Laycock, G. and Tilley, N. (1995) Policing and Neighbourhood Watch, Crime Detection and Prevention Series Paper 60. London: Home Office. Lea, J. and Young, J. (1993) What is to be Done about Law and Order? London: Pluto Press. Liddle, A.M. and Gelsthorpe L.R. (1994) Inter-agency Crime Prevention: Organising local Deliven/. Home Office Police Research Group Paper 52. London: Home Office. M atthews, R. (1994) 'Crim e Prevention, Disorder and Victimisation: Some Recent W estern Experiences', International Journal o f the Sociology o f Law, 22: 87-104. M awby, R. (2002) Policing Images, Policy, Communication and legitim acy. Cullompton: Willan. M cLaughlin, E. (1996) Police, Policing and Police Work, in E. McLaughlin and J. M uncie (eds), Controlling Crime. London: Sage. M cLaughlin, E. and Muncie, J. (1996) Controlling Crime. London: Sage. M organ, R. and N ew bum , T. (1997) The Future o f Policing. Oxford: Q arendon Press. N ewman, K. (1985) 'Police Bashers Risk to Labour Reputation. Police Review, October. Newman, O. (1972) Defensible Space, People and Design in the Violent City. London: Architectural Press. Oliver, I. (1997) Police, Government and Accountability. London: Macmillan. Posen, I. (1994) Review o f Police Core and Ancillary Tasks. Paper presented to ACPO Conference, March 1994. Reiner, R. (1992) The Politics o f Police. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Reiner, R. (1994) 'Policing and the Police', in M. Maguire, R. M organ and R. Reiner (eds), The Oxford Handbook o f Criminology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rosenbaum, D.P. (1986) 'The Problem of Crime Control', in D.P. Rosenbaum (ed.), Community Crime Prevention: Does it Work? London: Sage. Saunders, D. (1984) The West Indian Boys in Britain. London, Grijelmo.

70

T h e p o lic e se rvice : fr o m e n fo rc e m e n t t o m a n a g e m e n t

Scarm an, L. (1981) The Brixton Disorders 10-12 April 1981: Report o f mi Inquiry by theR t. Hon. The Lord Scarman OBE. London: H M SO. Skogan, W .G. and M axfield, M .G . (1981) C oping with Crim e: Individual and N eighbourhood Reactions. London: Sage. Tilley, N. (1992) Safer Cities and Comm unity Safety. Home O ffice Police Research Group Paper 38. London: H om e Office. Thom as D.N. (1986) W hite Bolts, Black Locks. London: Billing and Sons. Turner, B.W.M. and Barker, P.J. (1983) Study Tour to the United States. M etropolitan Police Internal Report. W eatheritt, M. (1986) Innovations in Policing. London: Croom Helm. W ilson, J. and Kelling, G. (1982) 'B roken W indow s', Atlantic M onthly, March.

71

C h ap ter 5

Police and community justice in partnership Barry Loueday

In w hat m ight be seen as one of the most positive legislative developm ents since the arrival of N ew Labour in 1997, the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998 has created statutory partnership arrangem ents across England and Wales to develop local crime reduction strategies. A lthough the 1998 legislation was to em brace a wide range of com m unity justice issues, the central feature of the Act for police and local governm ent was a new requirem ent to work with other agencies in partnership in developing local crime and disorder reduction initiatives. The decision to develop new local partnerships can be traced back to the 1991 M organ Report, Safer Communities. The M organ Report, com missioned by the then Conservative administration was to consider the issue of how best to develop an effective crime prevention strategy. In what proved to be a source of em barrassm ent to the governm ent, the M organ enquiry concluded that the most effective way of improving crime prevention would involve local governm ent in developing local strategies with the police and other agencies. This was not a message that the Conservative governm ent, then waging war on the public sector, wanted to hear. In what becam e one of the Conservative governm ent's best-kept secrets, it effectively sat on the report and refused to countenance the im plem entation of its primary recom m enda­ tions. These would for the first time in years have served to enhance the role of local authorities. Tony Blair's New Labour governm ent was to alter this. In an early 'quick win' for New Labour, the Blair governm ent committed itself to the full implementation of the Morgan Report recommendations. These were

72

Police and com m unity justice in partnership

to form the basis of local Crim e and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRP), in operation since 1998. A lthough initially the 'lead' responsibility for the partnership was to be allocated to local authorities, it becam e apparent that the police service w ould only accept an arrangem ent w ithin w hich that responsibility was shared with the police service.

C o m p o sitio n of the C D R P As a result, the 'lead authorities' for the CDRP are m ade up of both the local authority and the police. T h e CDRP, represented at county council level by the chief executive and chief constable and at district level by the district authority chief executive and local police com m ander (a super­ intendent), is statutorily responsible for sustaining and directing the partnerships consisting of a num ber of additional local agencies. O ther than th e local authority and police th e partnership can be expected to include local health services, housing partnerships, the voluntary sector, probation service, the police authority, the D om estic Violence Forum , Youth O ffending Team s (YOTs) and D rug Action Team s (DATs). It is im m ediately apparent that both m otivating and coordinating the w ork o f so m any m em bers of a partnership presents a significant challenge. Effective leadership m ust be provided at the top, particularly by the local authority chief executive and police com m ander. W here such com m itm ent is d em onstrated it becom es possible for com m unity safety officers - local authority em ployees - to im plem ent a potentially effective crim e reduction program m e w ith the full support of partner agencies. W here this leadership is absent the successful delivery of service becom es m ore problem atic. There are further problem s that can challenge effective partnership w ork at the local level. These relate to the advantages that arise w here m em ber agencies share coterm inous boundaries, and corresponding disadvantages w here this is n o t the case. This is com pounded by the tw o-tier structure of local governm ent in England and W ales, w here all cou nties as well as all local district authorities are given C D R P responsibilities. This is not m ade easier by th e fact that each tier is responsible for different services. This situation does not extend to the 'n ew ' unitary local authorities based on largely urban areas, m ade responsible for the delivery of all local services in their tow ns and cities, y et problem s with the coordination of strategic functions such as health, fire and police services m ay still arise. O n e possible long-term solution to th e endem ic lack of coterm inosity that now confronts CD RPs could prove to be the creation of unitary authorities across England and Wales. 73

C om m u n ity Justice

A further problem that has confronted CD RPs in the local delivery of crim e reduction strategies has been intervention from central govern­ m en t in the d eterm ination of local service provision. T he com m itm ent by governm ent to perform ance m anagem ent and perform ance culture has generated a plethora of service targets and perform ance indicators, m ost of w hich have originated from W hitehall or the C abinet Office. T h e im pact of central governm ent intervention presents a m ajor challenge to the d evelopm ent of local crim e reduction strategies that increasingly reflect the priorities of central governm ent. The level of intervention experienced to date has m ade it difficult for som e services to com m it w holly to local strategic priorities unless these clearly overlap w ith those identified by central governm ent. T h e problem o f m icro-m anagem ent by th e governm ent has proved to be particularly problem atic for th e police service.

T h e crim e audit process T he Crim e and D isorder Act (CADA 1998) has required local agencies along w ith the police to record crim e problem s w ithin their area. This requires all local services (particularly local authority services) to map every incid ent of w hich it is aware. As the local authority now shares w ith the police a statutory responsibility to reduce crim e in the local area, it needs to be aw are of the nature and extent of the crim e problem w ithin its boundary. O n e con sequ ence of this has been th e w idespread introduction of geographic inform ation system s (GIS) w ithin the local authority for m apping crim e and 'h o t spots'. T he audit process also builds upon recorded crim e statistics provided by the police and all crim e data (w here available) collected by other local services. C onducted on a three-yearly cycle, the audit form s the basis of th e subsequ ent local crim e reduction strategy. Data from local services could be expected to include all cases o f crim inal dam age recorded by departm ents and the cost o f repair. H ousing associations, and local highw ays and am enities departm ents would be asked to provide details of ru nning dam age repair costs to their estate or to street furniture. Sim ilarly, the local hospital trust w ould provide data relating to the nu m ber and nature of cases of assault w ith w hich it has dealt over the particular three-year period. Inform ation would also be provided by Y oung O ffend er and Drug Action Team s, and the local social and youth service departm ents. As is evident from this process, the CD RP is heavily dep en d en t on inform ation recorded by m em ber agencies. H ow ever, appropriate inform ation m ay not always be held or recorded by them (H om e O ffice 2002). 74

Police and com m unity justice in partnership

For exam ple, for the crim e audit the local education d ep artm ent and individual schools can expect to b e requested to provide inform ation con cern in g th e incid ence of perm anent and tem porary exclusions from schools, along w ith victim ization rates in school or ad jacent to it (see H ayden, this volum e). This w ould include the incid ence of school bullying - a m atter that can be expected to assum e a m uch higher profile, follow ing the P ennell m urder case in 2004 (W ainw right 2004). As with health trusts, how ever, there can be a tend ency for schools not to record or acknow ledge incidents that m ight generate negative local publicity. D espite identifiable problem s, the crim e audit process now provides a m ore detailed inform ation base concerning local crim e and victim ization patterns than before. Even w ith non-record ing and/or non-disclosure by som e agencies, the audit provides a m ore com prehensive database than previous d ep en d en ce on police recorded crim e statistics was ever likely to do. H ow ever, as originally devised th e audit process could be seen as b ein g overly orientated tow ards quantitative crim e data collection and percentile reduction targets. This has been a particular characteristic of th e crim e data required by central governm ent that m ight benefit from a future review. O ne result of the current audit process is that it m ay not be sufficiently sophisticated to confront the m ore pervasive and com plex problem s, such as fear of crim e or fear of victim ization, that perm eate m any com m unities. T he audit process m ay also prove less than effective in d ealing w ith 'org an izatio n al cu ltu res' w ith w hich the C D R P and com m unity safety officers will inevitably be confronted. W hilst there has been a traditional academ ic interest in 'police culture' (e.g. Reiner 2000) w ithin the CDRP, the problem of local bureaucratic cultures has yet to be fully acknow ledged. This problem is com plicated by the fact that w ithin the local authority there m ay b e n ot ju st one definable culture but a nu m ber of cultures that m ay differ b etw een local service departm ents. This feature of th e local authority world deserves further study by reference to specific departm ents such planning and highw ays or social services and housing, w here com m itm ent to the audit and CD RP strategy m ay differ substantially. W hilst the crim e audit process m ay face som e resistance from local bureaucracies it does provide the opportunity to identify local com m u­ nity view s about crim e and disorder. All crim e audits should involve public surveys of local residents and businesses. M any CD RPs will use either professional polling com panies to con du ct and analyse local public surveys or have developed their ow n postal surveys. W ithin each the aim is to ascertain local opinions and priorities. M any CDRPs will also m ake use of focus groups to engage w ith a variety of social groups and local associations w ithin the com m unity. T h e audit will also, by w ay of 75

C om m u n ity Justice

interview w ith a range o f officers from CD RP agencies, identify the d egree to w hich the partnership has been able to achieve its strategic objectives over the previous three years. This will relate to the w ork of the partnership, com m unity safety policy and strategy im plem entation. As a result the CD R P should reflect, w ithin its audit, com m unity concerns and priorities about crim e and disorder. In relation to this it has been frequently found that 'd iso rd e r rather than crim e has been im m ediately identified as a priority issue for the com m unity. This was not initially reflected w ithin the priorities set by the H om e O ffice for C D RPs and police forces. Until recently the governm ent has been com m itted to reducing the incidence of 'volu m e crim e', rather than respond ing to 'quality of life' issues that engage m ost com m unities.

Local crim e reduction strategies O n com pletion of the audit process a local crim e reduction strategy will be drafted. T h e strategy will address problem s identified in the crim e audit but will also include governm ent crim e priorities and targets as these are also likely to have som e salience in the 'local' policing plan. T h e policing plan will percolate dow n to the local police 'basic com m and unit' (BCU ), w ithin w hich the local BCU com m an d er will align CDRP priorities w ith those of the policing plan. A dditionally the local CD RP is required to identify and target 'h id d en crim e', for exam ple racial attacks, dom estic violence and hom op hobic crim e. These will usually be prioritized by the CD RP, w hich reflects a refreshing change from the past; these offences have long been very m u ch part of the 'd ark figure of crim e', a result of both under-reporting and less than adequate recording procedures am ong police forces. Thereafter the crim e strategy is open to public consultation. This has proved to be a source o f frustration, particularly w hen the public response has been less than overw helm ing. H ow ever, sufficient local publicity can provide residents w ith inform ation about the strategic aims of th e partnership and local m edia coverage can be of assistance. Experience suggests, how ever, that the identification of 'h ot spot' areas w ithin specific estates are a m atter o f greater interest than local crim e strategies (Fareham District C ouncil First Crim e Audit 1998/9). Local auth ority pu blications and free new sp ap ers are used to circulate inform ation , w hile a n u m ber o f partn ersh ip s m ay use 'in -h o u se ' consultation w ith the m ain CD RP agencies as a prim ary platform w ithin the consultation process. O ne result of this can be that professional officers w ithin the prim ary agencies w ho are m em bers o f the partnership will be also responsible for 76

Police and com m unity justice in partnership

'signing off' the local crim e strategy. For this reason, am ong others, the governm ent has raised the accountability of CDRPs as a m atter of current concern (H om e Office 2003a). As m em bership very often involves only professional officers, the accountability of the CD RP rem ains som ew hat opaque. This m atter assum es a greater salience w hen C D R P strategy can directly influence operational policing w ithin the C D R P area. Follow ing consultation, the crim e and disorder strategy provides the fram ew ork for the agencies w ithin the partnership. It is led by the local operational 'crim e and disorder team ', a m ulti-agency team com posed of com m unity safety officers and the police. An exam ple of a current crim e and disorder strategy for 2002-2005 is show n below . The key aim of the strategy is to reduce crim e and disorder, w ithin w hich five priority areas are identified. These are: • • • • •

Targeted crime Drug and alcohol misuse Working with young people to reduce crim e and disorder Domestic violence Anti-social behaviour.

Source: H am pshire Constabulary (2003) Local strategies will reflect local concerns and can be expected to differ betw een partnerships. H ow ever, one com m on feature has been that public concern over anti-social behaviour rem ains a clear priority for many. Com pliance with the crim e reduction strategy (Section 17 of the Crim e and Disorder Act 1998) requires all local service departm ents to consider the potential im pact of their w ork on crim e and disorder. M any planning departm ents w ithin the local authority will now norm ally be expected to consult with a police architectural liaison officer. Similarly, highways departm ents may engage in consultation about changes or additions to street furnishing, particularly in relation to CC TV access and use. N ot all local service departm ents have proved to be equally assiduous in acknow ledging or com plying w ith Section 17 of the Crim e and D isorder Act 1998. For various reasons som e local departm ents have not proved fully com m itted to the crim e reduction process and this has created a barrier to effective strategy im plem entation. A recent survey of local police com m anders (Superintend ents' A ssociation 2003) highlighted the nature and extent of the problem faced by local crim e and disorder team s. W hen asked w ithin the survey the extent to w hich, in their experience, local partners and services had fulfilled their partnership role, m ost local police com m anders indicated that few had done so (see Table 5.1 below). 77

C om m unity Justice

Table 5.1 H ow com pletely partners have fulfilled their role

Base

Local authority chief executive's office Fire service Police authority Victim support Local authority housing department Probation services For two-tier authority areas: county council Local authority youth services department Community groups and voluntary agencies Social landlord/housing association Local authority environmental health department Local authority social services department Local authority leisure and amenities department Religious body Local authority planning department Local authority education department Parish/community council Business group or group promoting business interests Health services, including primary care trust Crown Prosecution Service Transport provider Court service Other

C om pletely Partly N ot at (%) (%) all (%)

210 174 146 124 173 192 81 183 139 123

58 40 40 39 34 26 26 25 25 24

38 53 53 52 60 60 69 67 69 63

2 5 6 6 4 11 5 7 3 12

134 170

22 22

64 61

9 15

114 68 103 182 75

18 16 15 15 15

70 57 69 70 68

11 25 15 13 13

118 195 81 49 93 21

14 11 11 10 8 33

68 60 47 43 56 52

18 26 40 43 32 5

Source: Superintendents' Association (2003)

The survey highlighted a situation w here ju st a third of local BCU com m anders believed that local governm ent departm ents w ere fulfilling their role. M ost com m anders believed that local departm ents did not pull their w eight. As these departm ents included environm ental health, social services, leisure and am enities, planning, housing and local education departm ents, this perception m ight be considered a m atter of concern. These are in fact the very d epartm ents that can be expected to exercise the greatest influence in the success o f any local CD RP crim e reduction strategy. The survey identifies the problem that w hilst the crim e and disorder strategy is of central im portance to the crim e and disorder team 78

Police and com m unity justice in partnership

(particularly the police), this view m ay be not be shared am ong local service d epartm ents, for w hom it is of only peripheral professional interest (or relevance) (O 'B yrne 2001). Yet, as is now recognized, the police cannot im plem ent an effective com m unity safety policy w ithout support from local service departm ents. Additionally the use by the police of their enforcem ent pow ers alone is unlikely to be sufficient to achieve local crim e reduction objectives (O 'B yrn e 2001). For the police to begin to develop a 'problem solving approach' to crim e (problem orientated policing), effective partnership w ith local authority d epart­ m ents is essential. Professional experience suggests that crim e reduction strategies w ithin a com m unity safety fram ew ork prom ise m ore success than either the old professional policing m odel or a crim e control approach that were once on offer (O 'B yrn e 2001). It is clear that the 'crim e' problem the local com m unity experiences is likely to be m ore effectively resolved w ithin a partnership arrangem ent than by unilateral law enforcem ent by the police. As a survey of local com m anders dem onstrated, the prim ary problem con fronting most police BCUs concerned 'alcohol-related disorder' and anti-social b eh a­ viour (see Table 5.2). Table 5.2 Crim e prevalence com pared with the national average Base: All respondents (223)

Volume crime Serious/violent crime Drug dealing Race/hate crime Witness intimidation Organized criminal networks Gang warfare and related killings Alcohol-related disorder (e.g. from nightclubs/pubs) Domestic violence Traffic offences, including road traffic accidents Anti-social behaviour

Above average

Average

Below average

(%)

(%)

(%)

33 34 28 14 10 17 14 30 28 15 29

31 25 42 25 30 28 10 52 61 64 59

34 39 27 58 56 52 72 16 8 18 10

Source: Superintendents' Association (2003)

The nature and prevalence of crim e identified in the survey suggests that m ost crim e is local and involves prim arily a threat to the quality of life of residents. O ften dismissed in the past as 'm in or crim e', it significantly im pacts on perceptions of personal safety and fear of crim e w ithin local

79

C om m u n ity Justice

c om m u n ities, and rep resen ts o n e of th e m ost pro fo u n d cu rren t challenges to both the local CD RP and th e police. Yet the ability of local police forces to respond to this challenge is increasingly com prom ised by pressure from central governm ent to determ ine national (and therefore local) policing priorities.

Police priorities and the N ational Policing Plan U nd er the Police Reform Act 2002 new pow ers w ere given to the H om e Secretary to create a N ational Policing Plan w ithin w hich th e M inister is able to d eterm ine police priorities across th e country over a three-year period. W ithin th e current N ational Policing Plan (2004-2007), a nu m ber of key priorities have been identified by the governm ent. These range from requiring police to provide a 'citizen focused service' to tackling 'volu m e crim e', w hilst also com bating 'serious and organised crim e both across and w ithin force boundaries' (H om e O ffice 2003b). A d d itionally th e police are requ ired to en cou rag e 'co m m u n ity engagem ent'. A nother key priority is identified as 'cou ntering terrorism and the threat of terrorism ' (H om e O ffice 2003b: 13). R ecent police operations in relation to the terrorist threat have served to dem onstrate the significant im pact of national policing priorities on local policing. In line with national police priorities and using their pow ers under the Terrorism Act (2000), since 2001 28 police authorities across the country have been involved in operations that have led to 562 arrests of suspects un d er this Act. Yet to date, of the 562 arrests 280 w ere subsequently released w ithout charge. A further 152 of those arrested w ere eith er charged under legislation o ther than the 2000 Terrorism Act or 'released into the custody of im m igration'. O n e exam ple of th e police response to 'terrorism ' was provided by G reater M anchester Police in April 2004 w hen a series of anti-terror raids w ere carried o ut w hich led to the arrest of 10 people on suspicion of th e com m ission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism . Subsequently all w ere to be released w ithout charge (Travis 2004a). Clearly the police are torn betw een international tensions and local concerns. N ational priorities identified b y the governm ent have had im m ediate consequ ences for CDRPs. T h e A nti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 gives the police new pow ers in relation to the use of Anti-Social B ehaviour O rders (ASBOs). W ithin Section 30 of the Act police are able to 'd isperse' groups of people deem ed to be engaged in acts of anti-social behaviour, to determ ine geographic areas w hich m ay not be used by those identified as

80

Police and com m unity justice in partnership

bein g involved in acts of anti-social behaviour, and to im pose curfew orders on those so involved. W hile the im position of A SBO s m ust have the support of the local authority, th e H om e Secretary (and Prime M inister) rem ain com m itted to their m uch w ider application. The use of the A SBO m ay, how ever, allow the police to fulfil an additional national key priority identified w ithin the N ational Policing Plan: 'tacklin g anti­ social behaviour and disorder'. O nce again the 'nationalization' of the use of the A SBO can be expected to have im plications for the local C D R P and its ow n determ ination of local priorities. O ne further problem that has arisen in relation to policing priorities concerns the introduction of the police N ational Intelligence M odel (NIM). The NIM , w hich under the 2003 N ational Policing Plan all police forces are required to adopt, identifies three levels of crim e that reflect the seriousness of the offence. Level 1 relates to local and m inor crim e while levels 2 and 3 relate to cross-border crim e and national/international crim e. The N ational Policing Plan 2003 highlights the need for all police forces to m eet the challenge of tackling serious and organized crim e (level 2 and 3 crim e) that occurs across force boundaries. W ithin the N ational Policing Plan it is stated that 'levels 2 and 3 of the NIM m ust be a key priority for all forces' (H om e O ffice 2003b: 24). The national requirem ent on the part o f the H om e Secretary for all forces to prioritize 'organized and other serious crim e' does not appear to be in accord, how ever, with the nature and reality of the m ajority of crim e confronting m ost BCU com m anders. This, as the 2003 survey dem onstrates, rem ains overw helm ingly a 'level V crim e problem (see Table 5.2 above).

Basic co m m a n d units and delegated responsibility CDRPs are increasingly subject to pressures to conform to national police agendas. Their ability to fulfil their responsibilities properly can becom e m ore problem atic as a result. As th e Superintend ents' Association has argued, local com m anders are u n d er increasing pressure to achieve centrally d eterm ined targets and objectives that often seem not to be in alignm ent w ith com m unity perceptions of local crim e priorities (Super­ intend ents' Association 2003). A fu rth er p ro blem for BC U co m m an d ers relates to d eleg ated responsibilities and budgets w ithin the police force. Currently all BCUs are subject to individual inspection by H er M ajesty's Inspectorate of C onstabulary (HM IC). It is evid ent how ever that while com m anders are m ade responsible for the perform ance of the BCU (largely in term s of

81

C om m unity Justice

achieving nationally set perform ance targets) they usually do not have the resources to effect any real change at a local level. A lthough recent changes to H om e O ffice police grants m eans that som e funding now goes direct from the H om e O ffice to the BCU , there is a continuing problem with local BCU budgets. As a survey of all current BCU com m anders dem onstrated only a m inority of these officers had any real control over police funding. The 2003 Superintend ents Report show ed that m any com m anders had eith er only 'partial' or 'n o control' over significant elem ents of the police bud get (see Table 5.3). Table 5.3 The decisions BCU com m anders can make w ithout reference to Force H Q and w hat control they have over the budget Base: All respondents (223)

Full Partial control control No Responsibility of budget of budget control

Office equipment Operations support Vehicle fleet Crime support Management info IT Property management Human resources Police pay Training Overtime budget Officer staffing levels Civilian staffing levels M aintenance Allowances, e.g. vehicle and telephone Income generation, e.g. selling police time to football grounds

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

87 38 27 21 42 22 22 32 13 29 77 37 42 52 50

80 23 21 16 20 14 10 22 32 14 79 26 38 32 14

18 37 49 34 37 58 61 43 24 57 20 36 34 52 58

2 40 30 50 43 27 29 35 43 29 1 38 29 15 27

49

40

39

21

Source: Superintendents' Association (2003)

The survey show s that the only area w here BCU com m anders had full control of the budget proved to be 'office equipm ent'. Thereafter BCU responsibilities and control of the b ud get m arkedly diverged. In those areas w here functions w ould im pact BCU m anagem ent and perform ance m ost, the local com m ander had only lim ited responsibility. This was most m arked in relation to 'officer staffing levels', w here ju st over a quarter of

82

Police and com m unity justice in partnership

respond ents (26 p er cent) stated that they had full control of the bud get (Superintend ents' A ssociation 2003). The issue of local delegation of budgets cannot be considered in any detail here. It is sufficient to note that current arrangem ents surrounding th e non-delegation of budgets to BCU com m ands by police headquarters can be expected to im pact on the ability o f local com m anders to influence th e w ork of the CDRP. U nd er current funding arrangem ents there appears to be little that they can realistically bring to the 'partnership table'. This m ay only serve to highlight further police d ep en d en ce on local authority services in the pursuit of local CDRP crim e reduction strategies. This con u n d ru m for th e BC U com m an d er is d iscussed in the Superintend ents' Association report M oving Policing Forward (Super­ in tend ents' A ssociation 2004). It argues that current funding arrange­ m ents for BCU s are haphazard w ith a w ide divergence of practice across th e country. W hilst som e BCUs are given 'significant d evolvem ent of funds' and flexibility in their use, others have budgets that are 'dictated and controlled at force level w ith only the m ost lim ited devolvem ent available' (Superintend ents' A ssociation 2004: 5). The report found that even w here BCUs en jo y significant devolve­ m en t it was not uncom m on for funds to be w ithdraw n at short notice 'to pay for force priorities'. This served to h ind er short and m edium -term priorities that had been agreed w ith partners 'fo r actions to achieve the local crim e and disorder reduction plan' (Superintend ents' Association 2004: 5). O n e result of this has been a dim inution of trust betw een BCU com m an der and their partners (Superintend ents' Association 2004: 5). A lternative sources of funding, w hich attem pt to tap into central funding stream s, are based on com petitive bidding and require the allocation of BCU staff to prepare bids. M any of these prove to be unsuccessful. Experience has led the Superintend ents' A ssociation to argue the case for direct funding to the BCU and access to oth er partnership funds, w hich w ould lead to local com m anders having th e 'financial w herew ithal' to enjoin w ith partners to solve local com m unity safety problem s. The Superintend ents' A ssociation has therefore argued for direct fun ding to the BC U to a statutory m inim um level. This m ight begin to provide local com m an ders w ith th e flexibility to d eterm in e their spend ing 'in line w ith agreed local priorities' (Superintend ents' Associa­ tion 2004: 5). T he problem of non-delegation of budgets w ithin on e of the prim ary C D R P agencies m ay have im peded the successful developm ent of partnership arrangem ents to date. Fu rther reform of police funding m ay still be necessary if this problem is to be resolved.

83

Com m unity Justice

Partnership boundaries Funding is not the only problem confronting the police partnership role w ithin the CDRP. As was identified within an early H om e Office progress report on CDRPs, where different agencies operate within different geographical boundaries 'difficulties of various kinds arise for partnerships' (Home Office 2002: 20). The lack of coterm inosity has m eant that it is difficult to disaggregate data or m ake meaningful com parisons betw een services in the same CDRP area. This remains an ongoing problem. Outside of unitary authorities, the lack of coterm in­ osity betw een local BCU com m ands and local authority boundaries can be particularly problematic. In the counties a police com m ander can be m ade responsible for a num ber of CDRPs operating within the BCU area. The problem is com pounded by the small size of some district authorities that cannot justify or support a BCU. As yet HMIC does not require the collection of data concerning the presence or absence of coterm inous boundaries, despite the recognized value of this in improving police effectiveness (O 'Byrne 2001). As HM IC is concerned with im proving efficiency and effectiveness, and is responsible for the collection of data on police perform ance, the evident failure to identify 'coterm inosity' as a factor im pinging on perform ance might be thought anomalous. In the absence of direction from HMIC it is also the case that police forces are able to change BCU boundaries unilaterally (usually through amalgam ation of existing BCUs) and this often only serves to com pound the problem. Reorganized (and usually enlarged) BCUs w ithin w hich local com m anders are able to exercise less managerial discretion are, ironically, justified by police headquarters with reference to im proving BCU efficiency. O ne consequence of the redrawing of BCU boundaries is a greater difficulty in sustaining the local CDRP partnership. Currently this does not appear to be a m atter of great concern to either chief police officers or HMIC. Yet the current trend towards the creation of larger BCUs can be significant for those responsible for their managem ent. W ithin such large units it is unlikely that the BCU com m ander can provide the 'visible direct leadership style' thought necessary to enhance police perform ance (Superintendents' Association 2004: 7). As noted BCUs now exist with 1,400 staff, and proposals are in place to raise this figure to 2,000. If these changes are introduced, BCUs would be bigger than most county police forces. Arguing that a BCU should not exceed 400 staff, the Super­ intendents' Association has stated that where BCU size goes above that 'it is questionable w hether the BCU Com m ander can provide the visible

84

Police and com m unity justice in partnership

direct leadership style' that is now required (Superintend ents' Associa­ tion 2004). The problem of non-coterm inous boundaries was clearly addressed by the Superintend ents' Association. It has argued in favour of shared boundaries and has stated that: Th e re q u ire m e n t to e n g a g e in p a rtn ersh ip w o rk in g m akes coterm inosity the m ost critical single factor in determ ining w hether a BCU is likely to deliver effective local policing. (Superintendents' A ssociation 2004: 4) T he report claim ed that the m ore closely aligned the boundaries of respective partners proved to be, then the m ore effectively the partners could com bine in the delivery of com m unity safety. It acknow ledged that w here BCU com m anders are required to w ork w ith m ultiple partn er­ ships that are in turn required to w ork w ith m ore than one BCU com m ander, 'an inevitable confusion follow s in respect of resourcing and responsibility'. It was not rare for a BCU com m an der to w ork w ith tw o or m ore partnerships w hose strategic aim s w ere 'a t best m isaligned and at w orst conflicting' (Superintend ents' Association 2004: 4).

Local agency boundaries There m ay be agencies, such as Local Crim inal Justice Boards and the C row n Prosecution Sendee, w hose boundaries are never likely to be coterm inous w ith those of the local authority or BCU. For the probation service the structural changes im plem ented by N O M S m ay provide additional challenges. There are, how ever, a nu m ber of im portant agencies responsible for the delivery o f local services, w hich im m ediately im pact on th e delivery of CD RP crim e reduction strategies, w here shared boundaries could well be established. T hese would include all local authority departm ents, prim ary care trusts, probation, Drug Action Team s (DATs) and th e Youth Justice Board. Som e agencies are already sharing com m on boundaries, as are, for exam ple, the DATs that have recently (2004) been am algam ated w ith the local CDRP. T he problem of non-coterm inous boundaries betw een local authorities and BCU s clearly needs to be addressed. W ithin the counties the situation is m ade w orse by the tw o-tier system w here strategic services are th e responsibility o f the cou nty w hilst local services are the responsibility of the districts. Because of the small size of m any districts, o n e BCU will often be required to w ork w ith a nu m ber of district

85

C om m u n ity Justice

councils, thus creating the problem s identified earlier by the Super­ inten d en ts' Association. O ne exam ple of the problem associated with tw o-tier local govern­ m en t can be seen in W arw ickshire, w here a small cou nty police force of 1,000 officers w ork w ithin tw o BCU s and are responsible for five district councils. In th e absence of a unitary structure it is difficult to develop effective partnership arrangem ents successfully. At county council level, strategic services will need to be represented on each local district CD RP besides participating at a cou nty level. This suggests that futu re local governm ent reorganization m ay need to consider the opportunities arising from an expanded unitary authority arrangem ent that brings an end to the current tw o-tier divide.

T h e So h a m case and H um b e rsid e Police boundaries T he need for closer local service collaboration w ithin shared boundaries has been dem onstrated in a nu m ber of recent high-profile m urder investigations. In both the Victoria Clim bie and Soham m urder cases it was apparent that the failure o f local police to record and share inform ation, or establish effective partnership arrangem ents, had con­ tributed to these tragedies. In the Soham case it was evident that the failure of social services to pick up on, record and fully com m unicate to H um berside Police inform ation con cern in g Ian H untley's earlier crim inal activities contributed significantly to H untley's ability to obtain a school caretaker's jo b at Soham , C am bridgeshire (Bichard 2004). T he Bichard Inquiry stated that there was a clear need to 'reaffirm the guidance in "W o rk in g Together to Safeguard C h ild ren" so that the police are notified as soon as possible w hen a crim inal offence has been com m itted or is suspected of bein g com m itted' (Bichard 2004: 14). The failure on the part of social services m ay have been com pounded by the lack of shared boundaries betw een social services and H um berside Police. Follow ing th e abolition o f H um berside as a county it w as replaced by a nu m ber of unitary authorities in clu ding those based on the rural areas of N orth Lincolnshire - Scu nthorp e an d Grim sby - that from 1974 form ed part of H um berside County. Reform did not, how ever, extend to red raw ing police boun daries, an d th e new u n itary authorities in Lincolnshire w ere required to liaise w ith H um berside Police w hose boundaries w ere not correspondingly restructured. It was evid ent to som e com m entators that ready com m unication m ight not be easy to establish or sustain betw een the 'n ew ' unitary authorities and a police force H Q across the H um ber (Brow n 2004).

86

Police and com m unity justice in partnership

As was to be argued, despite con tin ued lobbying by the local M P for N orth L in colnshire to redraw police boun daries, H om e Secretary, M ichael H ow ard refused to accept th e case that N orth Lincolnshire should be covered by the Lincolnshire police force. As the M P was to argue later: A m ong other reasons [justifying this change] it seem ed a recipe for disaster that these new Lincolnshire local authorities' social services departm ents should have to liaise w ith a police force headquartered in another county. (Brown 2004) O f consequ ence was the lack o f surprise on Brow n's part concerning the later identification w ithin th e Bichard Inquiry Report of system atic and corporate failing in the senior m anagem ent o f H um berside Police, w hich did little to encourage effective com m unications betw een the force and surrounding local authority social services departm ents (Brown 2004). A ltogether the Soham case only served to reinforce the argum ent for clear, identifiable com m unications betw een public services based on shared coterm inous boundaries.

Partners in targeting and reducing crime? Since their creation, the governm ent has set CDRPs clear targets in relation to crim e reduction. M ost recently the H om e Secretary has identified the reduction of 'volum e crime' as a primary target for both the CDRP and police forces. Volum e crim e concerns acquisitive or property crim e and encom passes burglary and theft of or from m otor vehicles. Although the targets set by governm ent have often been m et, w hat precise im pact such target-setting has had on successive reductions in acquisitive crime rem ains unclear. This issue is com plicated by the research conducted by Sim on Field in 1990. This suggested that a clear link betw een the business cycle and the nature of offending could be identified. As Field's research concluded, w hen em ploym ent rises and with it disposable incom e, the police can exp ect a corresp on d in g fall in acquisitive crim e b u t increase in violent crim e. W ith any rise in un em ploym en t (particularly am on g the young) the cycle would be reversed, with acquisitive crim e rising and violent crim e falling (Field 1990). T he business cycle identified by Field m ay have som e application to current crim e trends in England and W ales, particularly as property crim e continues to fall (H om e O ffice 2004).

87

C om m u n ity Justice

It does so against a background of significantly increased em ploym ent opportunities and an expanding econom y that over the last five years has seen a dram atic fall in the n u m ber of unem ployed, particularly am ong the young. Interestingly, as recorded crim e statistics dem onstrate, the fall in property crim e has been m ore than m atched by a rise in violent crim e (H om e O ffice 2004). Q uarterly figures for recorded crim e during 2003 saw a 17 per cen t rise in violent crim e against the person over the year. W hilst new m ethod s of recording offences used by the police m ay explain som e of this rise, it was also accepted that m uch of the problem surrounding the incid ence of violent crim e related to you ng people and their use of disposable incom e for the purchase of alcohol. This has b een m atched by the grow th of the 'n ig h t tim e econom y' (NTE), w ithin w hich large, them ed pubs, bars and clubs com p ete for business particularly in term s of alcohol sales. R espond ing to the problem of violent crim e m any police forces have decided to target 'binge-d rinking' in tow ns and cities in an attem pt to reduce the nu m ber of alcohol-related assaults. The H om e O ffice now estim ates that alcohol is the prim ary cause of approxim ately half of all violent crim e and con nected to 70 per cen t o f late-night adm issions to hospital A ccident and Em ergency departm ents (Bennetto 2004). The changin g trends in offend ing m ay, as Field suggests, accurately reflect changes w ithin the econom y rather than any success by the governm ent or police. It also suggests that increased disposable incom e and the use of alcohol primarily by the you ng will continue to im pact on the quality of life of others, particularly in relation to alcohol-induced anti-social behaviour. U nd er the A nti-Social B ehaviour Act 2003 the police have new dispersal pow ers, b ut against this m ust be balanced the effect of the Licensing Act 2004 that will significantly extend licensing hours and m ay, as a result, increase com petition betw een licensees. H ow the CD RP responds to this developm ent will b e of interest, particularly if th e police are given new crim e reduction targets relating to violent crime. The excessive consum ption of alcohol or 'binge-drinking' am ong the you ng m ay be a problem that can at b est be m anaged rather than solved. The use by police and local authorities o f new pow ers u n d er the 2004 Licensing Act in relation to licensees w ho break the law m ight prove to be of only lim ited success in com parison w ith th e current size and financial im portance of the N TE to the U K drinks industry (Travis 2004a, 2004b). It could offer a real test of the efficacy of local partnerships, as any success will require leadership and a close cooperation and understanding betw een the prim ary partners w ithin the CDRP.

Police and com m unity justice in partnership

C onclusion To date th e decision by N ew Labour to im p lem ent the prim ary recom m endations of the M organ Report in establishing local partn er­ ships m ay be ju dged both tim ely and appropriate. H ow ever, tensions m ay increasingly surround these partnerships. O ne relates to the fact that often com m unity safety strategies involve long-term objectives, w here quick 'w ins' are not realizable particularly w here these relate to 'social crim e prevention' objectives. This can easily conflict w ith a party political process that inevitably highlights short-term gains. Additionally, governm ent com m itm ent to w hat it sees as effective solutions to im m ediate problem s of anti-social behaviour m ay not be shared or accepted w ithin partnerships. The im plem entation of th e AntiSocial B ehaviour Act 2003 has occurred at a tim e w hen the C D R P has am algam ated w ith the DAT. There m ay not, as a result, be a shared perception as to either its value or utility particularly in relation to the dispersal pow ers given to th e police u n d er the Act. A further tension has arisen from the com prehensive application across the public sector of a perform ance m anagem ent approach w here great em phasis is placed on m easurable short-term targets and objectives. These are often set w ithin a highly political con text and m ay be designed for im m ediate public (m edia) consu m ption rather than to im prove the effectiveness of public services. The resulting 'gam ing' by public services has b een recently identified in a highly critical report by the Audit Com m ission (Audit Com m ission 2003). It found that m any public services 'm anage' perform ance m easures to achieve the targets set for them rather than im prove effective service delivery. This has already im pacted on m ost public services m aking up the partnership. O ne further im pact of perform ance m anagem ent has been that individual public service targets set by the central governm ent are seen as param ount by those services, rather than the targets or objectives set for them by the CDRP. Centrally set perform ance targets can always be expected to have high salience for public services. This has been m ost clearly evidenced in health and education 'services' over the operational life of th e CDRP. The governm ent's com m itm ent to perform ance m anagem ent and m easurable targets presents a con tin u in g challeng e to the C D R P particularly in terms of the im plem entation of long-term crim e reduction strategies. W ithin these m easurable results are of course unlikely to be im m ediately available. Evidence suggests, how ever, that the long-term success of crim e reduction partnerships m ay ultim ately d epend on the extent to w hich gov ern m en t releases public services from central

89

C o m m u n it y Justice

performance measures. This would allow partners making up the CDRP the discretion to identify and respond to local crime and disorder priorities. It must remain a matter of speculation, however, as to w hen (or w hether) locally determined crime reduction strategies, developed independently of central governm ent, will find either favour or support from New Labour.

References Audit Commission (2003) Targets in the Public Sector. Audit Commission: Public Sector Briefing 2003. Bennetto, J. (2004) 'Alcohol takes the blame for soaring levels of violent crime among young men', Independent, 30 July 2004. Bichard (2004) A Public Inquiry Report on Child Protection Procedures in Humberside Police and Cambridgeshire Constabulary. London: TSO (Stationery Office). Brown, M. (2004) 'Soham proves the need for a national police force', Independent, 23 June 2004. Field, S. (1990) Trends in Crime and their Interpretation. London: HMSO. Hampshire Constabulary (2003) Isle o f Wight B C U Service Plan 200415. Hampshire Constabulary. Home Office (1991) Safer Communities: Report o f the Morgan Inquiry. London: HMSO. Home Office (2002) Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships: Round One Progress. Police Research Series Paper 151. London: HMSO. Home Office (2003a) Building Safer Communities. London: HMSO. Home Office (2003b) National Policing Plan 2004-2007. London: HMSO. Home Office (2004) Criminal Statistics England and Wales. London: HMSO. Loveday, B. and Reid, A. (2003) Going Local: Who Should Run Britain's Police? London: Policy Exchange. O 'Bym e, M. (2001) Changing Policing: Revolution not Evolution. Lyme Regis: Russell House Publications. Reiner, R. (2000) The Politics o f the Police (3rd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Superintendents' Association (2003) Factors that Impact on Basic Command Unit Performance. London: BMRB Social Research International. Superintendents' Association (2004) Moving Policing Forward - Proposals fo r the Future. Superintendents' Association. Travis, A. (2004a) 'Low Number of Convictions does not Tell the Whole Story, Insist Police', Guardian, 5 August. Travis, A. (2004b) 'Drinking Fuels Big Rise in Violent Crime', Guardian, 29 April. Wainwright, M. (2004) 'Boy Killer Unmasked as B u lly , Guardian, 28 July.

90

C h a p te r 6

‘Tough on probation’: probation practice under the National O ffender Management Service Dennis Gough

This chapter considers the creation and im pact of a unified correctional agency, the N ational O ffend er M anagem ent Service (N O M S), upon the N ational Probation Service and the com m unity supervision of offenders. This m erger betw een the prison service and probation service has, with hindsight, been loom ing since the birth o f the N ew Labour crim inal ju stice m od ernization program m e and the con su ltation d ocu m ent Prisons Probation - Joining Forces to Protect the Public (H om e O ffice 1998). The chapter debates the im pact the creation of N O M S will have on the traditional position the probation service has held in the crim inal ju stice system . Principally, it argues th at the loss o f a singular, identifiable probation service is critically im portant for the crim inal justice system as a whole. It will rem ove from th e system a critical force, an organization w ith a proud history o f identifying and w orking against discrim ination. It rem oves a singular organization w ith a history of challenging sentencers to deal w ith offenders in respectful, ju st and social inclusionary ways in the com m unity. It highlights the change to probation values from b ein g anti-incarceration to view ing custodial sentences as having a role to play in the rehabilitation process, in the creation of a seam less sentence of custody and com m unity (H om e Office

2001). Finally, alternatives to the punitive stance will be outlined. This will address recent research into desistance from crim e, and introduces the notion of 'to u g h ' pu nishm ent as being a com m unicative enterprise (D uff 2003). This reinstates the traditional probation officer skills of building 91

C om m u n ity Justice

en g agin g and con stru ctiv e relatio n sh ip s w ith offen d ers w ithin a com m unity context as a future paradigm . The an n ou n cem en t to Parliam ent on 6 Janu ary 2004 of a unified correctional agency took observers by surprise in view of th e absence of any extensive prior consultation (D obson 2004: 144). Actually, for those w ho w ished to see it, the signs of such a policy developm ent had been present w ith the creation of a N ational Probation Service in 2001 and the establishm ent of coterm inous boundaries betw een som e key agencies. This was, w ith hindsight, a stepping stone w hereby th e probation service was read ied for the birth of a correctional service after unequivocal opposition to such a m erger w hen it w as originally proposed in 1997. C orrectionalism relates to w hat M cN eill (2004) defines as looking to the ind iv id u al for th e cau ses o f crim inality and locates responsibility for crim e solely w ith individuals. It characterises the crim inal as one of a deficient/or dangerous group (classified by risk) from w hom society m ust be protected . . . T he prim ary focuses of practice are the enforcem ent o f pu nishm ent and the m an age­ m en t of risk. (M cN eill 2004: 241) W hen considering the im pact o f such a m erger, with notable exceptions (see N ellis, this volum e) the m ain focus of academ ic and professional attention has to date been directed at technical and econom ic issues. These inclu de value for m oney, contestability around the delivery of particular services to offenders, and the potential benefits of a seam less custodial sen ten ce supported by the distribution of shared resettlem ent paperw ork throu gh th e prison and probation silos. W hilst these factors are undeniably im portant in the creation of N O M S, the lack of attention given by policy-m akers regarding th e fundam ental idea of a cultural and political union of th e probation service and th e prison service has been notew orthy. Indeed, the cultural divide betw een the tw o agencies could be said to have been ignored in th e quest for efficiency and value for m oney (Carter 2003: 5). This is, despite the fact that the Prisons-Probation Review (H om e O ffice 1998: 7 -8 ) had identified 'co ntinu ing conflict of identities and w orking cultures' as a key obstacle to am algam ation. In the creation of N O M S the central issue for the probation service has becom e n othing less than the transform ation of its very nature. T he proposed m erger and accom p anying legislative changes to custodial and com m unity supervision will reconfigure traditional proba­ tion values and ethical stances. By rem oving the traditional custod ycom m unity split and em phasizing the rehabilitative and punitive ethos of 92

‘Tough on probation': probation practice under the National Offender Managem ent Service

both, the probation service's traditional hostility to incarceration will have to be reconfigured. The m erging and form ing of new cultures that em brace incarceration under a unified correctional agency will occur if short-term custodial sentences are to be em braced by probation practitioners. C onvincing probation practitioners o f the usefulness of im prisonm ent is a tricky task, considering that traditionally probation officers have view ed incarceration as a crim inogenic factor. For a large num ber of probation officers, a merger with the prison service is almost like sharing your bed with the enem y, an uneasy association of pro-social m odelling and 'racist gladiator gam es' (Observer, 27 Ju n e 2004). G overnm ent hopes regarding the rehabilitative ethos of the prison sentence concentrate solely on w hat custody can be m ade to do, and not w hat custody takes aw ay from individuals in term s of self-respect, and alienation to the powerful socializing effects of family, em ploym ent and society.

C orre ctio n alism under N O M S U nder the provisions of the Crim inal Justice Act (2003), stand-alone, short-term custodial sentences of under 12 m onths, w here previously the offender was released w ithout supervision, have been abolished. They are replaced with provisions that com bine the custodial sentence with com m unity-based post-release supervision by N O M S. In an attem pt to redress the revolving-door syndrom e of offenders serving half a prison term only to be released w ithout supervision or control, H alliday (Home O ffice 2001) proposed Custody Plus, a new short-term custodial sentence of u n d er 12 m onths w here sen tencers w ould prescribe the length of time to be served in the custodial environm ent (betw een tw o and 13 weeks) and tim e to be served in th e com m unity (Roberts and Sm ith 2004: 186). Clearly the governm ent's aim here is to m ake shorter custodial sentences less destructive and reduce th e 60 per cen t reconviction rate within tw o years of release, that rightly concerned H alliday (H om e O ffice 2001: 126). T he g ov ern m en t has ad op ted tw o fu rth er short-term custodial sentences to com plem ent Custody Plus. T h e Interm ittent Custodial Sentence allows a custodial elem ent of betw een 14 and 90 days to be served at the w eekend or in th e evening, w ith a com m unity based licence served in the rem ainder of the w eek. T he custodial elem ent of the Suspend ed Sentence O rder is held in reserve or suspend ed , subject to the offend er's com pliance with com m unity supervision and ad herence to conditions im posed (Roberts and Sm ith 2004: 186). H ence, all new short­ term custodial sentences contain com m unity based supervision upon release from prison, w here interventions are draw n from the same generic m enu as for com m unity only based sentences. 93

C om m u n ity Justice

The apparent abolition o f ineffective short-term custodial sentences is to be com m ended. Explicit in H alliday's idea of seam less sen tence and end-to-end m an agem en t o f offenders is the im portance of continuity of treatm en t in terv en tio n s w hilst in prison and in the com m u nity. H ow ever, in practice, the 'seam lessness' of the seam less sen tencing is not easily achieved. The plan is that regional offend er m anagers com m ission interventions in both arenas of prison and probation. Treatm ent outcom es that start in the custodial environm ent are then built upon in the com m unity under post-release supervision, possibly w ith the sam e treatm ent provider. Such an approach m ight enhan ce the chances of im proving substance m isuse treatm ent outcom es. H ow ever, less has been said regarding N O M S' ability to integrate th e key cognitive-behavioural accredited program m es across the tw o sectors o f prison and probation. T he m ajority of such program m es are based on sequential learning, and any m issed sessions need to be com pleted in order for the offend er to progress through the program m e. Short-term custodial sentences such as Custody Plus, w here the custodial elem ent could be as little as tw o w eeks, seem illprepared to begin rehabilitation in such a short tim e period. Furtherm ore, th e chances of an offender bein g released from custody to con tin ue a program m e of sequential learning such as E nhanced Thinking Skills, in th e com m unity w ithout disruption will be slim, both in term s of planning and resources. A crucial challenge to the seam less treatm ent of offenders therefore is N O M S' ability to m ove beyond ensuring that assessm ents are not repeated to ensuring that w ork started in custody is not w asted with th e offend er w aiting for sim ilar program m es to start in th e com m unity. The governm ent's proposals am ount to a blurring of traditional conceptions of custody and com m unity. The old 1991 Crim inal Justice Act distinctions betw een different types o f com m unity penalties disappear, as d oes the fu n d am en tal d istin ctio n b e tw e e n the cu stod ial and com m unity based sen tences related to the seriousness of the offence. T he notion that the custodial sen tence signalled the court's ultim ate pu nishm ent for th e offender, w hilst com m unity supervision was the environm ent for rehabilitative w ork, is altered by short-term custodial sen tences w hich now prom ise both. Roberts and Sm ith (2004) question w h eth er the new short-term custodial sentences should be regarded as a traditional com m unity sen ten ce w ith additional conditions of short periods of im prisonm ent. These debates suggest that som ething fundam ental is occurring in term s of the philosophy o f pu nishm ent, signalled by a change in the dom ains in w hich p u n ish m en t is im p lem en ted . It is also w orth rem em bering that sentencers have, up until now , b een show n to be consistently draw n towards the m ore punitive sen tencing alternatives. 94

‘Tough on probation': probation practice under the National Offender Managem ent Service

For exam ple, the rise in sen tencers' use o f the C om bination O rder, a creative m ix of punishm ent and unpaid labour; this disposal was intend ed m ainly for use in the Crow n courts, yet m ost cam e from m agistrates' courts, raising serious concerns about net w idening (see Mair, Sibbit and Crisp 1994). W hilst the N O M S sen tencing arrangem ents are intend ed to reduce prison num bers in the long term , sim ilar strategies im plem ented in N ew Zealand and Finland resulted in the opposite outcom e - a rise in prison num bers (Coyle 2004: 16-17). This m ust surely sound a w arning for the UK initiative and is yet another issue to be addressed if the aims of N O M S are to be successfully carried through. C hanges to short-term custodial sentences, and the resultant blurring of the cu stod ial-com m unity distinction, will have a profound effect on th e role of probation intervention and in w orking with offenders to change behaviour. T he N ational Probation Service will w ork m ore closely w ith prisons, to develop and 'm arket' com m unity based disposals based increasingly up on com m unity incapacitation and exclusion. This is aim ed at increasing sen tencer confid ence in tough new com m unity supervision that aims to 'protect the public', despite the fact that previous attem pts to im prove sen tencer confid ence in com m unity penalties generally resulted in increasing the severity o f those penalties (H edderm an, Ellis and Sugg 1999). Supervisory practices involving the control and restraint of in d iv id u als via tagg in g o n h o m e arrest, e lectro n ically m o n itored exclusion zones and lie detector testing will b e com m onplace. C om m u­ nity penalties will have to control offenders' lives to an ever greater authoritarian degree w ith all disposals focused around pu nishm ent rather than rehabilitation. G en eric co m m u n ity p e n a lties will em erg e w ith a p leth o ra of additional enforceable conditions to appear tougher and m ore d em and ­ ing. As such a supervisory relationship will b e based on the authoritative pow er of the probation officer over the offender. Indeed , it is likely that th e m onitoring and surveillance in h eren t in com m unity supervision will becom e an end in itself as technology develops to the point at w hich the inform ation on com pliance or non-com pliance takes precedence over all o ther con tact w ith an offend er. U ltim ately the vision is that the supervision process could becom e akin to m oving a chess piece around the board, w ith the offend er m anager perm itting certain m oves and behaviou r but not others. This, rather than a w orking relationship w here supervision agendas are skilfully negotiated, shared and agreed, will define the law enforcem ent role o f the probation officer. H istorically, the probation service's key values w ere the prom otion of com m unity based supervision based on a belief in the benefits of anti­ incarceration. Explicit in this rehabilitative approach has been the value of longer-term objectives in w orking alongside offenders to change their 95

C om m u n ity Justice

thinking patterns, their moral outlook and subsequent behaviou r w ithin the com m unity context. T h e probation service's optim istic outlook was that all offenders w ith the appropriate services and guidance could change their behaviour. It is w orrying that in aband oning its traditional anti-incarcerative value base, probation officers m ay begin to propose short-term custodial sen tences in order to m anage short-term risk factors, or avoid com m unity waiting lists for drug treatm ent rather than offering alternatives to them . The risk is that by blurring the boundaries betw een the separate aims of p u nishm ent and rehabilitation, w e end up w ith the 'w orst of both w orlds'. Probation officers m ay com e to view prison as a positive experience, w ith bursts o f incarceration bein g the norm - w ith all its social exclusionary potential to perpetuate th e offend ing behaviou r cycle; and, of course, prison num bers m ay well rise, so m ore people will be affected. W ithin the com m u nity, th e probation officer's role then becom es solely con cern ed w ith the public protection agenda and carrying on the custodial intervention and control in the com m unity rather than providing a distinguishable alternative to incarceration.

T h e new punitivism C u rren t political d iscourse im plies a futu re vision of com m u nity supervision w here punishm ent, com m unity control and surveillance are seen as central drivers of com m unity supervision. This em phasis and reconfiguration of th e creative mix really builds up on the challenges posed by th e 2003 Act in term s of selling com m unity based sentences to sentencers w ithin a m arket place of attractive custodial penalties. In selling com m unity supervision on its ability to get tough w ith offenders, effective technology and policing are em phasized as prim ary, w hilst the therapeu tic relationship betw een probation officer and offend er is relegated or ignored altogether. This view of using technology to m anage and exclude offenders, was expressed by th e then H om e Secretary David B lu nkett (cited in Cow an 2004: 1) w hen he stated that 'th e new technology will allow the developm ent and prom otion of the tough com m unity sen tences w hich are vital if we are to p revent re­ offend ing and give non-violent offenders a chance to serve an effective sen tence in the com m unity.' So, in order to prom ote com m unity supervision to both sentencers and th e public, the non-violent, non-sexual offend er has to receive a punitive penalty. O ddly, despite the public's view of rehabilitation as the prim ary aim of sentencing, they also see prison as the best w ay to achieve this (H om e O ffice 2001: A ppendix 5): a net-w idening im pact of greater 96

‘Tough on probation': probation practice under the National Offender Managem ent Service

scrutiny, control and sw ifter enforcem ent practices for all offenders, irrespective of seriousness and risk. This is congruous to Rose and H utton's analysis of late m odern society b ein g divided into the affluent, the com fortable, and the underclass (cited in N ellis 1999). The underclass are the perm anently excluded individuals w hose behaviou r is con­ strained and controlled by governm ent agencies, including the probation service, rather than subjected to any serious efforts at social inclusion. This is w here use of the term 'com m unity' becom es devious: it is often used to su gg est at best a carin g, w elcom in g place for offen d er rehabilitation and reintegration to take place. Rather, here it is in effect a prison-esque setting of restraint and punishm ent. For instance, the H om e S ecretary B lu n k ett's initiativ e for the prob atio n service in delivering 'prison w ithout bars' in the com m unity by th e use of satellite technology is a contem porary illustration o f th e prim acy of control and surveillance in political discourse and policy developm ent (Cow an 2004). By extend ing th e prison environm en t's control and surveillance into the com m unity, B lu nkett perceived technology as effective in reducing crim e by 15 p er cent. There is no reference to the longer-term need to change behaviour. Indeed, w hen satellite tracking is said to be effective with dom estic violence offenders, no m ention is m ade of th e new ly accredited dom estic violence program m e designed to change pro-violent attitudes in th e longer term. Elsew here, Blunkett also m inim ized th e prospect of behaviour change by probation officers: believing that offenders in the com m unity will reduce their re­ offend ing through occasional interview s w ith probation officers is . . . naive. T herefore, in the com m u nity w e hav e introd uced vigorous supervision w ith m u ch m ore use of electronic tagging and d em and ing sentences. (H om e O ffice 2004: 9) This political pessim ism and sense o f resignation regarding the ability of probation officers to effect behaviou r change, despite the prom otion of th e W hat W orks initiative, is also reflected in Prim e ¿Minister Blair's statem ent that: you cannot change a person into som ething else - let's be realistic but w hat has to hap p en is that the penalty they are paying for being a nuisance becom es m ore o f a hassle to them than to stop being like that. (Blair in Roberts 2004: 12) This reflects a view of offenders as rational choice actors susceptible to deterrence rather than socially excluded, im poverished or dam aged

97

C om m u n ity Justice

individuals, w ith little prospect o f an im provem ent in their circum ­ stances. B lair and B lu n k e tt clearly v iew ed th e su p erv isio n p ro cess as insufficiently controlling. T hey prom oted the use of 'a t a distance' surveillance techniques to m axim ize the m an agem en t of the individual an d red u ce o ffe n d in g by c o n ce n tra tin g efforts on red u cin g the opportunities to offend. It is apparent that by 'talking up' the prison service's ability to perform positive rehabilitative roles, incarceration becom es a substance m isuse detoxification unit w ithout a w aiting list (H M CIC 2004: 29) or, ironically, an environm ent to rescue an offender from a pro-crim inal peer group in the com m unity. C om m unity super­ vision is alternatively prom oted not on its strength in engaging in rehabilitative w ork b u t in its ability to replicate the traditionally prisonbased stren g th s of su rv eillan ce and in cap acitatio n , b u t w ithin a com m unity context. Seam lessness has com e to m ean that both the prison and probation environm ents u n d er the N O M S fram ew ork will provide various blends of the sam e thing, w ith each entering into the other's traditional areas of function and strength.

Roles and responsibilities K ey to the success of Carter's end-to-end m anagem ent of offenders is the ability of the practitioner to m anage interventions w hilst the offender is in the custodial or com m unity arena. It is also clear that the vast m ajority of probation officers will becom e national offender m anagers and will be responsible for the assessm ent, supervision planning and enforcem ent of court sentences. The offender intervention remit and rehabilitative work w ith offenders is to be split from this task and opened up for contestability w ith the private and not for profit sectors (Carter 2003: 33). This division in roles and responsibilities gives rise to a nu m ber of concerns. First, offend er m an agem en t and in terv ention s will be m anaged separately; this will further distance case m anagers from rehabilitation, th u s creatin g a p u rch aser/p rovid er split th at directly m atches an enforcem ent/rehabilitation split. T here is a potential, here at least, that th e offend er m anager role assum es a narrow m anagerial focus of com m u n ity enforcer and surveillance officer, w ith little room for individual m otivation or a w orking relationship based on m utual respect and persuasion. W hether national o ffend er m anagers prioritize tough enforcem ent practice, or focus on their role in support of rehabilitation, becom es critical in determ ining w h eth er individually tailored offender interventions con tin ue or the o ffend er becom es another drop-out from

98

‘Tough on probation': probation practice under the National Offender Managem ent Service

the program m e of intervention w ith the 'gain s m ade by the offenders prior to breach proceedings sacrificed on the altar of tough m indedness' (H edderm an and H ough 2000: 5). W ith regard to contestibility, concern is also raised regarding the proposal that w ithin five years the core role of offender m anagers (i.e. the supervision and m anagem ent o f offenders) is to be subject to con test­ ability with private and not for profit sectors (Garside 2004: 7). By taking on the central offender m anagem ent role, the benefits to offenders from flexible, creative and client-centred interventions from the non-statutory sector will be com prom ised by the current m anagerialism inh eren t in the supervisory process. O ffenders will surely miss out on accessing services from the voluntary sector that are outside the ideological and political constraints of the crim inal ju stice system , and/or that are not seen as sufficiently repressive or punitive in order to gain sentencer approval. For non-statutory organizations w ith healthy service user participation philosophies, this w ould presently necessitate a m ove aw ay from client-centred practice to create their ow n dom ains of pow er betw een crim inal justice professional and offender. It m ay also eventually im pact on their funding, creating heavy d ep en d en ce on crim inal justice m oney and therefore incorporation w ithin th e extend ing corrections-indu strial com plex (Ellis and W instone 2002).

D o e s punitivism w ork? M e ssage s from research There is an assum ption throu ghou t current political discourse and policy initiatives that crim e reduction can be effectively achieved through d eterrence and retribution. Significantly, the 2003 Crim inal Justice Act requires any courts to have regard to th e purposes of sentences w hich include the reduction of crim e: 'th e reduction by d eterrence' (Crim inal Justice Act 2003, Part 12, C h apter 1, Section 142). D esp ite this n ew p u n itiv ism , ho w ev er, acad em ic research has questioned the im pact of deterrence to reduce crim e in a sim ple cause and effect way. After evaluating d eterrence research, M cG uire (2002: 5) concludes that studies of sen tence severity and recidivism do not show any 'unam biguous link b etw een th e severity of penalties and recidivism outcom es'. M oreover, M cG uire (2002) observes that the likelihood of re­ o ffend ing is little influenced by the sen tences im posed on offenders and m any as bein g 'im pervious' to the effects of crim inal sanctions (M cGuire 2002: 5). There is no m agic bullet, eith er for d eterrin g offend ing individuals, or by setting a punitive exam ple to others. It would certainly be more fruitful to focus on im proving detection certainty than to rely on

99

C om m u n ity Justice

any m arginal increase in deterrence through 'to u g hening ' sanctions (Bottom s 2004; von H irsch et al 1999). It is also very clear in the H alliday Report's ow n evidence (H om e O ffice 2001: 117) that sentencers and all o ther crim inal ju stice professionals (with the exception of solicitors) saw gen eral d eterren ce as a m inor con sid eration for the pu rposes of sentencing. D eterrence is likely to be far m ore effective for those individuals w ho have a great deal to lose by th e crim inal sanction. T he core probation officer caseload o f persistent offenders have little or nothing to lose in this respect and hence the d eterrent threat is assessed as having no discernible treatm ent effect (H edderm an and H ough 2004). Turning to the crim e reduction potential o f com m unity incapacitation, M cG uire cites research by PetersiUa and Turner (1993 cited in M cG uire 2002) w hich found no favourable treatm en t im pact betw een those offenders w ho had received an intensive form o f supervision, increased surveillance and electronic m onitoring, and those w ho w ere not m ade subject to this intensive form o f supervision. As a result M cG uire (2002) concludes that 'tu rning up the heat' by increased m onitoring and restrictions on offenders has no beneficial effect in reducing crim inal behaviour, yet this is exactly w hat sentencers tend to do w hen presented w ith the chance (Mair, Sibbit and Crisp 1994, H edderm an, Ellis and Sugg 1999). The perceived relationship betw een tougher enforcem ent of com m u­ nity penalties and low er reconviction rates has also been to the forefront in term s of the toughening up of such supervisory processes through deterrence. T h e reasoning appears to be that if offenders are aw are that th e probation service is a 'law enforcem ent agency' (H om e O ffice 2000) and that it responds to non-com pliance by returning th e offend er to court with a threat of im prisonm ent, offenders will com ply with the court order, and ind eed the threat of a custodial sen tence will deter them from crim inal behaviour. A lternatively, H ed d erm an and H ou g h's (2004) findings from their research into this area are: O ur ow n view is that offenders under probation supervision typically have a long history o f insensitivity to d eterrent threat w h eth er m ade in the hom e, the classroom , in the you th justice system or in the adult courts. (H edderm an and H ough 2004: 163) In trying to ascertain w hether tougher enforcem ent action 'w orked' to reduce crim e, the A ssociation of C h ief O fficers of Probation (ACOP) found that tough enforcem ent action in one probation area, w hen com pared to a probation area w ith less robust enforcem ent practice, did not correlate to any reduction in re-offend ing rates (see H edd erm an and

100

‘Tough on probation': probation practice under the National Offender Managem ent Service

H ough 2004 and Ellis 2000). The evidence for the effectiveness of enforcem ent is insubstantial: see, for instance, M ay and W adw ell (2001) based on only tw o probation services. H ow ever, evidence of the lack of a clear causal relationship betw een enforcem ent and reconvictions is easier to com e by. As H earnd en and M illie (2004: 55) state: O ffend ers exposed to tough enforcem ent regim es have reconviction rates that are no different from those in more lenien t probation areas. In oth er w ords, those areas w hich have departed m ost from the Standards have not paid a price in term s of reconviction rates. T he acid test for the N O M S 'p ro ject' is perhaps to com e up w ith a com pliance system that is m ore creative and based on evidence of W hat W orks. The danger is that it will be far easier to stick to sim plistic m anagerialist enforcem ent (and now com pliance) targets w ithin a m ulti­ agency environm ent. Exam ples of this type of approach are already easy to find and have show n no progression in th e requirem ent for evidencebased practice (see, for exam ple, Probation Circulars 24/00 and 43/2004). W hilst the m easurable and tougher enforcem ent agenda is firmly entrenched into contem porary probation practice, w ithout conclusive evidence as to its effectiveness in reducing offend ing rates academ ic discourse is ever m ore critical of the relationship betw een com m unity penalties, tough enforcem ent action and the probation service's rem it to reduce re-offending. The num ber of C om m unity R ehabilitation O rders that have run their full course and com pleted the program m e of intervention has decreased steadily from 70 per cen t in 1993 to only 57 per cen t in 2003 (Probation Statistics 2003). In 2003, only 24 p er cen t of Drug Treatm ent and Testing O rders ran their full course and 31 per cen t w ere breached for failure to com ply w ith requirem ents. T h e tensions probation officers feel tow ards their enforcem ent role have been reflected upon in th e literature. Academ ics such as Ellis (2000) and H earndon and M illie (2004) question the effectiveness o f a m echanistic and adm inis­ trative e n fo rce m e n t practice d esig n ed to p red o m in an tly reassu re sentencers and politicians that the service can appear tough with offenders. K ey to this new sense o f disquiet are the m essages from research that offenders w ho begin program m es of cognitive-behavioural treatm ent and w ho subsequently drop out o f such treatm ent are actually at a far higher risk of re-offending in the future than those offenders w ho nev er took part in the treatm ent in the first place (see H edd erm an 2004). Research by C ann et al (2003) indicates that the higher reconviction rates for drop-outs from accredited program m es in the prison system com prised the 2.5 per cent treatm ent effect found on those offenders w ho

101

C om m unity Justice

actually com pleted the program m e of intervention. The detrim ental effect found for drop-outs m ore than cancelled out the beneficial effect for those w ho m anaged to com plete their program m e. The higher reconviction rate for program m e drop-outs was 28.7 per cent com pared w ith 23.8 per cen t for those in the com parison group w ho did not undertake the accredited program m e. Significantly in this respect, a preoccupation with enforcem ent and breach does n othing to address how practitioners can ensure the high attendance or com pletion rates that are essential to secure a reduction in recidivism (U nderdow n 2000). Taking such research findings into account, contem porary com m unity supervision, characterized by tough enforcem ent practice and significant non-com pletion of the intervention program m e, m ay only replicate the current concerns regarding th e revolving door of short-term prison sentences: but under N O M S, the offend er m anager is holding the door. The beginnings of a realistic approach to achieving com pliance and the reduction of re-offend ing has found its w ay into the joint Inspection Report into Persistent and Prolific O ffenders, w here the m echanistic enforcem ent agenda was foun d w anting w ith this 'h ard to reach' group of offenders. The report calls for a m ore creative, proactive form of supervisory practice, citing outreach w ork as successful (H M CIC 2005). Indeed, sen tencer dissatisfaction w ith com m unity supervision for persistent and prolific offenders may not be easily reduced to a dem and for tougher pu nishm ent, but rather dissatisfaction w ith the probation service's ability to intervene effectively with this offender group. W hilst 33 per cen t of persistent offenders w ere sen tenced to custody, 31 per cent of the offend er group received a financial penalty and only 8 per cen t a C om m unity Rehabilitation O rder. This lack of confidence in com m unity supervision, as opposed to the use o f financial penalties is even more rem arkable in view of recidivism rates as high as 96 per cen t for some yo u n g adult persistent offenders (H M CIC 2005).

T h e end of the probation service: an end to critical debate? H istorically, the probation service has assum ed a unique role w ithin the crim inal justice system . Indicative of this historical role has been the service's concern w ith the excessive punitive use of incarceration as a form of p u nishm ent, and especially regarding the im pact of labelling the individual as prisoner. The creation of a unified correctional service could signal the final end to the traditional hum anistic, penal reductivist critical pulse in the heart of the com m unity ju stice process (see Nellis this V olum e). By m erging w ith the prison service u n d er N O M S, the

102

‘Tough on probation': probation practice under the National Offender Managem ent Service

probation service faces an extension of 'com m and and control' central governance and standardized services to offenders, courts and com m u­ nity. It m ay be, w ith the blurring of the custodial and com m unity divide in sentencing, and the absence of a questioning and critical value base w ithin the crim inal justice system , that probation officers' traditional anticustodialism will dim inish and custody will be proposed as an effective w ay to both punish and rehabilitate. Duff (2003: 188) offers an alternative to social w ork or punitivism . H e refers to p u nishm ent as a 'com m unicative enterprise'. This is his supervisory paradigm w hich tries transparently to persuade the offender not to offend again in the future. It aim s to confront the offend er with the effects of his or h er offend in g behaviou r and challenges them to face up to the need for behaviou r and attitudinal change. Furtherm ore, D uff's ideal sees the role of the probation officer (or future offend er m anager) to be a m ediator b etw een offender, their victim s and the com m unity in w hich they both live. H ence the supervisory relationship is tough and burdensom e, as it brings h om e to th e offend er how his or h er behaviour has transgressed com m unity values and how engaging in behaviou r change can achieve the goals of penan ce, moral con cern for others and future reconciliation w ith the com m unity (Duff 2003: 187-188). The probation officer is not seen as traditionally on the offend er's side in Duff's ideal, b u t rather is seen to speak for the w ider com m unity w hen supervising the offend er in a m orally plausible conception of com m unity punishm ent. D uff's com m unicative pu nishm ent ideal resonates with victim s and has value in securing public and sen tencer confid ence in the generic com m unity sen tence of the future. It transcends m erely being restrictive, and acting tough w ith offenders. It is clear that the probation service has to respond to the changes in society and penal landscape at the beginn ing of a new century. Indeed, the m ove to the creation of N O M S and the increasing prioritization of econom ics, risk avoidance, and surveillance are a sym ptom of w hat Garland (1996) has called the crisis in penal welfarism and a m ove to a new form of crim e control m odel. M odernization and progression, although not necessarily the sam e thing, are beyond reproach. As society becom es m ore com plex and solutions to crim inality and pu nishm ent increasingly adopt new form s and value bases, the service cannot cling to its altruistic value base and sw im against th e tide for fear of increasingly bein g sidelined as a social w ork dinosaur of the past. It is unrealistic to argue for a return to the probation service of history, of an alternative to pu nishm ent by the court, of special pleading or conditional mercy. B u t in repositioning the probation service w e are in d anger of killing som e of its historic defining characteristics.

103

C o m m u n it y Justice

R e fe re n c e s Bottoms, A. (2004) 'Empirical Research Relevant to Sentencing Frameworks', in A. Bottoms, S. Rex and G. Robinson (eds), Alternatives to Prison: Options fo r ait Insecure Society. Cullompton: Willan. Cann, T., Falshaw, L., N ugent, F. and Friendship, C. (2003) 'Understanding What Works: accredited cognitive skills programmes by adult m en and young offenders.' H ome Office Research Findings 226. Carter, I’. (2003) M anaging Offenders, Changing Lives: A Nezv Approach. Report of the Correctional Services Review. London: Strategy Unit. Cowan R. (2004) 'W elcom e to the Prison without Bars', Guardian, 3 September. Coyle, A. (2004) 'Lessons from Abroad', in Safer Society, 21, Summer. NACRO. Dobson, G. (2004) 'G et Carter', Probation Journal, 51 (2): 144-154. Duff, R.A. (2003) 'Probation, Punishm ent and Restorative Justice: Should Altrusim Be Engaged in Punishm ent?', Howard Journal o f Criminal Justice, 42 (2): 181-197. Ellis, T. (2000) 'Enforcem ent Policy and Practice: Evidence-Based or Rhetoric Based', Criminal Justice Matters. 39, Spring: 6-8. Ellis, T., and Winstone, J. (2002) 'The Policy Impact of a Survey of Programme Evaluations in England and Wales: Towards a N ew Corrections - Industrial Complex?' in J. McGuire (ed.) Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment. Chichester: Wiley. Garland, D. (1996) 'Probation and the Reconfiguration of Crime Control', in R. Burnett (ed.), The Probation Service: Responding to Change, Proceeds of the Probation Studies Unit, First Colloquium. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garside, R. (2004) 'W ho Delivers and Why it M atters', Safer Society, 21. NACRO. H eam don, C. and Millie, A. (2004) 'Does Tougher Enforcement Lead to Lower Reconviction?', Probation Journal, 51 (1): 48-58. Hedderman, C., Ellis, T. and Sugg, D. (1999) Increasing Confidence in Community Sentences: The Results o f Two Demonstration Projects, Home Office Research Study 194. London: Home Office. Hedderman, C. and Hough, M. (2004) 'G etting Tough or Being Effective: What M atters?', in G. Mair (ed.), What Matters in Probation. Cullompton: Willan. Hedderman, C. and Hough, M. (2000) 'G etting Tough or Being Effective: What M atters?', in G. Mair (2004) What Matters in Probation. Cullompton: Willan Publishing. Hedderman, C. and Hough, M. (2000) 'Tightening Up Probation: A Step Too Far?', Criminal Justice Matters, 39, Spring: 5. HMCIC (Her M ajesty Chief Inspector of Constabulary et al) (2005) Joint Inspection report into Persistent and Prolific Offenders. HMI. Home Office (1998) Prisons-Probation Review Final Report, Chapters 2 and 3. downloaded from http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/ppr2.html, 15 January 2005. Home Office (2000) National Standards fo r the Supervision o f Offenders in the Community. London: Home Office. Home Office (2001) M aking Punishments Work. Report o f a Review o f the Sentencing Framezuork fo r England and Wales. (Halliday Report) London: Home Office. H ome Office (2004) Reducing Crime, Changing Lives. London: Home Office. Mair, G., Sibbit, R. and Crisp, D. (1994) The Combination Order - An interim report. Home Office Research and Planning Unit (unpublished).

104

‘T o u g h o n p ro b a tio n ': p ro b a tio n practice u n d e r the N a tio n a l O ff e n d e r M a n a g e m e n t Service

May, C. and Wadwell, J. (2001) Enforcing Community Penalties: The Relationship Between Enforcement and Reconviction. Home Office Research Study 155. London: Home Office. McGuire, J. (2002) 'Integrating Findings from Research Reviews', in J. McGuire (ed.), Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment. Effective Programmes and Policies to Reduce Re­ offending. Chichester: Wiley. McNeill, F. (2004) 'Supporting Desistance in Probation Practice: A Reply to Maruna, Porter and Carlvalho', Probation Journal, 51 (3): 241-247. Nellis, M. (1999) 'Towards "T he field of Corrections": Modernizing the Probation Service in the Late 1990's', Social Policy and Administration, 33 (3) September: 302313. Roberts, J. and Smith, M.E. (2004) 'Custody Plus, Custody Minus' in M. Tonry (ed.) Confronting Crime: crime control policy under Neiv Labour. Cullompton: Willan. Roberts, S. (2004)' Government Strategy: Increasing Community Safety or Courting the Decent Majority' in Criminal Justice Matters, No. 57 Autumn: p l2-14. Underdown, A. (2001) 'M aking "W hat Works" work: Challenges in the delivery of Community Penalties' in A. E. Bottoms, L. Gelsthorpe and S. Rex (eds) Community Penalities: change and challenges. Cullompton: Willan. von Hirsch, A., Bottoms, A. E., Burney, E. and Wikstrom, P. O. (1999) Criminal Deterrence and Sentence Severity: An Analysis o f Recm t Research. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

105

C h a p te r 7

W orkin g for community justice: a H om e Office perspective Chris Lewis

This chapter considers recent d evelopm ents in policy and research on the treatm ent of offenders from the point of view of the H om e O ffice. It will start w ith a brief history of the present, after w hich it will consider how the views and priorities of the H om e O ffice have changed from 1995 onw ards until the present day. Finally, this chapter will offer a look to the future, as well as the context surround ing the instigation and im plem entation of the N ational O ffend er M anagem ent Service (N O M S).

H isto ry of W h a t W o r k s in treatm ent of offenders in probation D uring 2004 four im portant accounts of how practice in England and W ales has changed since 1990 w ere published, each taking a different point of view. T hey w ere w ritten by Jam es M cG uire, G eorge Mair, C hristine K nott, and G em m a H arper and Chloe Chitty. W e will review these publications in turn before m oving on to the state of affairs from 1995 onwards. Jam es M cG uire is a leading international expert on w hat w orks in the treatm ent of offenders and understands the issues from a practical point of view . He highlights the im portance of environm ental factors and socialization but also of personal factors such as the individual's cognitive and em otional developm ent. His book goes into the detail of the research foundations of factors that lead to offending, and of the developm ent of offend er behaviou r program m es; it gives a psychologi­ cal p ersp ectiv e to such co n ce p ts as re trib u tio n , d eterren ce and incapacitation, and looks at the m ain practical applications of psychol­ 106

W o rk in g for com m unity justice: a H o m e Office perspective

ogy in sentencing. H e takes us back to the 1970s in a good degree of detail, w here poor research had led to the conclusion that 'n oth in g w orks', and describes the developm ent of large-scale studies or m eta­ analyses in the 1980s and 1990s that restored the potential of offender program m es to the forefront of policy and practice d evelopm ent in N orth Am erica. H e also goes through w hat works best with different types of offenders (M cG uire 2004). Professor G eorge M air has been a senior researcher in the H om e Office Research Unit and as an academ ic is now able to look at the policy im plem entation area from the outside. H e subtitles his chapter 'A H ouse Built on Sand ?' and m akes the case that the benefits of rehabilitating offenders through treatm ent have b een overem phasized. He stresses the im portance of key H om e O ffice individuals influencin g policy in this area, over-hasty im plem entation of program m es and the lengthy period before evaluations appeared show ing that program m es w ere not as successful as they m ight have been . H e concludes that 'cu rrent [2003] conditions do not appear to be very encouraging for the W hat Works in itiativ e', and hopes th at 'b alan ced reflective w ork w hich uses traditional skills but is not afraid to try out new m ethods characterises the probation service of the 21st century' (Mair, 2004b: 31). Christine K nott has a m ore m easured approach (Knott 2004), as befits som eone still engaged at the highest level in the National O ffender M anagem ent Service (NOM S) in m anaging offenders. She starts with the H om e Office Effective Practice initiative of 1998 (Home O ffice 1998b), quickly moves through effective practice principles, the W hat Works strategy of 2000, structural changes, and the O ffender Assessm ent System (OASys), to an account of w here the policy had got to by mid-2003, including lessons learned and likely future directions. She is m ore positive than Mair, saying 'figures show that we have been able to m ake a difference' and that despite m ajor changes proposed following the Carter Report, 'w e have a great deal of success on w hich to build and a w ealth of talent and skill w ithin the Probation Service to see improved services to offenders that ultim ately create a safer and a better society' (Knott 2004:27). Gem m a H arper and Chloe C hitty (H arper and Chitty 2004) are senior researchers in the H om e O ffice w orking on the evid ence base for the im pact of corrections on re-offending. T heir review of 'w h at works' pulls together all the research evid ence and m uch of the policy context of the period 1999 to 2004. It is essential reading to appreciate the current position of the H om e O ffice regarding how far the prison and probation services and the Y outh Justice Board can actually reduce offending. It also calls for a m ore robust basis for research in this area, a feature we will return to later in this chapter. 107

C om m u n ity Justice

The H om e Office perspective in 1995 T he H om e O ffice perspective in 1995 can be characterized as follows: •

There were 50-plus probation areas dealing with com m unity justice. M any of these areas had different boundaries from other agencies, m aking it difficult to liaise with the police or the courts. They were controlled locally, but a central H om e Office unit had m uch financial control. There was no head of the probation service, certainly not the head of the H om e Office Probation Unit, w ho was always a professional civil servant, w ith often no previous experience of probation. Some guidelines were set centrally, but there was no central advice or assistance on offender programmes.

•

Her M ajestj/s Inspectorate of Probation was located within the Home Office. Its traditional role was to inspect and improve the service. From around 1995, it becam e clear that the chief inspector was keen to extend his activities towards leading the probation service into embracing change, particularly as far as effective practice was concerned. There was no body of people more qualified to do this, but there was also no authority to do anything more than attem pt to exert influence.

•

The probation service was sidelined under the (then) H om e Secretary w ho had concentrated on the police service, and on increasing the prison population as a deterrent to crim e, despite the probation service claiming to know better how to deal w ith offenders than the prison service. H owever, this did not result in an im provem ent in recidivism, and reconviction rates after a com m unity sentence were the same as those following prison. Although the probation service was in no danger of being abolished, it was certainly out of favour and struggling for funds.

•

In a similar fashion, the Home Office Research Directorate was regarded as trying to promote offender-friendly initiatives out of fashion with those in power. Research itself was structured in a very old-fashioned way, statistics were separated from research and all police and much prison research were carried out in organizations separate from the research directorate. Although Chris Nuttall, the head of research, had the charism a and N orth American experience spoken of by Mair (2004b), he had no secure base from w hich to expect success for the policies that he espoused on offender treatment. Research funding was constrained and the very existence of the research directorate in its then form was thought to be under threat, especially if the Conservative governm ent were to be returned.

108

W o rk in g for com m unity justice: a H o m e Office perspective

•

In contrast, the prison service was coping well with increasing numbers, and at the same time pushing ahead with developing, accrediting and im plem enting offender programmes, following the N orth American model. By 1995 they had set up the O ffending Behaviour Programme Unit in Prison Service H Q and were working towards setting up two panels: the Sex O ffenders Treatment Accreditation Panel (SOTAP) and the General Accreditation Panel (GAP) for other offender programmes.

Thus in 1995, the developm ent of offend er program m es in the probation service w as left to individual areas, w ith little central direction, finance, accreditation or pressure for program m es to show that they were achieving their aim of reducing reconviction rates.

D e ve lo pm e n ts after the 1997 election The 1997 election returned a N ew Labour governm ent. This m ade little difference at first. M any crim inal ju stice policies w ere similar to previous ones and there was no extra m oney for new developm ents until 1999. M o reo v er, N ew L ab ou r c o n ce n tra ted on th e ir crim e p re v e n tio n initiatives that had been trailed in their m anifesto, w ith their m ain aim to set up local crim e prevention partnerships. H ow ever, there w ere som e areas of developm ent. Betw een 1995 and 1999 several changes placed the H om e Office in a m uch better position to be able to respond to governm ent w hen , as was predicted by som e, it w ould attem pt to reduce crim e by spend ing m ore m oney on the treatm ent of offenders. The research unit m erged w ith the statistical dep artm ents into th e m atic areas in 1996 to give m ore strategic em p h asis to the d ev e lo p m e n t of p robation an d prison research . T his led to the publication of a study that listed the different crim inal ju stice policies that 'w orked' in reducing crim e (N uttall, Goldblatt and Lewis 1998). The study covered all social areas save drug treatm ent and basic skills provision. Thus, effectiveness of probation policies was confined to a share of the 20 pages dealing w ith offenders (V ennard and H edderm an 1998). M any aspects, particularly im plem entation and training, w ere not covered in any detail. N either did the research attem pt to analyse w hether program m es that w ere developed in different jurisdictions could be transferred to England and W ales, or w hether they w ould need to be changed. As part of its role to encourage the best standards of m anagem ent and probation practice, the Probation Inspectorate com m issioned a study in 1997 of effective practice in the probation service (Ellis and U nderdow n 1998). The authors looked at evaluation results available for program m es 109

C om m u n ity Justice

operating since O ctober 1992. Returns w ere m ade by 43 areas on 210 potentially suitable program m es. T h e survey provided an account of the incid ence and quality of outcom e evaluation. A fter several stages of en qu iry, th e barriers to su ccessfu l ev alu ation b ecam e clear, and eventually only 11 studies w ere identified as having som e value as case exam ples of good evaluation practice. G iven the lack of any central direction or fu n d ing this was not entirely surprising. The H M IP w ork also developed key criteria for assessing program m e quality: targeting, eligibility and assessm ent, staffing, program m e design, program m e delivery, case m anagem ent, evaluation and m onitoring. This w ork had considerable policy im pact (see Ellis and W instone 2002). Follow ing this report, w hich th e chief inspector called one of th e m ost im portant reports that it had ever produced, H M IP published their guide to Effective Practice (H om e O ffice 1998b) to seek to address issues of professional practice, operational m an agem en t and b est practice in m onitoring and evaluating. This w as an im portant d ocu m ent that focu sed not only on central practice b u t also on the day-to-day experience of m any probation officers delivering effective offend er program m es in their local areas. In July 1997 a P risons-Probation Review was set up to consid er ways in w hich the better integration o f the two services could im prove their efficiency and perform ance. This included im plications for the structure, organisation, m anagem ent and w orking practices, hum an resources, fu n d ing and legislation governing the functions of those services. This recom m ended (H om e Office 1998a) that prison and probation should rem ain separate bu t that probation services should coincide w ith the 42 police areas. It also recom m ended that m uch p lanning for th e prison and probation services ought to be carried out in com m on; in particular there should be a m ore effective m an agem en t of offend er program m es, inclu ding com m on approaches to risk assessm ent and m anagem ent, accreditation of offend er program m es and to research and evaluation. M any H om e O ffice personnel felt that the question of w h eth er the prison and probation services should b e m erged into a corrections service such as existed in several other countries had sim ply b een postponed rather than rejected perm anently. At the sam e tim e a com prehensive spend ing review (CSR) resulted in the H om e O ffice getting around som e £200 m illion of the new m oney that the N ew Labour governm ent m ade available from 1999. A single o utpu t m easure of reducing crim e w as set as a criterion for how this new m oney should b e allocated to crim inal ju stice agencies. This led to a long 'w ish lis t of new initiatives that agencies felt could gain them m ore resources. M ost of the m oney w ent to the m ore pow erful agencies such as th e police, w hether or not the proposals w ere backed by evidence. In 110

W o rk in g for com m unity justice: a H o m e Office perspective

areas such as prisons and probation, m oney tended to be m ade available w here evidence of reducing crim e could be produced. W orking with offenders was one of these areas. A lthough, in retrospect, this all seem s rather well planned , the truth was that the considerable success of the CSR was a great surprise to most. It partly reflected the lack o f any other forward thinking in H om e Office areas such as Im m igration. The CSR thus led to large investm ents in program m es across the ju stice system . Civil servants and ju stice services alike w ere unprepared for the dem ands that w ere about to be m ade on them . This was not only the need to respond to greater investm ent in program m es, but to bring both the structures and the hum an resources of agencies up to date and in line w ith other agencies. In the probation area, this am ounted to th e following: • The National Probation Service would be set up as soon as possible. • Local services would be m erged into 42 areas. • A joint accreditation system for offender programmes would be set up. • An offenders' assessm ent system, again jointly with prisons, was to be set up. • M oney was available for pilot offender programmes from April 1999. • Evaluation was vital and to be built in from the start. In addition, all other crim inal ju stice services w ere expected to deliver reductions in crim e, all staff w ould be trained in new system s, all investm ent program m es w ould need to be evaluated and all IT system s w ould be brought up to date. T h e em phasis on evaluation and on good IT system s created great dem ands on staff. These w ere im possible to deliver in the short term. In fact, it was not really until 2004 that the need for a coh erent structure for evaluation was fully set dow n by the H om e Office (H arper and Chitty 2004). W e shall return to the effect of this political pressure to deliver reductions in crim e. For the m om ent, w e look in m ore detail at the area of accreditation, and how this pushed forward th e w ork of the probation and prison services on offend er program m es.

Accreditation The accreditation panel for correction program m es was one of the first new structures to be set up. It was a relaunch of the Prison Service panels to add com m unity program m es to reduce re-offend ing with offender program m es. It was know n as the Joint A ccreditation Panel (JAP), later the Correctional Services A ccreditation Panel (CSAP) and was a non-

C om m u n ity Justice

departm ental public body funded by the H om e O ffice. It has com e in for som e criticism (see M air 2004a). The first thing to note is that JAP was m uch better funded than most non-departm ental public bodies. The daily rate for m em bers w as £500, nearly tw ice w hat most other bodies paid, and reflected the need to do a lot of preparation in advance o f the m eetings. W ith at least ten days w ork a year this was a useful am ount of paym ent and reflected th e large am ount of m oney available for new initiatives. H owever, it contrasted with the m ore econom ic approach of the Treasury w hen funding the new N ational Probation Service (NPS). Four years on, spending reviews for 2005-2007 have cut dow n the m oney available in real terms with a reduction in the scale of CSAP activities. For exam ple, the 2003-2004 report lam ents the fact that very few panel m em ber visits to prisons and probation areas are likely to be able to be afforded in 2004-2005 (CSAP 2004). The 1999 levels of fun ding encouraged a large nu m ber of applications for JAP. The first chairm an was Sir D u ncan N ichol, ex-head of th e N HS, w ho had then becom e a professor researching health delivery. Such an im portant chair w as invaluable to the JAP w hen dealing w ith m inisters and high officials. Sir D uncan provided a w elcom e sense of strength and continuity until 2004 w hen h e m oved to be the chair of the Parole Board. Existing prison service panel m em bers w ho applied w ere taken on to the new panel. This had the advantage of having a group w ho knew the ropes well but it skew ed the expertise tow ards those fam iliar w ith sex offender/drug treatm ent program m es. It also resulted in a nu m ber of panel m em bers from N orth A m erica but none from the European m ainland. All JAP m em bers had good background know ledge of the evidence base on w hich o ffend er program m es w ere based as well as a firm belief that such program m es could be successful. T hey had less experience of the pitfalls of im plem enting such program m es. Those on the selection com m ittee w ere keen to follow a diversity agenda but few of th e you nger applicants had the experience required. A good proportion of JAP was fem ale but despite several of those short­ listed bein g from m inority ethnic com m unities all these dropped out before interview . A large nu m ber of H om e O ffice, prison and probation service m em bers w ere co-opted to the JAP, representing research, the inspectorates, funders, policy-m akers and gatekeepers to the system . The end result was a w hite, m iddle-aged panel, slanted to certain types of experience, heavily academ ic/civil service based. There was a particular lack of w orking practitioners and m em bers from m inority com m unities. Finally, although well funded, it w as not well funded enough to be able to em ploy a staff of experts in addition to the secretariat.

112

W o rk in g for com m unity justice: a H o m e Office perspective

W ithin these constraints, the panel planned to w ork along the lines in Figure 7.1. T here was very little consultation w ith the prison or probation services on the way of w orking and ind eed the panel had been working for over a year before the NPS cam e into existence. Figure 7.1 W ays of w orking of the Join t A ccreditation Panel • • • • • •

Nearly all applications were cam e to JAP via gatekeepers in the prison and probation services. A series of tight parameters was set for programmes to obey. The panel m et twice a year, for a w eek at a time. Little activity took place betw een meetings. Applications were essentially paper ones. Because of the am ount of work, sub-panels were set up to deal with the large num ber of applications.

The panel's ways of working led to the consequences show n in Figure 7.2. In retrospect, som e of these probelm s m ight have been foreseen, but the pressure of ongoing w ork m ean t that it w ould take fully three years before the rougher edges o f th e panel's w ay of working w ere rubbed off. Figure 7.2 U nintended consequences of the p anel's ways of w orking •

• •

•

•

•

Probation service gatekeepers placed emphasis on putting together a portfolio of programmes that covered the various type of offender for w hich w ork was need ed . T hey were thus able to veto any applications that fell outside their own ways of thinking, or seem ed to be 'too experim ental'. Although this did not happen to any significant extent, it was an im portant criticism m ade from the start. A programme that 'failed' at one panel m eeting could not be resubm itted for six months. Because of the large num ber of programmes that needed to be accredited to m ake up the proper portfolio, small sub-panels dealt with most applications. There were few site visits to see the programmes in action. In fact there were few discussions betw een those proposing programmes and the panel. Because of the need to accredit programmes then in their infancy in the UK, accreditation was given without there being full evidence that they would actually work in their present context. Full account could not be taken of the likely im plem entation difficulties.

1 13

Com m unity Justice

M inisters placed a lot of faith in accredited program m es. The probation service, which had no accredited programmes in 1998, was expected to deliver 20,000 accredited programmes by 2003 plus 30,000 persons being dealt with in accredited com munity systems by 2005. Most Home Office officials and probation officers felt it unlikely that such rapid expansion could be achieved. The criteria used by the JAP to judge offender programme applications were derived from the various m eta-analyses carried out in North America, and were similar to those that had been used in the prison panel for several years (see Figure 7.3). Figure 7.3 Panel criteria • • • • • • • •

• •

A clear model of change. Proper selection of offenders. Targets should be a range of dynamic risk factors. Effective methods should be used. There should be a skills orientation. The sequencing, intensity and duration of the programmes should be appropriate. Engagement and motivation should be addressed. The programmes should involve some form of continuity with what happens afterwards, either while still on probation or in the community. Programme integrity should be maintained. The programmes should be monitored and evaluated.

These criteria were set out clearly in guidelines produced by the JAP with notes to help applicants. Although this was an attem pt to be helpful to those applying, to some people this increased the feeling of too academic an approach. Another feature of the panel's w ork was that programmes were strictly defined as 'those that have been proved to be effective with offenders' (JAP 2002: 24). This was interpreted as cognitive-behavioural methods with the addition of structured therapeutic com munities for prisons. O ther programmes that were based on existing research or had a testable theory were allowable, but were not encouraged and very few came forward. In addition, the panel did not concern itself with the more bread-and-butter ways of dealing with offenders such as im proving their life skills through basic (or higher) skills education, or drug treatm ent that was not cognitive-behavioural based. Although there were often other accreditation m echanisms for such work, this again made the panel seem

114

W o rk in g for com m unity justice: a H o m e Office perspective

m ore rem ote from the day-to-day w ork of th e correctional services, w hich began to place more em phasis on such basic program m es. JAP was also criticized for not concerning itself w ith special program m es for sub­ groups such as w om en or ethnic m inorities. The panel also worked closely w ith those d eveloping and funding system s in the correctional services. A lthough this was realistic, in order to influence the developm ent of program m es and to follow the m ain problem s w ith trying to deliver such a large change, this closeness was also criticized and with hindsight could have been m anaged better. The panel achieved its m ain aim s of accred iting a portfolio of program m es. It also gradu ally m od ified its way of w ork in g and com m unicating its results in a more positive way, partly as a result of earlier criticisms. This was especially the case after the appointm en t of the second panel in 2003. Each year the panel produces an annual report (see CSAP 2004) that lays out the successes of the panel and its w ays of w orking. The 2004 report sum m arized progress over the first five years, during w hich time JAP/CSAP accredited a nu m ber of general offending program m es, m ostly for use both by the probation service and in prisons (see Figure 7.4). Figure 7.4 G eneral offending program m es accredited • Enhanced Thinking Skills (ETS) • Think First • Reasoning and Rehabilitation • Priestly O ne-to-O ne • Cognitive Skills booster In O ctober 2003 the panel recognized a program m e especially for w om en: the W om en's Acquisitive Crim e program m e, follow ing pilot w ork in South W ales, H ertfordshire and th e W est M idlands. Figure 7.5 show s the m ore specialist program m es that have also ach iev ed accred itation statu s. T h e panel has also accred ited the Dem ocratic Therapeutic C om m unity Core M odel as well as the first accredited integrated system for en h an ced com m unity punishm ent. This latter accreditation covered the w hole o f a sentence, rather than the more usual concept of providing an additional elem ent to a sentence. It was m eant to be a way of delivering the sen tence in order to enhan ce the likelihood of reducing re-offending on the part of those subject to it. This accreditation of more com plex phen om ena, such as integrated system s, w as a recognition that the panel need ed to be more realistic about w hat it w as accrediting and hence encouragin g to be used. It also recognized that

115

C om m unity Justice

good program m es im plem ented in an unfavourable environm en t are unlikely to work. Figure 7.5 Sex offender, violence and substance m isuse program m es accredited • Com m unity - sex offender group programme • Tham es Valley - sex offender group w ork programme • Northum bria - sex offender group programme • Prison service - sex offender treatment family of programmes * • • • •

Controlling anger and learning to m anage it Cognitive self-change programme H ealthy Relationships Programme (H RP)* Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme (IDAP)

• ASRO, prism, drink impaired drivers • RAPt Substance Abuse Treatment Programme* • FOCUS* • Action on Drugs* • STOP* • The Lancaster castle 12-step prison partnership programme* • P-ASRO* • North east area (formerly Garth and W ym ott) therapeutic com m u­ nity programm e* • Ley prison programm e* ‘ O nly in prisons

O ther learning features of th e panel over the first five years are show n in Figure 7.6.

Evaluation of offender p ro g ra m m e s This chapter does not go into detail about the evaluation of offender program m es, as a good, detailed evaluation of th e various projects under the W hat W orks ban n er can be found in the collection of papers by Burnett and Roberts (2004). This reviews the overall picture since 1999, and considers in detail the assessm ent tools used, effective educational interventions, probation service interventions to address basic skills and educational needs, and em erging evid ence about offending behaviour program m es in clu d in g intensiv e supervision and surveillance and com m unity service.

W o rk in g for com m unity justice: a H o m e Office perspective

Figure 7.6 D evelopm ents in panel activities •

•

• •

• • •

•

More site visits were m ade to find out exactly w hat went on in a prison or a probation service, although this has had to be cut back in 2004. The panel looked at the systems of audit used by the correctional services to ensure that the programmes and systems they accredited were being im plem ented properly, had m anagem ent support, full m onitoring, and staff were appropriately trained to run these programmes. Advice and guidance were given to programmes that were not yet accredited but were being developed. The diversity issue was placed at the forefront of panel thinking, including the plan to develop a set of diversity checklists to use alongside the accreditation criteria w hen considering programmes and integrated systems. For the panel appointed in 2003 m em bers were chosen as experts in specific pre-defined areas. The panel also began to concern itself w ith the training of treatment managers and with the psychom etric tests used in programmes. M ore involvem ent of the panel w ith research and data quality matters, especially with evaluation, the need to improve the research methodology and collecting information on key knowledge gaps. The need to develop closer relationships with N O M S, following the Carter Report.

M ore recent m aterial on the evaluation of the cognitive behaviour projects of the Y outh Justice Board is given in Feilzer (2004). A sum m ary of the im pact of corrections on re-offend ing from the point of view of the H om e Office is given in H arper and C hitty (2004). This is the most im portant review of the literature since 1998 (N uttall, Goldblatt and Lewis 1998) and supplies th e research strategy that was lacking in that 1998 review. The picture that has b een reached at the end of 2004 can be sum m arized in the w ords of Roger H ood w hen introd ucing the Burnett and Roberts report, w here he speaks of th e report as sounding 'ju st the right m ixture of cautious optim ism and healthy scepticism ' (Burnett and Roberts 2004: viii). In fact, although som e evaluations have show n good reductions in reconviction rates throu gh the use of offend er program m es, others have show n only lim ited success and m any evaluations have been inconclusive.

117

C om m u n ity Justice

H ow ever, not everyone was as positive about offend er program m es. M artin N arey, the chief executive of N O M S, probably gave the 'official' position in April 2004: Research results from the cognitive skills program m es, w hether delivered in prisons or the com m unity are, to say th e least, disappointing. Evidence of drug treatm ent is m ore hopeful, but the nu m ber of offenders w ho benefit in prison is too few and the num bers w ho drop out of treatm ent in the com m unity are too many. Education is m y great hope, providing as it does a route out of social exclusion for offenders. (N arey 2004) N arey appeared a little m ore positive by N ovem ber 2004, w hen he com m ented in the H arper and Chitty review that: [This book] is positive in confirm ing that there is a sound theoretical basis for our program m es, and that for som e program m es there is now good evidence that they do indeed reduce re-offending. But the report also sets us som e m ajor developm ental challenges - for m ore pow erful research m ethods that will give us a clearer picture, m ore sophisticated m easures o f im pact, m ore com plex interventions that tackle th e m ix o f crim in o gen ic factors p resen t in each individual and the creation o f offend er m anagem ent as an effective tool for targeting the right interventions in each case. (H arper and C hitty 2004: i) Perhaps this slightly greater optim ism stem s from the latest results on reconvictions. The m ost recently published reconviction statistics give prom ising, if slightly m ixed, results. For adults the actual reconviction rate w ithin two years for those starting com m unity sentences or discharged from custody in the first quarter of 2001 w as 53.7 per cent, significantly less than the predicted rate of 54.7 per cent. The actual rate for those starting com m unity sentences alone was 51.2 p er cent, w hich was low er than, but not significantly below, the predicted rate of 51.7 per cent (see Wilcox, Young and H oyle 2004). For ju veniles the overall actual reconviction rate w ithin 12 m onths for those dealt w ith in the first quarter of 2002 w as 36.5 per cent, significantly less than the expected rate o f 37.9 per cent. Statistically significant reductions w ere recorded for pre-court disposals, first-tier penalties as a w hole, supervision orders and com m unity penalties (H om e O ffice 2004). O ther pre-court com m unity disposals have proved to b e prom ising. For exam ple, a com m unity sanction that could help reduce re-offending

I 18

W o rk in g for com m unity justice: a H o m e Office perspective

is the practice of ensuring that m ost cautioning contains a restorative elem ent, usually derived from a structured dialogue b etw een the offender, the victim and the police about the offence and its im plications. W ilcox et al (2004) report prom ising results from Tham es Valley, w here this practice has been in force since 1998.

W h y have expectations not been m et? N one of this quite adds up to m eeting the expectations around in 1998. So, all those w orking in the area o f offend er program m es need to ask w hy, over five years after the initiative was started, we are still at such an early of developm ent. The answ ers seem to lie in three areas. First, the n eed , from 1999 onw ards, to respond so quickly to the political im perative; second , the lack of a strategic approach to the research agenda; and, third, the central controlling m echanism s that discouraged local initiative. W e will consider these in further detail. N e e d to re sp on d to the political im perative

M any problem s cam e about in the period 1999 to 2004 as a direct result of trying to do too m uch. M ore widely, this can be seen as bein g the direct consequ ence of having a governm ent in a hurry and civil servants unable to slow the process dow n. This m anifested itself in three m ajor ways: •

The establishm ent of national and local service standards, public sector agreem ents and perform ance indicators.

• The encouragem ent of partnership in service planning, and the setting up of new structures w here these did not exist, e.g. the National Probation Service, the Youth Justice Board, Drug Action Teams, Crime Disorder Reduction Partnerships. •

Going ahead on a broad front and without full consultation with those stakeholders w ho had most to contribute to the discussion.

Crim inal ju stice was not th e only area of social policy w here this happened. For a discussion o f how this was follow ed in a sim ilar w ay by the governm ent in other social policy areas see W illiams 2002. M ost stakeholders in the crim inal ju stice area w ould have suggested an approach that was both m ore m easured (slower) and m ore strategic. Perhaps get the structures right before setting the detailed param eters of perform ance and delivery. Three exam ples are:

C om m unity Justice

•

It would have been more sensible to set up the NPS first, and bed that in for a few years, before dem anding delivery of a large num ber of offender programmes.

•

The work of the Youth Justice Board, in developing its own programmes and its accreditation, assessm ent and evaluation could have been integrated with that for adults but this has still not happened.

•

The developm ent of the OASys assessm ent system took place in parallel with the piloting of the programmes for which it was an essential selection tool. This im posed a heavy burden on practitioners, especially as it was initially introduced without proper IT systems for its data capture.

It was also poor planning for th e probation service to go from a position of having lots of program m es w ith little evaluation and no accreditation before 1999 tow ards a full-blow n system of accreditation and evaluation, w ithout som e long transitional period. M oreover, it soon becam e clear that the governm ent was keen not ju st to have pilot program m es, b u t to set targets for full-scale roll-out of offend er program m es in a tim e period that m ade it likely that the evaluation w ould not fully have been com pleted. M any recognized the likely pitfalls from the start, but the attraction of a lot of m oney becom ing available was too great and a large industry of probation officers, m anagers, researchers, psychologists and academ ics w as soon at w ork attem pting to deliver all this. It is to everyone's credit that so m uch has been delivered in five years. P roper planning would have set this developm ent w ithin a ten-year project plan, with guaranteed governm ent support, and continued guaranteed funding w ithin a secure and stable fram ew ork of governance for crim inal justice. H ow ever, there is a polarization of UK politics that m eans there is a high probability th at specific policies and structures introduced in one governm ent will be supplanted in the next. M oreover, the political pressure of the last 15 years has been one of continuous new initiatives. Both th e advocates of offender program m es and the researchers evaluating them have yet to learn how to deliver w ithin the realities of the changin g political situation. The com ing of N O M S, as a further elem ent of change w ithin w hich the treatm ent of offenders is now set, and has added yet another political im perative to be coped w ith, that of contestability, or achieving cost savings through expan ding the private security industry or with voluntary or charitable groups.

120

W o rk in g for com m unity justice: a H om e Office perspective

Strategic a p p ro a ch to the research a ge n d a

R esearch in to p robation had lo n g been ch aracterized by lim ited inv estm en t as a response to various policy initiatives, rather than being set in a m ore strategic context. The com ing o f m ore m oney in 1999 was w elcom e, enabling the H om e O ffice to double their research effort. H ow ever, there w as still no real strategic approach until 2002. R esearch tend ed to be confined to the evaluation of pilot program m es. In the beginning, these program m es took a long tim e to be im plem ented, w ith som etim es researchers being around before offenders w ere placed on the program m e. O utpu t m easures w ere confined to reconviction m easures. Since the databases bein g used did not hold date of offence, but only date of conviction, the actual m easurem ent of reconviction rates was aw kw ard, w hich led to tw o years bein g necessary before robust m easures of reconviction w ere available. M oreover, m ore sophisticated, and probably m ore realistic, m easures o f reconviction, such as the average tim e betw een convictions, or the severity of the offence for w hich convicted, w ere not attem pted. The m ethodology used was not strong. Typically, com parator groups w ere used to com pare w ith the tre a tm e n t g ro u p s, b u t th ere w ere g reat d ifficu lties in ch o o sin g com parator groups that w ere appropriate. T he m ore defendable types of research, such as random ized control trials (RCTs), w ere discounted as being unlikely to be acceptable in a crim inal justice context, despite the fairly w idespread use of RCTs in N orth Am erica, and a grow ing num ber of advocates of them in the UK, including the Royal Statistical Society (see Bird 2003). A lthough the Sherm an typology of research evaluations w as quoted in N uttall et al (1998) it was not until H arper and Chitty (2004) that its full im plications were recognized. The various m odels for interpreting the effects of program m es on offend ing behaviour w ere oversim plistic in that they im plicitly assum ed that w here program m es had an effect, it was a long-term one. In addition, tw o negative, if un in ten d ed , structural points concerning H om e O ffice research cam e to light. First, different team s with different approaches carried o ut evaluations o f probation and prison program m es. N ot until 2002 did the tw o team s w ork alongside each other w ith the sam e research director. Second, another con sequ ence of having a lot of m oney for 'w h at w orks' research was that the m oney for basic prisons and probation research was cut to the bone. This m eant there was little new know n about the con text in w hich program m es w ere being im plem ented : for exam ple, about how new structures had affected case m an agem en t and how the new form s o f training of practitioners were

121

C om m u n ity Justice

actually standing up to the new d em and s o f the corrections services. D espite this, a lot of good w ork was carried out in the period 1999 to 2003 (see Burnett and Roberts 2004). H ow ever, a m ore strategic approach w ould have enabled research to be m ore directed, and possibly m ore usable results produced earlier. This lack of a strategic approach has now been m odified. Since 2002 th e H om e O ffice has brou ght 'w h at w orks' research on probation and prisons into the sam e section, the Correctional Services A ccreditation Panel has set up a research sub-panel, w orking closely w ith the H om e O ffice, and a strategic approach to research is now being pursued. H arper and Chitty (2004) set out this strategic approach in term s of m ore severe sentencing, rising prison populations and the increase in com m unity sentences that have characterized th e last ten years. Five aspects are covered: 1

T h e m ethodological background to the research evidence.

2

Factors associated w ith offending.

3

T h e evidence associated w ith o ffend er program m es.

4

T h e evidence associated with alternative approaches to integrating offenders in the com m unity, considering w hat w orks with educa­ tion, em ploym ent, accom m odation, drugs and alcohol and m ental health.

5

An assessm ent of evidence and quality of research need ed to highlight im provem ents required in policy design, im plem entation and evaluation to determ ine the success o f the N ational O ffend er M anagem ent Service.

H arp er and C h itty ackn o w led g e it is d ifficu lt to g u aran tee th at program m es proved in N orth A m erica will travel to this cou ntry as well as th e w eak research design that has contributed to the lack of know ledge about 'w h at w orks'. O n research design they propose the scale in Figure 7.7. H ow ever, they also go far w ider in proposing an integrated m odel to evaluate the im pact o f interventions (Figure 7.8). This structure is sim ilar to that used by audit team s w ithin the prison and probation services and involves looking at the clim ate w here pro­ gram m es are delivered, their cost-effectiveness, the quality of delivery, and a w ider understand ing o f both long and short-term outcom es.

122

W o r k i n g fo r c o m m u n it y justice: a H o m e O ffic e p e rs p e c t iv e

Figure 7.7 Scientific m ethods scale adapted for reconviction studies Standard

D escription

Level 1

A relationship betw een intervention and reconviction outcom e (intervention group with no comparison group).

Level 2

Expected reconviction rates* (or predicted rates) com pared to actual rates for intervention group (risk predictor with no comparison group).

Level 3

Com parison group present w ithout dem onstrated com parability to intervention group (unmatched comparison group).

Level 4

Com parison group m atched to intervention group on theoretically relevant factors, e.g. risk o f reconviction (well-matched comparison group).

Level 5

Random assignm ent of offenders to the intervention and control conditions (randomised control trial).

•Expected reconviction rates can be generated using the Offender Group Reconviction ScaleRevised (O G RS-R), see Taylor (1999). This is a Home Office developed risk predictor instrument that assesses the likelihood of reconviction in the absence of any intervention.

F ig u r e 7.8 A n in te g ra te d m o d e l to e v a lu a te th e im p a c t o f o ffe n d e rs Climate of delivery to be evaluated by interviews with staff and offenders Cost-effectiveness to be evaluated by: • C ost per com pletion • Reconvictions saved • Recorded and unrecorded offences saved • Crim inal justice system savings Quality o f delivery evaluated by: • Level of staff training and supervision • Selection of appropriate offenders • A dherence to th e intervention guidance • Audit data Treatm ent outcom es evaluated by (short-term ): • Experience of intervention, e.g. offenders • Changes in offender behaviour • Psychological assessm ent • Progress during intervention Treatm ent outcom es evaluated by (long-term ): • Reconviction data • O ffence-related behaviour data • Post-discharge follow-up to include: housing, em ploym ent, social support, substance misuse, etc.

123

C om m u n ity Justice

C entral control a n d local initiatives

A further problem o f the d evelopm ent o f offend er program m es was the central control. T he criticism of local initiatives (Ellis and U nderdow n 1998) was m ainly one of lack o f evaluation, rather than of program m es that did not work. A later paper describes how attem pts to evaluate existing probation program m es foundered on the lack of individual probation services to coordinate and agree sufficiently on evaluation (Ellis and W instone 2002). This resulted in individual services losing all in d ep en d en t control over their program m e provision and the conclusion was that all program m es w ould only be funded if they w ere accredited. This led to poor feeling betw een the N ational Probation D irectorate and local areas, w hich felt rather constrained in w hat they w ere able to do. This cam e out in various ways: in particular, som e areas, with a high percentage of special groups, e.g. m inority ethnic populations, felt that the centrally im posed program m es w ere ju st not right for m any of their clients, and needed to be modified if they w ere to work. A nother im portant feature was w h eth er program m es developed in N orth Am erica could be translated to England and Wales. Certain aspects w ere changed as a m atter of routine, e.g. the language used, and th e case studies quoted w ere translated into British term s. In m any cases, program m es w ere developed from scratch in British term s. H ow ever, the w hole em phasis on the history and evidence com ing from N orth America, and the fact that practitioners in N orth Am erica had been carrying out such w ork for m any years and w ere used to bein g trained for such activities, again led to the feelin g am on g som e British practitioners that foreign program m es w ere being im posed on them . Local perceptions w ere m ade w orse in som e cases w here locally developed program m es, w hich had been built up over several years, did not get accreditation, w hereas 'foreign ' program m es that had been rew ritten for British conditions seem ed to get accreditation m ore easily, even though they had n ev er been run in England before. In the eyes of m any practitioners, this was all bound up w ith the grow ing centralization, not only o f th e probation service, w ith its national H Q in L ondon, bu t of m any other aspects o f British governance during the 1997-2003 period. Practitioners saw the central control of w hat works in treating offenders in the sam e w ay as they saw w hat w orks in education and health being characterized by grow ing prescription in w hat local teachers, health staff and crim inal justice practitioners were expected to do. Som e w ere happ y w ith the idea that their w ork was set by guidelines, as this enabled them to follow them rigidly. O thers felt that local initiatives w ere bein g stifled.

124

W o rk in g for com m unity justice: a H o m e Office perspective

The clash betw een central control and local action is also seen in the poor im plem entation of offend er program m es that has been evidenced in recent H om e Office research (Hollin et al 2004). The effectiveness of five structured O ffend ing Behaviour Pathfinder program m es im plem en­ ted by the N ational Probation Service in 2000-2001 was exam ined. A sam ple of over 2,200 offenders assigned to such program m es was follow ed up for betw een 12 and 18 m onths, in com parison with a sim ilar group of over 2,600 offend ers not allocated to the program m es. R econviction outcom es w ere then com pared. The research found poor im plem entation evident: • •

Only 54 per cent of offenders were appropriately targeted for the programmes they had been ordered to take. Only 35 per cent of offenders com pleted a programme as ordered.

The research also found that offenders designated to attend program m es had a higher risk of re-offend ing than the com parison group and at follow -u p w ere m ore likely to hav e been reconvicted. H ow ever, offenders w ho com pleted a program m e had a significantly low er rate of reconviction than the com parison group and non-com pleters, after taking risk levels into account. This later finding could m ean that com pleted treatm ent reduces re-offending but the com parison control group design used in this study can n o t rule out that this m ay be the result of a selection effect for those w ho com pleted program m es. It will always take som e tim e before a healthy balance betw een central control and local initiative is achieved and various m echanism s have been set up to deal with local worries. H ow ever, these m echanism s also had a bureaucratic feel to them , so that, although local feeling did have a form al w ay of bein g fed back to the cen tre, there was a local perception that their views w ere not alw ays taken seriously, under the political pressure to deliver a large n u m ber of program m es in such a short time.

W h a t can w e expect in the future? The environm ent in w hich program m es have been developed over the last few years has not been a stable one. M any of the reasons for the p erception that program m es have not been as successful as was prom ised lie in the constant change in governance and strategy that have characterized the political process since 1997. The setting up of the N ational O ffend er M anagem ent Service (N O M S) at the end of 2003, w hich was due to bring together offend er program m e p lanning for the prison and probation services, initially added to this feeling of instability. 125

C om m u n ity Justice

In one sense it was a natural conclusion of an ongoing political im perative to bring the tw o corrections services together. This is seen in th e robust approach of the leadership of N O M S to the absolute necessity of m ore cooperation betw een the tw o services if re-offend ing is to be brou ght dow n. The head of N O M S has spoken of there being 'in m ost places, a m iserable joining up of w ork w ith individuals in custody and after release' and of 'offend ers w ho get off drugs in prison [and] return to addiction after release, som etim es on the sam e day' (see N arey 2004). Everybody recognizes the truth of this, despite the hard w ork of probation and prison services in the past. The initial political pressure to get N O M S off the ground before the initial preparation and consultation had b een fully carried out seem s to have b een resisted successfully by a com bination of local corrections staff w ho w ant their voice to be heard and a N O M S m anagem ent prepared to slow things dow n and rescue governm ent from its im petuosity. A nother im portant feature of N O M S is the need to let th e private security industry have m ore inpu t into offend er services. It was already apparent in 2002 that private security com panies w ere m anaging a grow ing w orkload of offenders sen tenced to various form s of electronic tagging as well as a small n u m ber of private prisons (see Ellis and W instone 2002). By 2004 electronic tagging was being delivered to well over 10,000 offenders (Nellis 2005) and m ore private prisons will be opening in 2005. T he likelihood of grow th in the private security industry is now very strong but N O M S m anagem ent seem s to have persuaded m inisters to go slow on this aspect as well. M ore recently, the N O M S has published its draft strategy for co-operating with the voluntary and com m unity sector in m anaging offenders (see N O M S 2005). The governm ent intend s to put their thinkin g on N O M S onto a statutory basis. In the Q u een 's Speech after the 2005 general election, it was ann ou nced that the M anagem ent of O ffenders Bill w ould be introduced during the sum m er of 2005. If the Bill is sim ilar to the one introd uced in the previous session it will establish the aims of N O M S and extend th e gov ern m en t's pow ers to direct the con tracting o ut of probation services by probation boards; it will also im pose a duty on probation boards to ensure a sen ten ce plan is prepared for every offender w ho receives a custodial or com m unity sentence. It is also likely to introd uce sentencing changes that will work towards keeping the prison population at no m ore than 80,000, and extend the use of electronic m onitoring. The intention is thus to increase the use of the fine, to reduce the use of im prisonm ent and to increase the proportion of offenders w ho are supervised by the private or voluntary sector. It is unlikely that this will

126

W o rk in g for com m unity justice: a H om e Office perspective

com e about exactly as forecast and the m ain question at issue by 2007 is likely to be th e extent to w hich th e N ational Probation Service will be funded well enough to carry o u t the w ork that will flow from the provisions of this bill. Past experience show s that fun ding is unlikely to be sufficient.

Conclusion T he program m es described by Jam es M cG uire and Christine K nott and accredited by the CSAP (Figures 7.4 and 7.5 above) can reduce re­ o ffend ing of those sen tenced for crim inal acts and hence lead to greater public security. There seem s to be a grow ing aw areness that m ore tim e is needed to collect the evidence o f the extent to w hich this is likely to h ap p en here, as distinct from N orth A m erica, in the political, structural and funding con text in w hich the prison and probation services will exist in th e future. The British public will be well served by a greater inv estm en t in offend er m an agem en t if only because of the waste in lives of those unable to play their proper part in society because of the consequ ences of w hat is often youthful crim inal activity, albeit extensive and very disruptive to society. W hat is need ed is an evidential base that sets dow n the various alternatives to reducing crim e in term s of their cost-benefit to society, so that ju d gem ents can be m ade in the investm ents need ed betw een education and early interventions, policing of crim e and anti-social behaviour, situational crim e prevention, restorative ju stice, intensive supervision and offender program m es, both cognitive and basic skills, and levels of custody. This will need to be follow ed by an attem pt to get a broad consensus of the British public to recognize that m uch crim inal behaviour can be changed for th e better w ith appropriate interventions. W hilst the strategy proposed for the H om e O ffice in H arper and C hitty (2004) goes m uch further than previous attem pts at evaluation, it does not place offend er m an agem en t quite w here it should be, in the con text of earlier interventions w ith children. For a useful discussion of th e role and potential of crim e prevention in schools see H ayden's chapter in this volume. This is due to the failure of another of the current governm ent's political im peratives - their attem pts to get governm ent departm ents to w ork closer together. For the m om ent, the criminal justice system has to continue to go it alone.

127

C o m m u n it y Justice

R e fe re n c e s Bird, S. (2003) Performance Indicators: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Report o f a Royal Statistical Society W orking Party, October 2003. Burnett, R. and Roberts, C. (eds) (2004) What Works in Probation and Youth Justice: Developing Evidence-based Practice. Cullompton: Willan. CSAP (Correctional Services Accreditation Panel) (2004) Annual Report 2003-2004. London: Home Office. Ellis, T. and Underdown, A. (1998) Strategies fo r Effective Offender Supervision: Report o f IIM IP What Works Project. London: Home Office. Ellis, T. and Winstone, J. (2002) 'The Policy impact of a Survey of Programme Evaluations in England and Wales: Towards a New Corrections-Industrial Complex', in J. M cGuire (ed.), Offender Reliabilitation and Treatment Effective Programmes and Policies to Reduce Re-offending. Chichester: Wiley. Feilzer, M. (2004) The National Behaviour o f the Youth Justice Board's Cognitive Behaviour Projects. Downloaded from www.youth-justice-board.gov.uk on 10 October 2004. Harper, G. and Chitty, C. (eds) (2004) The Impact o f Corrections on Re-offending: A Review o f 'What Works', Home Office Research Study 291. London: HMSO. Hollin, C., Palmer, E., M cGuire, }., Hounsome, J., Hatcher, R., Bilby, C. and Clark, C. (2004) Pathfinder Programmes in the Probation Service: A Retrospective Analysis. Home Office Online Report 66/04, London. Downloaded from www.homeoffice.gov.uk on 22 December 2004. Home Office (1998a) Final Report o f the Prisons - Probation Review. Downloaded from http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/pprcont.html on 6 October 2004. Home Office (1998b) Evidence Based Practice: A Guide to Effective Practice. London: HM Inspectorate of Probation, Home Office. Home Office (2004) Juvenile Reconviction: Results from the 2001 and 2002 Cohorts, Home Office Online Report 60/04. Downloaded from www.homeoffice.gov.uk on 4 December 2004. Home Office (2005) Press Notice. 13 January. Downloaded from www.homeoffice.gov.uk on 15 January 2005. Hood, R. (2004) 'Foreword' in R. Burnett and C. Roberts (eds), What Works ill Probation and Youth Justice: Developing Evidence-based Practice. Cullompton: Willan. JAP (Joint Accreditation Panel) (2002) Third Report from the Joint Prison/Probation Accreditation Panel, 2001-2002. Knott, C. (2004) 'Evidence-based Practice in the National Probation Service', in R. Burnet and C. Roberts (eds) (2004) What Works in Probation and Youth Justice: Developing Evidence-based Practice. Cullompton: Willan. Mair, G. (ed.) (2004a) What Matters in Probation. Cullompton: Willan. Mair, G. (2004b) 'The Origins of W hat Works in England and Wales: A House built on sand?' in G. Mair (ed.), What Matters in Probation. Cullompton: Willan. McGuire, J. (2004) Understanding Psychology and Crime: Perspectives on Theory and Action. M aidenhead: Open University Press. Narey, M. (2004) Parole Board Annual lecture, 6 April 2004. Downloaded from www.paroleboard.gov.uk/publications/MartinNarey.htm on 14 October 2004. Nellis, R. M. (2005) 'Electronic monitoring and the community supervision of offenders' in A. Bottoms, S. Rex and G. Robinson, Alternatives to Prisons: options fo r an insecure society. Cullompton: Willan. N OM S (National O ffender M anagem ent Service) (2005) M anaging Offenders,

128

W o r k in g fo r c o m m u n it y justice: a H o m e O ffice p e rsp e ctiv e

Reducing Crime: The Role o f the Voluntary and Community Sector in the National Offender Management Service. Downloaded from www.hmprisonservice.Kov.uk/ assets/documents/1000090DNQMS VSUstrateRy.pdf on 28 February 2005. Nuttall, C., Goldblatt, P. and Lewis, C. (1998) Reducing Offending: An Assessment o f Research Evidence on Ways of Dealing with Offending Behaviour, Home Office Research Study 187. London: Home Office. Taylor, R. (1999) Predicting Reconvictions fo r Sexual and Violent Offences Using the Revised Offender Group Reconviction Scale, Home Office Research Findings 104. London: Home Office. Vennard, J. and Hedderman, C. (1998) 'Effective Interventions with O ffenders', in C. Nuttall, P. Goldblatt and C. Lewis (eds), Reducing Offending: An Assessment o f Research Evidence on Ways o f Dealing with Offending Behaviour, Home Office Research Study 187. London: Home Office. Wilcox, A., Young, R. and Hoyle, C. (2004) An Evaluation o f the Impact o f Restorative Cautioning: Findings from a Reconviction Study, Home Office Findings 255, London: Home Office. Williams, M. (2002) 'W hy Doesn't the Governm ent Respond to the Participating Public? Vanguard Online, December, www.vanguardonline.f9.co.uk/030101.doc.

129

C h ap ter 8

A new chance for rehabilitation: multi-agency provision and potential under N O M S Aaron Pycroft

The backdrop to the following discussion is the creation of the National O ffender M anagem ent Service. This m ulti-agency arrangem ent is the most significant developm ent for the criminal justice sector in recent years. Generally, despite an acknow ledgem ent of the complexities that need to be addressed in establishing N OM S, I am arguing in its favour. It represents a necessary evolution in both a theoretical and a practical sense in the state and civil society7s arrangem ents for punishm ent and rehabilitation. In particular I am arguing that these arrangem ents have the potential to rediscover the importance of a com mon hum anity at the heart of an increasingly harsh penal process, via the formal involvem ent of a wider range of com munity based organizations. This chapter will explore some of the key issues involved in multi­ agency working by setting the context for the developm ent of the New Labour approach to the reform of the public sector and in particular to the criminal justice sector. I will use the issue of a multi-agency response to multiple needs to highlight the necessity of placing the offender (service user) at the heart of any m ulti-agency process. Central to my argum ent is the view that a rehabilitative ideal based upon a 'w hat works' agenda (see M cGuire 1995) and its underpinning philosophy requires a greater democratization of the correctional services for the users of those services, and their key stakeholders. I will argue that the correctional services have much to learn from other organizations that are working with the same groups of people, and in ways that are crucial to the rehabilitative effort. It is the aim of this chapter to consider some of 130

A new chance for rehabilitation: multi-agency provision and potential under N O M S

these issues from a broad er perspective than that of either purely the probation or prison services. I will use the lens of m y non-statutory experience to express m y ow n understand ing o f com m unity ju stice and to highlight som e of the debates con cern in g the role of faith-based organizations (FBO s) w ithin the delivery o f public services. It will be argued that the interface betw een statutory and non-statutory agencies is the key to delivering flexible, and responsive services that m eet the needs of individuals and com m unities. This will lead to a discussion con cern in g the role of professional pow er and expertise w ithin the d elivery of rehabilitativ e services and particularly th e p erceiv ed challenge to the respective identities o f the probation and prison services.

Contestability and the rational co n su m e r A m ulti-agency approach to service delivery is at the heart of N ew Labour's attem pts to reform public services in general. W ithin these social policy debates there are key argum ents about th e b est use of public resources, the role o f the not for profit and for profit sectors in this delivery, as well as accountability and effectiveness. W ithin the criminal justice sector there are key argum ents about the function and purpose of pu nishm ent and rehabilitation and the role of particular professional groupings w ithin the delivery o f com m unity ju stice and the professional identities and value bases that inform practice (N ash 2004). T he Labour adm inistrations since 1997 have com m itted them selves to an essentially utilitarian 'w h at works' evid ence based agenda. This approach has seen the creation o f N ational Service Fram ew orks (NSF), w hich are a key plank of policy in N ew Labour's social inclusion agenda. There is an em phasis on accountability and the m eeting of targets to ju stify public investm ent. In th e regulated m arket place, organizations w h eth er statutory or 'contracted in', have to provide w hat is required or alternative providers will b e found w ho can. This is the principle of contestability. In all of these N SFs there is an em phasis on local accountability (consider th e creation o f prim ary care trusts, the role of Drug Action Team s, Crim e and D isorder Reduction Partnerships) and (except for crim inal justice) the incorporation of service users into the planning, evaluation, and governance o f those services. A part of the rationale for this approach is to ensure that service delivery is tailored and flexible enough to m eet the need s of the people that it is serving, by th e service providers being accountable to those people and benefiting from the insight that those users bring to bear. 131

C om m u n ity Justice

In these areas of social policy and w elfare provision there is a com m itm ent to em pow erm ent that recognizes individuals and groups as consum ers w ho not only have rights and choice but are also repositories of expert know ledge that need s to be utilized to create m ore effective services. N SFs are a product of the 'Third W ay' thinking associated with th e early N ew Labour adm inistration. T hey are a tool for state and civil society to w ork in partnership for the renew al of civil society (see G iddens 1998) and the regeneration of the political process. In the crim inal ju stice sector N ew Labour has sought to find a w ay that encapsulates both enforcem ent and rehabilitation, h en ce the dictum 'to u g h on crim e and tough on the causes of crim e' (Blair 1993). W hether intentional or not, w hat this statem ent does is to lay bare the tension that lies at th e heart o f the delivery o f com m unity ju stice in a liberal dem ocracy. T he 'tough on crim e' dictum questions the relation­ ship betw een pu nishm ent and rehabilitation, w hich are not one and the sam e thing. T h e aims of pu nishm ent are retribution and deterrence, w hereas rehabilitation m ay b e necessary after punishm ent but it is not an aim of punishm ent. A m ajor conflict for the probation service in the past has been the tension betw een being both an agency of enforcem ent and pu nishm ent and an agency of rehabilitation. O n e of the interesting aspects of the N O M S arrangem ents is the potential for separating out the functions of pu nishm ent and rehabilitation, with the com bined correc­ tional service bein g responsible for enforcem ent and punishm ent, and other contracted agencies being able to focus on rehabilitation. M any non-statutory agencies w ho have a m ission to advocate for their service users have been concerned by a clash in values betw een this role and the dem ands of enforcem ent, but potentially the new arrangem ents could lessen these tensions. Central to the N ew Labour agenda is the highlighting of the notions of personal responsibility that are to b e found w ithin the neo-liberal tradition. Essentially this follow s from the idea that individuals are rational and free and interact w ith each o ther to form society and the state to govern that society. W hilst there is this strong neo-liberal influence, the governm ent's social inclusion agenda also recognizes that there are circum stances and structures that prevent individuals from m aking a contribution to society, and that th e voices of the excluded need to be heard w ithin th e corridors of power. T herefore service user participation is a key aspect of N SFs; they require that service users are involved in organizations from the operational level, right up to board level. A service user perspective is essential in decision-m aking so that decisions are m ade in the interests o f the com m unities that those organizations purport to serve. O rganizations such as th e N ational Treatm ent A gency for Substance M isuse, and the H ousing Corporation, 132

A new chance for rehabilitation: multi-agency provision and potential under N O M S

are putting a great deal of tim e and effort in engaging w ith service users at this level. A lthough there is not a com m itm ent to this kind of em pow erm ent w ithin the probation service or the prison service, with the establishm ent of N O M S, organizations that are b ein g run by and for their service users (w ho m ay be offenders) will be at the heart of the rehabilitative effort.

Scapegoating and social exclusion It is interesting to speculate as to w hy N ew Labour has not carried this agenda into the crim inal justice arena, given its own acknow ledged links betw een social exclusion and crime. At one level there is the recognition by N ew L abou r that its core v oters in th e u rban cen tres su ffer a disproportionate am ount of crim e and need the most protection from the effects of drug dealing and use, vandalism and a whole range of anti­ social behaviour. This is a com pelling argum ent: these problems would have been long ago addressed if they w ere affecting the leafy suburbs in quite the same way. H ow ever, at a more profound level is the concern that 'crim inals' are being hom ogenized and scapegoated into a 'crim inal class'. This is evident politically in the bidding wars betw een New Labour and the Conservatives over being tough on crime, but also more subtly within concepts of responsibility. Although there is a link betw een social exclusion and crim e, New Labour will argue (in support of its core constituency) that not all people w ho experience social exclusion com m it crim e: this is logically and empirically true. H ow ever, implicit within this discussion is a concept that is akin to the notion of the deserving and undeserving poor: if you do not make the effort and take responsibility for your own actions then you cannot expect to receive any support or services from state or society. The work of Girard (1985) dem onstrates how scapegoating can develop into a system of persecution. This persecution occurs w hen the differences of opportunity betw een groups are neutralized, that is, w hen dom inant and less dom inant groups find them selves on a perceived level playing field of opportunity. No one group is then privileged in terms of access to resources and life chances. W ith their hegem onic status threatened the dom inant group will blam e and seek to exclude the suspected agents of their misfortune. In this respect the UK has seen racist violence over issues concerning immigration and asylum. These exclu­ sionary processes would seem to be inherent w ithin society, and with regard to criminal justice it would seem that a political consensus betw een left and right has been built around the scapegoating of people w ho offend, irrespective of explanations for that offending. M ore punitive approaches have been adopted as a consequence. 133

C om m u n ity Justice

The paradox here is that at a tim e w hen governm ents on both sides of the A tlantic are seeking to engage m ore faith-based organizations in the delivery of public services, m any of these organizations w ould argue that the rights (hum an rights, not con su m er rights) of their service users are at th e heart of their service delivery. In the U K there are debates about w hether it is appropriate to use faith-based organizations. Consider, for exam ple, the debate over faith schools, and the criticism o f Islamic schools not teach in g w ider com m unity values. In the USA, w here the constitution provides for a clear a separation betw een religion and state, various legal challenges are bein g m ade against the governm ent and their plans to increase the use of faith-based organizations in the delivery of public services. H ow ever, despite any expansion of the role of faithbased organizations in service delivery, large num bers of people already use faith-based organizations, such as A lcoholics A nonym ous and N arcotics A nonym ous, as well as services provided by the Salvation Army and similar bodies. This is as true in America as it is in the United K ingdom . In the UK m any faith-based organizations receive support through public m onies, such as Supp orting People for supported housing schem es, and grants and contracts to provide, for exam ple, drug and alcohol services.

Visionaries and exclusionaries Traditionally, faith-based organizations involved in the provision of w elfare in the UK have b een Christian. M ore recently faith groups have developed w ithin the H indu, Jew ish and Islam ic traditions, am ong o th e rs, to m e e t the sp ecific n eed s o f th e ir com m u n ities. T h ese arrangem ents are not sim ply social, cultural or environm ental in nature, as faith-based approaches have an overarching contribution to m ake tow ards the overcom ing of problem s and behavioural change. For exam ple, 12-step program m es, w hich grew out of th e evangelical m ovem ents of th e n ineteenth and tw entieth centuries (see T hom 1999), have som e success in helping people to overcom e addiction. Likewise there has been an interest in th e role of Buddhism in dealing w ith a d d ictio n s (P aram aban d h u and F arm er 1994), as w ell as in th e com plem entary roles of religion and behavioural therapy (M iller and M artin 1988). A dditionally, approaches to restorative ju stice have taken an interest in various faith traditions from around th e world that seek to o v erco m e th e p u n itiv e n e ss of w e ste rn a p p ro a c h e s (S tran g an d Braithw aite 2001). M ulti-agency w orking is ham pered by the fact that different agencies have differing philosophies, theologies and values. At times these have 134

A new chance for rehabilitation: multi-agency provision and potential under N O M S

th e potential to cause great tension. This has been cited as on e of the m ajor difficulties for non-statutory com m u nity based organizations contracting w ith the state. Take, for exam ple, Catholic teaching, which takes the view that it is the dignity of the person in them selves that constitutes the foundation of equality of all people. This dignity is the indestructible property of every hum an being. The Catholic, and indeed w ider Christian, view is that a person is an absolute end in them selves, and cannot be used as a m eans to an end (see W aterhouse 1980). This view is derived from a natural law approach that dates back to Thom as Aquinas (1226-74), w ho argued that through the process of reason, divine truth is self-evident and therefore needs to be encom passed in secular law. This view stands in contrast to those approaches that can be described in a generalized sense as utilitarian w hich the N ew Labour governm ent has predicated its policies up on in its evidence-based 'w h at w orks' agenda. This approach is con cern ed m ore w ith outcom es than process, and the problem (from a natural law perspective) is that utilitarianism has little consideration for inalienable natural rights that stem from an absolute view of individual dignity. In practice, the utilitarian approach to h u m an rights argues that w e are endow ed w ith rights that are ceded to us by the state, through the dem ocratic process, but that these rights can be taken away, they are not inalienable. Equality before the law and protection against the state for all individuals, and the avoidance of a tyranny of the m ajority over m in o rities are taken as p rereq u isites u n d er the d ev e lo p m e n t of dem ocratic and constitutional governm ent. Com pare this, for exam ple, w ith the utilitarian approach taken by b oth Britain and the USA for the detention w ithout trial for terrorist suspects at G uantanam o Bay and B elm arsh Prison. T h e respective governm ents argue that the end justifies the m eans b u t opponents argue that you cannot protect society by acting unjustly yourselves. These are profound issues that go to the heart of constitutional politics, and the relationships betw een individuals, society and the state. M oreover, they exem plify th e depth of the philosophical divide betw een faith-based organizations and the state. Given this potential for a clash of values, w hy w ould faith-based organizations w ant to engage w ith the state at all? In practice som e do not, and w ould see the idea o f contracting w ith an outside body as inhibiting their autonom y. H ow ever, the establishm ent of the new N ational O ffen d er M anag em ent System (N O M S) m ight m ake this involvem ent m ore attractive to faith-based organizations. N O M S requires a full integration of the hitherto in d ep en d en t prison and probation services an d th e estab lish m e n t o f a reg u lated m ark et place for in d ep en d e n t (no n -statu to ry ) org an ization s to b eco m e increasing ly involved in the delivery of services to offenders. W ith the introduction 135

C om m u n ity Justice

of a regulated social m arket into service provision there is an opportunity for a w ider range of organizations w ho are com m itted to people and com m unities to becom e involved in the process. This is im portant because a traditional role of w elfare organizations has been to advocate on beh alf of their service users, and this advocacy process will now be at the heart of the crim inal justice system . Faith-based organizations have the potential to provide a pow erful counterbalance to the punitive elem ents w ithin the system.

C o m p le x realities How do these issues relate to the reality of contem porary com m unity ju stice? An exam ination o f the con text and d evelopm ent of faith-based organizations and other bodies com m itted to the rehabilitative ideal indicates that their m issions are prem ised upon notions of em pow erm ent and rehabilitation, w hich are associated w ith th e old penal w elfarism of 'assist, befriend and advise'. W ithin this tradition the starting point of com m unity ju stice is the indivisibility o f the individual, their circum ­ stances and the context in w hich they live. This resem bles a com m u­ nitarian approach that sees the failure o f an individual to fulfil their potential in life as a failure of the com m unity. H ow ever, this approach does not have to absolve the con cept of personal responsibility. A key question and a challenge for state and society is one of determ ining how best to encourage personal responsibility w ithin the context of com m u­ nity, and how to deal w ith failu res o f personal and com m u nal responsibility. An understanding of the im pact of social exclusion gives a w ider perspective that considers how these notions of responsibility m ight be linked to the processes of discrim ination and exclusion w ithin com m u nities. To u n d erstand this com plexity, and particularly the relationships betw een the individual and society, it is im portant not only to understand the sociological, social psychological and psycholo­ gical processes th at are occurring b u t also the im pact of econom ics, and policy decisions at both national and local levels. This governm ent defines social exclusion on the basis of m ultiple needs and sees social exclusion as a matrix of concu rrent needs or problem s that prevent individuals or groups from participating in the benefits of society (SEU 2005). In the academ ic and professional literature this matrix of needs is som etim es referred to as poly problem s, m ultiple needs, com plex needs, or distal needs. In a m edical sense it is understood as dual diagnosis, or from a crim inal ju stice perspective this is interpreted through the concept of crim inogenic need. T h e different labels reflect

136

A new chance for rehabilitation: multi-agency provision and potential under N O M S

d iffering clinical, treatm ent and policy view points, but w hichever the label, the problem s included are offend ing behaviour, drug and alcohol problem s, m ental health problem s, psychological, relationship, housing, em ploym ent and educational difficulties. T here is a con sensu s am on g practitioners and researchers that individuals are presenting w ith m ore com plex need s to health and m ental health services, drug and alcohol services, as well as criminal ju stice agencies. D espite these realities this is an area that is under­ researched and under-theorized. Florentine (1998) in particular discusses how 'tak en for granted' concepts of m ultiple needs are crucially linked to service delivery and m ulti-agency working. H e argues that in the substance m isuse sector (in the USA, bu t this is also true for the UK) there is an assum ption th at to address substance m isuse it is necessary to address w hat he describes as oth er distal needs, related to housing, health and em ploym ent. Services are arranged to do ju st that, w hich requires a large investm en t in those ancillary services and w orking arrangem ents. H ow ever, Fiorentine's research actually indicates little relationship betw een the resolution of distal needs and overcom ing substance misuse. The w ork of Florentine raises som e crucial questions. For exam ple, the N ational T reatm en t O utcom e R esearch Study (Gossop, M arsden and Stew art 2001) d em onstrates the prevalence of m ultiple needs/problem s w ithin people presenting to drug services but w ithin the research m ethod ology there is no claim to establish causality betw een the various factors. It m ay be that it is because these issues reflect the com plexity of social reality th at there has b een an av oid ance of research and theorization. This does not help the professional or ind eed the service user w ho is trying to deal w ith a plethora of presenting problem s. This should be an area for dialogue and research betw een academ ics, researchers and practitioners. By assu m ing a relationship betw een m ultiple need s and social exclusion the N ew Labour approach has tried to address som e of these issues by recognizing the com plexity of presenting problem s and the im portance of the interface b etw een residential and com m unity settings, w h eth er that be b etw een hospital and social services, or prison and the probation service. R esearch such as th e N ational Treatm ent O utcom e R esearch Study continues to dem onstrate the necessity of seam less services that avoid relapse to physical or m ental ill health, substance m isuse or offending behaviour. O rganizations have to w ork closer together in the interests of their service users, and not of them selves or to m axim ize their professional standing.

137

C om m u n ity Justice

T h e self as expert Clinical realities and the inter-related ness of social problem s have challenged th e m onopolies of the public sector professions. W hilst professional skills are still very m uch in d em and , th e w ays that professions are organized have changed. For exam ple, as a m anager in th e non-statutory sector providing substance m isuse services for a range of statutory agencies, I em ployed doctors, nurses and social workers. T h e crim inal ju stice sector is not, nor should it be, im m u ne to these developm ents. T he changes in the probation service over the course of th e last century have been well d ocum ented , and have been at the heart of debates con cern in g the shift in em phasis betw een p u nishm ent and rehabilitation. T h e challenge for the probation service has been to find a function and role that is legitim ate to governm ent, the ju diciary and the public as well as achieving the aim s of reducing re-offending. In seeking to achieve these ends the probation service has a long history of w orking w ith the voluntary sector. G iven the links betw een offend ing behaviour and social exclusion, the w ork of the probation service has always been dep en d en t upon those services provided by other agencies, and the expertise that they can provide. Since th e 1980s som e of these services have been provided under contract to the probation service, including program m es for dom estic violence and drink im paired drivers' schem es. H ow ever, as H efetz and W arn er (2004) argue, contracting is a dynam ic process that m ay involve contracting out and contracting back in. This is true w ith th e establishm ent of the N ational Probation Service, w hich saw th e delivery of these services being brought back in-hou se and the establishm ent of accredited program m es. Considerations of the effectiveness o f those contracted out program m es aside, it is im portant to consider these changes in the light of the threat to the profession of the probation officer. T here has been debate concerning the passive way in w hich the profession seem ed to accept th e establish­ m en t of the national service, and th e end of 'assist, befriend and advise' to becom e an agency of enforcem ent and punishm ent (M air 2004). It has been argued that the future of the profession was dependent upon im plem enting these changes. Friedson (1970) argues that to be distinctively autonom ous a profession requires the patronage of the state, w hich grants the profession a licence and m andate to control its ow n work. At the heart of this professional project are notions o f technical and specialist know ledge, and the need for the probation service to dem onstrate its ow n expertise. This specialist know ledge is to be found in the com m itm ent to cognitive behavioural approaches that inform accredited interventions and the w hole language of risk assessm ent.

138

A new chance for rehabilitation: multi-agency provision and potential under N O M S

U nder traditional w elfare m odels, expertise is attributed to individuals exercising roles inform ed by their professional status. U nder this m odel it is the professional w ho diagnoses the individual and their needs, and d ecides upon and applies the proper treatm ent. This is a top-dow n m edicalized approach, reflected in the approach of health, education, social w ork and crim inal ju stice agencies. In contrast, other view s of governm ent (such as the liberal view) require that individuals becom e experts of them selves and adopt both an educated and a know ledgeable relation of self-care tow ards their m inds and their behaviours, as well as that of the m em bers of their ow n fam ily (Rose 1996). Zibbell (2004) argues that this approach (w hich has been a consistent them e in governm ent policy from Thatcher to Blair) then reconfigures the role of service-user, w ho becom es an expert. This is apparent in the drug and alcohol sector, w here the N ational Treatm ent A gency (NTA) has invested tim e, m oney and energy in ensuring service-user consultation and participation in service governance and delivery. It is an integral part of M odels of Care (The N SF for the Substance M isue Sector). D espite the fact that users of illegal drugs are by definition com m itting crim inal offences, in th e w ork of the NTA, through Drug Action Team s and others, the service-user identity is that of drug-user, consum er and expert of self. It is precisely this reconfiguration of role that provides th e service-user with the opportunity to dem and a participatory role in the adm inistration of the services that they use. Across all the sectors of public policy and w elfare provision, the biggest block to this participatory approach is that of professional pow er, w hich m ay be intim idated by the voices o f articulate and em pow ered service-users. A key part of th e Third W ay agenda is developing a sense of responsibility and citizenship by giving people a stake in th e services that they use (G iddens 1998). If citizenship m eans the possession of legal rights, choice and participation, a d ecent incom e and geographical and social m obility then the offering of access to full citizenship, w hich has been denied via the processes o f social exclusion, logically should lead to a pathw ay out of crime. A study by M ercier and Alarie (2002) lends support to this conclusion. Researching deviance in relation to hom elessness and drug abuse in general, individuals w ere asked to identify progress indicators of m oving aw ay from hom elessness and drug abuse. T h e usual indicators w ere found, such as housing, financial situation, social relationships and m ental health, but also (to the surprise of the researchers) notions of citizenship and social status w ere included. There w ould appear to be a direct correlation b etw een a better control of anti-social behaviou r with

139

C om m u n ity Justice

changes in th e individual's relationship w ith society in so far as people w ho have b een excluded are not continually scapegoated and labelled as offenders but are entitled to assum e a position of influence w ithin society.

Conclusion A lthough m ulti-agency w orking is by its very nature com plex, at times controversial, and heavily politicized it is conceptually and practically at th e heart of social policy and public service provision. W heth er for reasons of cost efficiency or for th e purposes o f capacity, building this approach, particularly in the form o f utilizing the private and not for profit sectors, is set to continue. W ith regard to crim inal ju stice the creation of N O M S presents a h u ge challenge to the prison and probation services in term s of their cultural and professional practices, identities and understandings. In particular there is concern over the increasingly punitive nature of the corrections system . H ow ever, these developm ents represent an evolution that provides opportunities as well as threats, w ith regard to a clear distinction betw een th e purposes o f pu nishm ent and rehabilitation. The m ajority of organizations w ho are com m itted to w orking w ithin the N O M S fram ew ork will do so because they are com m itted to rehabilitation. At tim es a difference in values will bring them into conflict w ith the state, but essentially organizations w ho are experienced and com m itted to w orking w ith social exclusionary factors will b e at the heart of the penal process advocating for their service users. O n e o f th e m ost interesting factors is that m any of these organizations, w orking under the auspices of other lead agencies such as the H ousing C orporation or th e N ational Treatm en t A gency for Substance M isuse, will be w orking to full service-user involvem ent. At its best this involvem ent can often be a pathw ay for individual service users w ho have com m itted crim es to gain a foothold on a career ladder by gaining w ork experience on a voluntary or paid basis. W hilst there is concern over th e changes to th e probation service, it perhaps should be rem em bered that other agencies of rehabilitation w ith dem onstrable specialism s and expertise will be engaging directly w ith the N O M S structure, and that these agencies m ay be far m ore representative of th e people that they serve than has hitherto been the case.

References Blair, A. (1993) 'W hy Crime is a Socialist Issue', New Statesman. 29 (12): 27-28.

A n e w ch an ce fo r rehabilitation: m ulti-agen cy p ro v isio n and potential u n d e r N O M S

Florentine, R. (1998) 'Effective D rug Treatm ent: Testing the Distal N eeds Hypothesis', Journal o f Substance Abuse Treatment, 15: 281-289. Friedson, E. (1970) Medical Dominance. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton. Ciddens, A. (1998) The Third Way. Oxford. Polity Press. Girard, R. (1985) The Scapegoat. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press. Gossop, M., M arsden, J. and Stewart, D. (2001) NTORS after Five Years (National Treatment Outcome Research Study: Changes in Substance Use, Health and Criminal Behaviour in the Five Years After Intake. London: Departm ent of Health. Hefetz, A. and Warner, M. (2004) 'Privatization and its Reverse: Explaining the Dynamics of the Governm ent Contracting Process', Journal o f Public Administra­ tion Research and Theory, 14,171-190. Mair, G. (ed.) (2004) What Matters in Probation. Cullompton: Willan. McGuire, J. (ed.) (1995) What Works: Reducing Reoffending: Guidelines from Research and Practice. Chichester: Wiley. M errier, C. and Alarie, S. (2002) 'Pathways Out of Deviance: Implications for Programme Evaluation', in S. Brochu, C. Da Agra and M. Cousineau (eds), Drugs and Crime Deviant Pathways. Aldershot: Ashgate. Miller, W. and Martin, J. (1988) Behavior Therapy and Religion: Integrating Spiritual and Behavioral Approaches to Change. California: Sage. N ash, M. (2004) 'Probation and Community Values', in J. M uncie and W. Wilson (eds), Student Handbook o f Criminal Justice and Criminology. London: Cavendish. Paramabandhu, G. and Farmer, R. (1994) 'Bhuddism and Addictions', Addiction Research, 2. Rose, N. (1996) 'Governing "A dvanced" Liberal Democracies', in A. Barry, T. O sbourne and N. Rose (eds), Foucault and Political Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. SEU (Social Exclusion Unit) (2005) What is social exclusion? Available on line: http:// www.socialexclusion.KQV.uk/paRe.asp?id =213 Strang, H. and Braithwaite, J. (2001) Restorative Justice and Civil Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thom , B. (1999) Dealing with Drink: Alcohol and Social Policy, from Treatment to Management. London. Free Association Books. W aterhouse, H. (trans) (1980) Pacem In Terris: Encyclical Letter o f Pope John X X // on Human Rights and Duties. London: Catholic Truth Society. Zibbell, J. (2004) 'C an the Lunatics Actually Take Over the Asylum? Reconfiguring Subjectivity and Neo Liberal Governance in Contem porary British Drug Treatm ent Policy', International Journal o f Drug Policy, 15: 56-65.

141

C h a p te r 9

C rim e prevention: the role and potential o f schools Carol Hayden

. . . an effective crim e prevention strategy lies outside the crim inal justice system and in the fields of education and em ploym ent, through w hich fundam ental econom ic, social and political inequal­ ities can be challenged. (M uncie 2002: 158) This chapter will review the argum ents about the role and potential of schools as a site for crim e prevention. It will consider the evidence about the scale and nature of problem atic (and som etim es crim inal) behaviour presented on the school site, by children and others. The chapter concludes with a look at the com peting priorities for schools in relation to any crim e prevention role. Preventing crim e is generally understood to be a com plex process in w hich the role and potential of a w ide range of agencies is now under review (H ughes, M cLaughlin and M uncie 2002). It is often m aintained that youth is the m ost crim inogenic age. Y ou n g people are also the most com m on victim s, particularly m ales (M uncie 2004). O ffend in g behaviour during ad olescence and you ng ad ulthood is w idespread. G raham and Bow ling (1995) found that half of m ales and a third of fem ales aged 1 4 25 adm itted that they had com m itted at least one offence at som e tim e, although for the m ajority this was lim ited to one or tw o property offences. V ictim ization studies show that high proportions of you ng people are affected: for exam ple a third of a national sam ple of 12-15year-olds claim ed to have been assaulted at least once in a six-m onth period; a fifth had been harassed by people of their ow n age, the same proportion had been harassed by an adult; a fifth had their property

142

C rim e prevention: the role and potential of schools

stolen (M uncie 2004). The Youth Justice Board (YJB) has com m issioned an annual survey of secondary school age young people since 1999, through M O RI (M arket and O pinion Research International). These surveys explore the prevalence of offend ing am ong you ng people and com pare you ng people in m ainstream education to those attend ing facilities for pupils excluded from school. T h e 2004 YJB survey found that 26 per cen t of m ainstream school pupils had com m itted a crim e in the last year, com pared to 60 p er cen t of excluded pupils; 49 per cent of m ainstream pupils had been a victim of any offence com pared to 55 per cent of excluded pupils in the sam e tim e period (M O RI 2004). The opening quote from M uncie reflects a view that an effective crim e prevention strategy has to deal w ith underlying and fundam ental issues. Education and its con nection to em ploym ent opportunities are key in this respect. The links betw een education and crim e can be illustrated in a variety of ways. O n e of these is low levels of num eracy and literacy, w hich is striking am ong the prison population: nearly one in tw o (48 per cent) prisoners have difficulty w ith reading and tw o-thirds (65 p er cent) have difficulties w ith w orking w ith num bers. Strong associations have b een found betw een poor basic skills and the am ount of self-reported contact w ith the police and offend ing (Parsons 2002). T he high prevalence of youth offend ing and victim ization found in different ways in surveys and official statistics suggests the conclusion that prim ary crim e prevention in the form of universal program m es in schools are an obvious com ponent in the overall fight against crime. H ow ever, w hat is of m ost interest to policy-m akers are the persistent and prolific offenders (2 per cen t of m en; 1 p er cen t of w om en) w ho account for about half of all offences com m itted (East and Cam pbell 1999). This group m ay not be containable in m ainstream schools. Yet the role and potential of schools in crim e prevention should be review ed w ith varying levels of n eed in m ind. Schools as universal service providers have the difficult task of ensuring effective targeting of help w hilst avoiding the potentially negative im pact of w hat m ight be seen as labelling. Sutton et al (2004) conclud e that preventative services should be presented and justified in term s of child ren's existing needs and problem s, rather than in relation to any future risk of crim inality. Crim e prevention policies and m easures m ay occur at the individual, situational or structural level and are carried out by m any different agencies. Schools have a role to play on all levels. At the level of the individual, schools can enhan ce pro-social behaviour, personal achieve­ m ent, the sense of being part of a w ider com m unity, as well as the opportunity to lead a productive and law -abiding life. Schools can prom ote parental interest and involvem ent in their child's education 143

C om m u n ity Justice

and achievem ent. In other words, schools can help to en h an ce m any of the w ell-k now n 'p ro te ctiv e facto rs' again st crim inal in v o lv em en t. Fu rtherm ore, schools can provide the opportunity for social advance­ m en t and as such they are a vehicle for a route out of poverty and lack of opportunity and the tem ptation to follow a 'crim inal career'. O n th e other hand, schools are also a site w here crim inal, anti-social and abusive behaviou r can occur, from both w ithin and outside the com m unity. Schools thus have to guard against 'outsiders' as well as develop a safe and orderly com m unity w ithin school itself.

C rim e , inequality, anti-social behaviour and you n g people T he association betw een crim e, anti-social behaviour and you ng people inhabits popular im agination and discourse. O ne-child 'crim e w aves', 'feral children' and sim ilarly em otive headlines are com m on in the mass m edia. Individual cases, such as the killing of Jam ie B ulger in 1993 by two ten-year-old boys truanting from school at the tim e have com e to signify a m ore 'generalised crisis in childhood and a breakdow n of m oral and social orderi (M uncie 2004: 5). This is not a new debate. The behaviour of you ng people has caused concern for som e adults for as long as w e have d ocum ented the issue. Jones (2001: 45) cites a 6,000-year-old inscription from an Egyptian priest proclaim ing: 'o u r earth is degenerate - children no longer obey their parents'. The inter-con nection betw een social and econom ic inequalities (now m ore com m only located w ithin the debates about social exclusion and neighbourhood renew al) and concerns about disorder and social control are well d ocum ented (SEU 2001a, 2001b). T he specific links betw een disorder, crim e and general neighbourhood decline w ere highlighted in N ew Labour thinking w hilst still in opposition (Straw and M ichael 1996). Thus w hat was once the dom ain of social w elfare has becom e redefined in term s of the potential contribution to crim e control (H ughes et al 2002). Schools as a place in w hich the vast m ajority of you ng people spend their teenage years becom e an obvious site for developm ent in this context. M uch of the behaviou r of young people that especially troubles adults is referred to as 'anti-social' (see also H atcher and H ollin, this volum e, M cK enzie, this Volum e). H ow ever, there are different interpretations of this term. Rutter et al (1998) use the term 'anti-social behaviour' in a very specific way, to cover behaviour that is a crim inal offence, w hether or not th e behaviou r results in detection or conviction. Their use of th e term in relation to crim inal behaviour is chosen in order to m ake the distinction betw een this behaviour and the various diagnostic categories used by clinicians w hen referring to behaviour considered to be outside the norm 144

C rim e prevention: the role and potential of schools

(such as con du ct or oppositional disorders). R utter et al rem ind us that the variou s clinical d isord ers are not sy n o n y m o u s w ith crim inal behaviour, n either is crim inal behaviou r synonym ous w ith social or p sychological d ysfunction. In con trast the H om e O ffice (2003: 5) d efinition and use of the term is wider: 'it is behaviour w hich causes or is likely to cause harassm ent, alarm or distress to one or m ore people w ho are not in the sam e household as the perpetrator.' Exam ples o f anti­ social behaviou r include graffiti, abusive and intim idating language, excessive noise, dropping litter, d run ken behaviour in the street, and d ealing drugs. Such behaviour is explicitly blam ed for holding back the regeneration of the most disadvantaged areas and creating an environ­ m en t conducive to crime. T he H om e O ffice definition o f 'anti-social behaviour' can b e seen as a response to a m ore generalized concern about social disorder and the specific concern about you ng people in public places. For exam ple, the British Crim e Survey (BCS) found that 22 per cen t of respondents perceived a high level of disorder in their neighbourhood , w ith a third (33 per cent) citing teenagers 'h an g in g around' the streets as a big problem (H om e O ffice 2004). T h e H om e O ffice definition of anti-social behaviou r is im portant. Som e of the behaviou r view ed as 'anti-social' according to the H om e O ffice and view ed as problem atic by respondents to th e BCS is not crim inal, yet A nti-Social Behaviour O rders (ASBOs) can be served on children from the age of ten com m itting 'n uisance' activities. Breach of an A SBO is a crim inal offence. These orders have been available since April 1999 and are used for adults as well as you ng people (see also H atcher and H ollin, this Volum e). T he m ost com m on types of behaviou r for w hich A SBO s have been served are 'general loutish and unruly conduct such as verbal abuse, harassm ent, assault, graffiti and excessive noise' (H om e O ffice 2003: 11). A cceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABC) are m ore recent; they constitute 'a w ritten agreem ent betw een a person w ho has been involved in anti­ social behaviou r and one or m ore agencies w hose role it is to prevent such behaviou r' (H om e O ffice 2003: 52). ABCs are designed for you ng people (10-18 years), and they can b e effected m ore quickly than ASBO s and at low er cost (Stephen and Squires 2003). It is advocated that the ABC should be well publicized am on g you ng people, in particular w ithin schools. Inform ation from the education service about truancy and school exclusion is explicitly cited as a potential ev id ence source w hen identifying individuals for ABCs. Step hen and Squires note that 'n o t only can alm ost any behaviou r potentially be regarded as "an ti-so cial" but there is a m uch low er standard of "p ro o f". A situation that can be view ed as "crim inalisation by stealth ".' (Step hen and Squires 2003: 11). As som e of th e behaviour that is the focus of A SBO s and ABCs is not 145

C om m u n ity Justice

crim inal, the process could thus be argued to be having a 'n et-w id en in g' effect of bringing into the orbit o f th e crim inal ju stice system young people w ho w ould not previously be in this situation. R esearch ev id ence on persisten ce and d esistan ce of anti-social behaviou r (as defined by Rutter et al 1998) would indicate that the m ore serious and persistent form s can be d etected as early as age three, in the form of oppositional and hyperactive behaviour. T h e distinction is m ade b etw een 'ad o lescen t-lim ited ' and 'life cou rse persistent' anti-social behaviour, although it is em phasized that 'n oth in g is cast in stone' and a range of life events and other opportunities and circum stances can play a part in h elping anti-social behaviour to con tin ue or cease (Rutter et al 1998: 307). Schools could be said to occup y this difficult terrain - they can help to am eliorate and reduce behaviou r problem s or in th e worst circum stances they m ay em phasize and entrench their significance. The explicit involvem ent of schools in crim e prevention program m es m ight be seen as further evidence o f the 'n et-w id en in g' already referred to, or alternatively evidence of attem pts at 'n ip p in g problem s in the bud'. There is clearly the potential for schools to occupy both positions sim ultaneously.

Risk and protective factors - the role of schools The role and potential of schools in relation to crim e prevention is a relatively neglected area in UK crim inology, although school-related issues are often cited as part o f the well know n list of 'risk' and 'protective' factors for future crim inality (Farrington 1996). A ccording to Farrington, risks specifically relating to schooling include: low intelli­ gen ce and school failure, and hyperactivity/im pulsivity/attention deficit. M ore broadly Farrington notes that th e prevalence of offending by pupils varies greatly betw een schools, although the m echanism s at w ork alongside the social mix o f pupils attend in g schools are not sufficiently understood. O utside the school, other risk factors relate to poor socio­ econom ic circum stances and com m unity influences; poor parenting and fam ily conflict; low levels of parental supervision, as well as individual tem peram ent. M any of these factors have in turn been found to be associated specifically w ith truancy and school exclusion (G raham and Bow ling 1995, H ayden 2002). Protective factors identified by Farrington (1996) include resilient tem peram ent, warm affectionate relationship with at least one parent, parents w ho provide effective supervision, pro-social beliefs, consistent discipline and parents w ho m aintain a strong interest in their child's education. M cC arthy, Laing and W alker (2004: ix-x) caution against a sim plistic interpretation o f the con cept of risk, noting 146

C rim e prevention: the role and potential of schools

that risks are 'con text-d ep en d en t and vary over tim e and with different circum stances'. In particular, children vary in their resilience to difficult circum stances. Children w ith a stronger sense of attachm ent to other people, with a m ore positive outlook on life, m ore plans for the future and m ore control over their lives are m ore likely to dem onstrate resilience. The broad er role of school in enhan cing protective factors against adverse social circum stances and outcom es is well appreciated and m ore w idely researched in A m erican studies. A m erican research has singled out the concept of 'school con nected ness' as the most im portant schoolrelated variable that is protective for adverse outcom es, such as substance use, violence and early sexual activity (Resnick, B earm an and Blum 1997). O n e study of over 83,000 pupils found that four attributes explained a large part of betw een school variance in school con nected ness (M cN eely, N onnem ak er and Blum 2002). These attributes w ere classroom m an age­ m en t clim ate, school size, severity of discipline policies, and rates of participation in after-school activities. School connected ness was found to be low er in schools with difficult classroom m anagem ent clim ates and w here tem porary exclusion was used for m inor issues. Zero-tolerance policies (often using harsh pu nishm ents like exclusion from school) w ere associated w ith reports of pupils feeling less safe than in schools with m ore m oderate policies. Pupils in sm aller schools felt m ore 'con n ected ' or attached to their schools than those in larger schools. N ot surprisingly students w ho participate in extra-curricular activities report feeling m ore con nected to school; they also achieve higher grades (M cN eely et al 2002). In Britain, a study by Rutter, M aughan, M ortim ore and O uston (1979) is often cited as the landm ark study that show ed that schools could 'm ak e a d ifferen ce', rather than sim ply reprod uce existing social inequalities and divisions. O f specific interest here is the finding that school organization and ethos hav e an im pact on rates of delinquency. The im plications of studies like this have not been lost on N ew Labour. The priorities for the 1997 adm inistration have been often quoted as 'ed ucation, education, edu cation', w ith 'social inclusion' as a consistent broader policy objective seen throu ghou t the public sector. In relation to schools this has included targets to reduce school exclusion (now abandoned) as well as increase attend ance (still in operation) and a plethora of initiatives aim ed at prom oting social inclusion through education. A nu m ber of initiatives typify the uneasy tension betw een w elfare and ju stice in N ew Labour's reform s, how ever, such as the increasingly hard line taken w ith parents w hose children do not attend school regularly (the first parent w as im prisoned in 2002) and proposals in relation to the drug testing of schoolchildren.

147

C om m unity Justice

A w ider role for schools? It was clear from the start that N ew Labour saw a w ider role for schools than w hat m ight be term ed academ ic achievem en t and the acquisition of the credentials ultim ately need ed for em ploym ent. N ew Labour cam e into office at a time w hen there was w idespread concern about exclusion from school and tru ancy and the grow in g ev id en ce about th eir associations with crim inal involvem ent. Indeed, the first report from the Social Exclusion U nit (SEU) focused on truancy and school exclusion (SEU 1998). Targets w ere set for a one-third reduction in school exclusion and truancy in a five-year period. Social Inclusion: Pupil Support (DfES 1999) was the guidance launched to replace the Tory guidance, Pupils w ith Problem s (DfEE 1994), refo cu sin g th e debate aw ay from the individual and tow ards broader social objectives. H ow ever, this attem pt to refocus the role of schools cam e after a long period in w hich academ ic achievem en t, league tables and com petition betw een schools had been engineered as a w ay of driving up academ ic standards in schools. Schools had been given a very clear m essage on how they w ould be valued, both by the school inspection system O fsted and by the w ay parents interpreted league tables and consequ ently exercised their 'choice' of school. N ew Labour sought to m aintain w hat it saw as the advantages of this system , overlaid with the broader m ission of social inclusion. P ointing to the obvious tensions betw een the social inclusion and standards agendas, Loxley and Thom as (2001: 299) com m ent that 'an u n generou s observer m ight suggest that the governm ent is trying to have its cake and eat it'. Yet schools in Britain have long been acknow ledged to have a w ider rem it than sim ply the transm ission of specific form s of know led ge, not least the m ore explicit social control functions of prom oting a certain kind of conform ity and obedience to authority, as well as keeping children and you ng people 'o ff the streets' and occupied (Carlen, G leeson and W ardhaugh 1992). Beyond these key roles are others that broadly com e under the head ing of individual w ell-being and the opportunity to socialize w ith peers. These objectives are sum m arized in Bloom 's taxonom y (in Fitz-Gibbon 2000: 7), w hich characterizes schools as having three broad goals: cognitive, affective and behavioural. Cognitive goals are to do w ith academ ic learning. A ffective goals relate to happiness, aspirations and satisfaction with school. Behavioural goals include regular attend ance, paying attention in class and pro-social behaviour. Fitz-Gibbon (2000) notes how parents are often reported to be equally interested in affective and behavioural goals as well as cognitive attainm ent. The ideal school w ould m axim ize opportunities for these

148

C rim e prevention: the role and potential of schools

goals, recognizing that one affects another. Further, all of these goals interrelate w ith w ell-know n protective factors against crim inal involve­ m ent. Pupils w ho are happy and 'co n n ected ' to school are m ore likely to b eh av e in 'accep tab le' w ays - attend , achiev e and in turn have aspirations for a law -abiding future. It could be argued that the behavioural goals are fundam ental to all of this, not least because in order to benefit from school in cognitive and affective term s, you have to attend school regularly in the first place!

School attendance: associations with crim inal and anti-social behaviour W e have already noted that school-related issues are part of th e range of risk and protective factors that surround children and you ng people. The inter-con nection b etw een school attend ance, achievem ent and specifi­ cally school exclusion is now a w ell-rehearsed part of the debate about social exclusion and inclusion. Those w ho do not attend school regularly or full-tim e are know n to com e disproportionately from th e m ore vulnerable groups in society and as w e have already noted they are also know n to be m ore likely to be involved in offend ing behaviour. A num ber of key studies have found strong evidence of the association betw een school exclusion and offend ing (see G raham 1988, G raham and Bow ling 1995). G raham and Bow ling (1995: 42) conclud e that exclusion 'is both a cause and a consequ ence of crim e'. O th er w ell-know n reports in this field suggest that if children w ere in school they w ould not be com m itting crim e (Audit Com m ission 1996). A Social Exclusion Unit report goes as far as seeing children not attend in g school as a 'significant cause' of crim e (SEU 1998: 1). Studies (YJB 2002: 54) have show n that pupils playing truant are m ore than tw ice as likely to offend, com pared w ith those w ho have not played truant (65 per cent and 30 per cent respectively). H ow ever, the YJB study also notes that pupils do not necessarily offend w hilst playing truant: half said that they never offended w hilst playing truant (48 p er cent), and only one in ten (10 per cent) said they often did so. Excluded pupils w ere similarly m ore than tw ice as likely to report offending, com pared with non-excluded pupils (64 per cen t and 26 per cen t respectively). N evertheless, Berridge et al (2001) conclud e in their study that the relationship betw een school exclusion and offend ing is com plex, m aking absolute statem ents difficult.

149

C om m u n ity Justice

Be haviour in schools As w e noted earlier, a key goal for schools has alw ays been about socializing child ren and yo u n g people into pro-social p atterns of behaviour and getting children to attend school regularly. There are o ther form s of problem atic and aggressive behaviour in schools, such as bullying, that m ay also overlap with the issues explaining som e truancy and exclusion. Early aggressive behaviour is strongly associated with later anti-social and crim inal behaviour, and schools could be seen as well placed to d etect such behaviour and help in its am elioration. Som e form s of school-based behaviour involving the harassm ent of m inority groups and bullying in schools is now view ed as a form of 'h ate crim e' by a nu m ber of police forces in the U K in their w ork with schools. It is already established that perpetrators of h ate crim es in the com m unity are m ost likely to be teenage boys, w ith relatively low levels of school achievem ent (Gadd 2004; see also Hall, this volum e). There are various w ays in w hich w e m ight try to estim ate how big an issue problem atic and aggressive behaviou r is in schools. Som e of this behaviour could be view ed as crim inal, som e could be seen as anti-social, w hilst other behaviour m ay be sim ply part o f the grow ing-up process and 'testin g th e boundaries' w ith adults. It should also be em phasized that som e of the behaviour that is view ed as problem atic in a school (such as 'disruptive' behaviour) m ay not be view ed in quite the sam e w ay in o ther settings. D ifferences in opinion are evident betw een parents and teachers about the extent to w hich a particular behaviour constitutes a problem severe enough to w arrant school exclusion (H ayden and D unne 2001). All the w ays of estim ating the scale of problem behaviour in schools are open to som e criticism. It is also w orth rem em bering that for m any pupils, school is a place that is safer than hom e or the com m unity. H ow ever, putting aside these concerns for a m om ent and taking note of som e of the evidence available, it is difficult to escape th e conclusion that schools are frequently the site for behaviou r that is at the least anti-social and som etim es crim inal, although not necessarily seen as such. T h e language w ithin the education service w hen talking about very difficult pupil behaviou r tends to be 'disruptive' or 'disaffected'. A lthough lowlevel disruption to lessons and harassm ent of teachers are a feature of surveys focusing on pupil behaviou r (D ES/W O 1989, N eill 2000, NAS/ U W T 2003), it is evident that pupils are reported to be the m ost frequent victim s of the m ore severe events - physical violence, bullying and harassm ent in schools, as Table 9.1 illustrates.

150

C rim e prevention: the role and potential of schools

Table 9.1 Behaviour in schools (as reported by teachers) Type of behaviour/problem

Frequency and % reporting, by teacher

Possession of offensive weapon (pupil)

3% weekly or monthly 9.2% termly 20.2% annually 33% 'e v e /

Physical violence - direct threats (pupil to pupil)

43.4% weekly 19.3% monthly 83.2% 'ever'

Physical violence - threats to pupils from third parties (usually parents, less frequently former pupils)

16.1% weekly 14.5% monthly 52.7% 'ever'

Bullying and harassment - pupil to pupil

32.2% weekly 20.4% monthly

Damage to teachers' property

26.8% weekly 19.7% monthly

Physical violence - threats from pupils to teachers

5% weekly 5% monthly 25% termly or annually

Physical violence - threats to teachers from third parties (usually parents, less frequently former pupils)

7.9% termly 8.9% weekly 8.9 % monthly

Unwanted physical contact - towards teachers (pushing, touching)

8.2% termly 10.9% annually

Source: Adapted from Neill (2002: 2-4). Based on 13 LEAs, 2,575 responses.

A nother survey conducted by a teach in g union and focusing only on abuse against teachers, across 304 schools (prim ary, secondary and special) in the north-w est o f England, revealed 964 incidents of abuse against teachers in a tw o-w eek period in January 2003. About one in eight of these abuses (126 cases) involved w hat w ere term ed 'physical assaults' (NAS/UWT 2003). Research into personal safety and violence in schools (Gill and H earnshaw 1997) provides a picture of w hat a random sam ple of 3,986 schools experienced in one school year. Selected findings from this research are presented in Table 9.2.

151

C om m unity Justice

Table 9.2 Personal safety and violence in schools (at school level) Type of incident

% schools reporting in last school year

Physical violence - pupil to staff

18.7% (member of staff - hit, punched or kicked) 2.9% (member of staff - hit with weapon or other object, stabbed or slashed) 50.7% (pupil - hit, punched or kicked) 6.9% (pupil - hit with weapon or other object, stabbed or slashed) 12.1% of schools

Physical violence - pupil to pupil

Weapons - carried by pupils, on school site Theft with threats or actual violence 1.9% of schools

Source: Adapted from Gill and Hearnshaw (1997: 1-2). Based on 9% of schools nationally, 2,303 responses. Tables 9.1 and 9.2 illustrate a worrying picture of the incidence of very problematic and sometimes criminal behaviour in schools. The surveys also highlight the different ways data may be collected (e.g. by individual teacher or by school), thus Creating problems of comparability. Pupil-based surveys com e up with equally w orrying, though varying, rates of prevalence of different types o f bullying behaviour. Again there are problem s of definition and com parability across surveys. For exam ple, 'physical violence, pupil to pupil' (as referred to in Tables 9.1 and 9.2) m ay be one-off acts of aggression; they m ay on the other hand be more sustained. A ccording to Sm ith (2002: 117-18) and based on Sm ith et al (1999), 'bu llying is a subset of aggressive behaviours, characterised by repetition and pow er im balance'. Bullying takes various form s - physical, verbal, social exclusion and indirect form s such as spreading rumours. Table 9.3 Bullying surveys Authors

Area

Whitney and Smith (1993)

Primary and Sheffield (6,000 pupils) Secondary

Katz, Buchanan and Bream (2001)

UK (7,000 13-19 years young people)

152

School type/age Prevalence

27% of primary and 10% of secondary pupils had been bullied; 12% of primary and 6% of secondary pupils had bullied others More than 50% had been bullied: 13% of boys and 12% of girls were bullied 'severely'

C rim e prevention: the role and potential of schools

Bullying surveys produce fairly w ide-ranging estim ates d ep en ding on the way questions are asked and the tim escale involved. Sm ith and M yron-W ilson (1998: 406) estim ate that: 'around 1 in 5 children are involved in bu lly-v ictim problem s' in the UK, w ith sim ilar incidences reported in other countries. Furniss (2000) discusses w hether som e forms of bullying should be considered to be a crim e, rather than as a school disciplinary matter. Furniss considers the issue both from the standpoint of existing legal provisions as well as from the point of view of the level of protection afforded to children. She points out that assaults on teachers (though less frequ ent than pupil-to-pupil assaults) are often reported to the police w hereas in pupil-to-pupil cases, parents are expected to m ake the decision about w hether or not to involve the police. Perm anen t exclusion from school m ight be view ed as an indicator of teachers' lim its to tolerance in relation to pupil behaviour. A large proportion of the reasons for p erm anent exclusion involve physically aggressive behaviour from pupils or behaviou r that is highly disruptive of the learning of other pupils. W hen perm anent exclusion figures are com pared with surveys of teacher experience like the ones noted above, one m ight be surprised by the relatively sm all proportion of children who are perm anently excluded - according to official statistics (see Table 9.4). Table 9.4 P erm anent exclusions Year

All perm anent exclusions

1990-1991 1996-1997 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003

2,910 12,700 8,300 9,210 9,540 9,290

Source: Figures from www.dfes.gov.uk

H ow ever, it is im portant to appreciate that although these official figures for p erm anent exclusion represent a very small proportion of the school population (the rate of p erm anent exclusion was 1.3 per 1,000 school population in England or 0.13 per cen t in 2002/2003), they are the tip of the iceberg in term s of disaffected and other difficult to m anage behaviou r in school. Fixed period exclusions (a m atter of days usually) are m uch m ore num erous. T he first available national data estim ates 80,000 fixed period exclusions involving 62,000 individual pupils in the sum m er term of the 2003 school year (DfES 2004). Som e pupils were subjected to more than one fixed period exclusion in this school term. 153

C om m unity Justice

The m ost com m on single reason given for both perm anent and fixed period exclusions is 'persistent disruptive behaviour' (20 per cen t of all exclusions). Physical assault against an adult accounted for 12 per cen t of perm anent and 5 per cent of fixed period exclusions. Physical assault against a pupil accounted for 14 per cen t of p erm anent and 16 per cen t of fixed period exclusions (DfES 2004). W ork conducted by the author for one urban education authority found records of exclusion for about 2 per cen t of the w hole school population in a one-year period; m ost of these w ere fixed period exclusions, for a m atter of a day or so (H ayden 2000). O fficial records of non-attend ance involve a m uch bigger proportion of the school population. The reasons for no n-attend ance are varied, but in som e cases at least they represent disaffection or disinterest in schooling and in others avoidance of w ork pressures or bullying. Schools record 'n on -atten d an ce', w hich covers authorized absence (for exam ple through sickness) and unauthorized absence (w hich m ay include a range of situations including truancy and bein g a you ng carer). 'Truancy' suggests an active choice not to go to school and is thus a particular form of absence. Table 9.5. Non-attendance: percentage of half days missed

Authorized Unauthorized

1995-1996

2002-2003

6.9 0.7

6.13 0.7

Source: Figures from www.dfes.gov.uk O ther estim ates for children not attend in g school include half a million schoolchildren engaged in illegal w ork, of w hom 100,000 are believed to truant from school daily in order to w ork (TU C/M ORI 2001). The m ost com m only quoted figure in gov ern m en t an n ou n cem en ts is 50,000 schoolchildren truanting from school on any school day (DfES 2002). Further, around 100,000 pupils w ere found to 'd isappear' from the school roll betw een years 10 and 11 in a one-year period of m onitoring (O fsted 2003). There are a com plex set of circum stances and reasons to explain w hy children are not in school or not benefiting from school. T hey all have their behavioural m anifestations, although it tends to be the 'acting out' child that causes m ost consternation am ong teachers and parents because such behaviou r d em ands attention.

154

C rim e prevention: the role and potential of schools

Sch o ols and their co m m u n ity as a site for crim e Schools are seen as a potential site for crim e, as well as the site for crim e prevention that has been the focus o f m u ch o f this chapter. E nhanced security m easures are a com m on feature o f the school environm ent: CCTV, keypad entry system s and m ain gates locked for substantial periods of the day. U nder the Safer School Partnerships guidance (DfES 2002), police officers are based in schools in areas w ith a high level of street crim e. T h e police also have a role in the event of parallel crim inal proceedings in cases of school exclusion w here a serious allegation or event has occurred (DfES 1999). The last section looked at behaviou r in schools and the various ways th e education service and educational research tends to m easure the extent of the issue. Crim inologists hav e a slightly different focus and m any of the surveys conducted are m ore explicitly looking at the prevalence of offend ing behaviour and victim ization of young people of school age. Self-report surveys condu cted w ith school pupils provide us w ith a picture of you ng people's involvem ent in crim inal activity in the com m unity (see for exam ple, Aye M aung 1995, based on BCS data, or the annual YJB survey, M O RI 2004). H ow ever, there is very little research explicitly focusing specifically on crim inal acts com m itted on the school site, presum ably becau se of the extrem e sensitivity of such data and the difficulties of gaining access to undertake the research. O ne self-report study of a sam ple from 20 state secondary schools (3,103 respondents) in Cardiff found that one in five pupils reported involvem ent in one o f five categories of offence on the school site in a one-year period. The proportion of pupils reporting offences w ere as follows: assault (13.2 per cent); vandalism (6.7 per cent); theft (6.0 per cent); robbery (0.7 per cent); breaking into school (0.7 per cent). Interestingly, this study reports varying levels of im pact on o ffend ing behaviou r in relation to individual and lifestyle factors, with school context exercising a different level of relative protection in relation to these factors (Boxford 2004). This sort o f study is im portant in a nu m ber of ways: it illustrates th e high level o f offend ing that m ay be occurring in schools; it adds to th e debate about th e extent to w hich schools (in com bination with other factors) can address these issues, and it rem inds us that som e o f the acts dealt with as a w ithin-school disciplinary issue could be seen as a crim inal offence. D espite en h an ced security in schools, studies have found high proportions of pupils expressing real fears about bein g victim ized in school: one third of pupils in a study by N oaks and N oaks (2000). Pupils expressed further fears about particular situations like school buses and

155

C om m u n ity Justice

unsupervised settings. Fears about travel or security in school w ere sufficient for betw een 3 and 5 per cent of pupils to miss school in another study (Kingery, Coggleshall and Alford 1998). W hatever the precise focus of these surveys, they all indicate a high prevalence of anti-social and potentially crim inal behaviour in the lives of children of school age. This has led Phillips (2003) to com m ent up on the 'norm alization' of aspects of abuse, harassm ent and violence in you ng people's lives. In particular, stealing, fighting and general aggression are reported to be com m on (H ow ard League 2002). In a range of w ays, schools are also a place w here adults, parents and form er pupils m ay vent their anger and frustration. There are various ways that w e can estim ate the scale o f this sort of problem . Table 9.1 includes estim ates of 'third party' incursions onto the school site, directed at either pupils or teachers. Som etim es people w ant to gain access to the school site for the purpose of vandalism and arson or theft of school property. Further, schools m ay also act as a site for 'professional perpetrators' to gain access to children (Sullivan and B eech 2002). Sullivan and Beech (2002) quote a BBC survey reported in 2000, that estim ated that about 400 teachers in the UK w ere suspended each year, follow ing allegations o f abusing pupils. The need for better security for schools, as well as screening of school staff, have been highlighted in the public im agination by events such as the D unblane tragedy in w hich 16 children and their teach er w ere killed by an intruder (during the school day); the m urder of head teacher Philip Law rence at the school gates (at the end of the school day); and the m urder of tw o prim ary age schoolgirls in Soham by the school caretaker (in the school sum m er holidays). Yet these are very different types of event, involving attacks on children, teachers and the w hole school com m unity. Research indicates that external threats to security, specifi­ cally intrusion to the school prem ises, are ranked high er as a concern by schools than internal threats from people w ithin th e school com m unity (Lloyd and Ching 2003). Security firm s now offer such schem es as School W atch over th e sum m er holiday period. Such firms tend to focus very m uch on property and dam age from arson, vandalism and graffiti, rather than harm to people (see w w w .chubb.co.uk). T h e risk of arson and vandalism is kn ow n to be higher in deprived urban areas than elsew here. Arson attacks against schools has declined from over 1,100 in 1994 to ju st under 800 in 2000. H ow ever, there has been an increase in the proportion of arson attacks occurring in school time. Around 250 of the 800 arson attacks in 2000 w ere during the school day w hen pupils are present (Arson P revention Bureau 2002).

156

C rim e prevention: the role and potential of schools

Table 9.6 Rates of school-tim e arson fires: English m etropolitan areas com pared w ith non-m etropolitan areas

Number (rate) of fires per 100,000 pupils Number (rate) of fires per 100 schools

M etropolitan areas

N on-m etropolitan areas

3.3

2.3

1.2

0.7

Source: Arson Prevention Bureau (2002)

Sch o ols as a site for crim e prevention As w e noted earlier, the prevalence of offend ing is know n to vary greatly across schools and it is now well know n that schools can m ake a difference, ind ep en d en tly of socio-econom ic circum stances. Further, schools are an obvious site in w hich to influence the next generation en masse. Overall schools clearly have wide potential for enhan cing protective factors against crim inal involvem ent. Schools can help foster pro-social behaviou r and provide opportunities for a sense of personal achieve­ m ent, school 'connected ness' and 'inclu sion' in a com m unity. Schools already provide positive opportunities for the great m ajority of you ng people, m any of w hom have com m itted a m inor crim inal offence and som e of w hom are at risk of m ore extensive crim inal involvem ent. Schools are encouraged to involve and interest parents and carers in their child ren's education (thereby en h an cin g a protective factor against crim inality); in policy term s this is often seen as a self-evidently 'good thing'. H ow ever, in all these areas, Rutter et al (1998: 233) conclude that good-quality evidence about both effects and the m echanism s at w ork is limited. There are num erous 'w h ole school' and more targeted approaches to m anaging behaviour in schools in Britain, such as Assertive Discipline, Circle Tim e and Team -Teach. In-school units, m entors and C onnexions advisors are also com m on. Further, schools are expected to have policies to deal with bullying, harassm ent and behaviour m anagem ent m ore generally. Restorative ju stice approaches are m ore fam iliar in crim inal justice settings but are also being used in school settings. M ost initiatives involve outside facilitators offering restorative con ferencin g to schools in relation to bullying or w here exclusion is being considered. Interest in the

157

C om m u n ity Justice

potential of restorative practices in schools is said to be grow ing and m ore initiatives are starting (H opkins 2002); this is apparent in som e of the Safer School Partnerships (discussed below ). Traditionally the role of the police in relation to schools has been as an additional teach in g resource, for exam ple in drugs education pro­ gram m es, w hich are well establish ed in schools. Som e in-school program m es have been based on quite substantial investm ent from police authorities, although the im pact on pupil attitudes and behaviour is difficult to establish or attribute to the program m es as such (D ow ney, K eene and W incup 2002). Yet police officers have adm itted to an am bivalence about their role, as school visits also provide an opportunity for intelligence gathering (W alsh 2004). Current policy takes a m ore educative stance, developing from the view that drugs education should provide opportunities for pupils to develop their know ledge, skills, attitudes and understanding about drugs, as well as an appreciation of th e benefits of a healthy lifestyle and so on. H ow ever, at the sam e tim e Blair has suggested the possibility of drug testing in schools, and ind eed sniffer dogs are already used in som e schools. C oncern has been expressed at this possibility, not least becau se drugs like cannabis stay in th e system longer than m ore harm ful drugs like heroin and ecstasy (W alsh 2004). T he A m erican experience o f drug testing in schools is not prom ising, because of civil liberties challenges, resistance from schools (reportedly 95 per cen t of schools do not use the tests) and the lack of evidence of a reduction in drug use w here the tests are used (W alsh 2004). In recent years the role o f the police in relation to schools has becom e m ore operational, as in 'tru ancy sw eeps', w here police officers w ork with th e educational w elfare service to get child ren back into school. Police also take an operational approach in Safer Schools Partnerships, a jo in t initiative b etw een the D epartm ent for E ducation and Skills (DfES), the Youth Justice Board (YJB) and A ssociation o f C h ief Police Officers (ACPO). Safer School Partnerships are part of a nu m ber of m easures that link behaviou r in and around schools to an explicit crim e prevention program m e. Partnerships are located in areas w ith high levels of street crim e, or crim e 'h o t spots'. In these partnerships a dedicated full-tim e police officer is based in a secondary school and the feeder prim ary schools. K ey objectives of this role inclu de th e prevention and reduction of crim e, anti-social behaviou r and related incidents around the school; tackling bullying and violence experienced by staff and students; truancy and exclusion; d am age to the school buildings; and d rug-related incidents (DfES 2002). G o od -qu ality ev id en ce ab ou t the e ffectiv en ess o f sch oo l-based

158

C rim e prevention: the role and potential of schools

program m es is generally lacking in the UK. M uch of th e available evidence is from the U nited States. For exam ple, a recent m eta-analysis of 165 studies of school-based prevention activities analysed the evidence av ailable abo u t the im p act of activ ities ran g in g from ind ividu al counselling or behaviou r m odification program m es throu gh efforts to change the way schools are m anaged. T he analysis show s that schoolbased practices appear to be effective in relation to certain behaviours: red u cin g drug and alcohol use, school d ro p -o u t and atten d an ce problem s. In com m on w ith findings from prisons research, cognitive behavioural program m es w ere found to be consistently positive in effect. N on-cognitive behavioural counselling, social w ork and other therapeu­ tic interventions show ed consistently negative effects (W ilson, Gottfredson and N ajaka 2001). It is interesting in this con text to note w hat children say. A H ow ard L eague (2002) consultation w ith 1,100 children reported three key issues that they identified to help p revent crim e: activities and safe places to 'h an g out'; police to stop view ing all you ng people as trouble and treat them with m ore respect; m ore initiatives (such as counselling and inform ation on red ucing crim e) in schools and other places w here children are m ore generally found.

Sch o ols in and of the com m unity, o r schools as a fortress against the com m u n ity? Schools are one of our m ost expensive com m unity resources and a m ajor agent of socialization alongside the family. H ow ever, schools have an uneasy task if they m ake their crim e prevention role explicit. Their potential in this respect is at once self-evident but also open to con tention , m isinterpretation and even potential misuse. W hilst som e aspects of crim e prevention (such as CCTV) and security m easures m ay seem necessary against intruders, vandals and arsonists, they m ight also be open to other uses. Equally, the role of police in schools m ay be open to role conflict and m ove into crim e detection, rather than prevention. 'Schools in and of the com m unity' is a con cep t that requires som e careful thought. The evidence of w idening social division in schooling in Britain is clear (H ayden 2000). M any would argue that the system of league tables and com petition has played an im portant part in bringing this about. This tends to m ean that 'sink' schools are apparent in m ost cities, their catchm ent areas usually coinciding w ith the poorest, m ost 'socially excluded' areas of the city. It is a challenge in such circum stances to be a

159

C om m unity Justice

school 'in and of the com m unity7, rather than act as a fortress against the negative influences in the com m unity. For schools to be a com m unity resource they have to be open and available to the com m unity in a way that does not conflict with the needs of the current cohort of children and yo u n g people getting their chance to do well at school. If schools are open to a com m unity they m ay also be m ore open to the risks in that com m unity. T ab le 9.7 C om peting priorities for schools The majority: no or minor criminal involvement

The minority: persistent and prolific offenders (especially for reintegration programmes)

Victims

Perpetrators

Academic achievement

Social inclusion

The current cohort of children and young people

The needs of parents and the wider community

Schools as welcoming and open places

Risk reduction

Schools as a fortress against the community

Schools in and of the community

In term s of their role and potential in crim e prevention, schools have to balance a num ber of com peting priorities. N one of the com peting priorities show n in Table 9.7 is necessarily m utually exclusive, but all are nevertheless priorities about w hich it is difficult to arrive at a consensus. For schools in general (rather than only schools in the most deprived areas) to achieve a better balance in relation to these priorities we w ould need a fundam ental rethink about the funding, staffing and evaluation of schools. T he role and potential of schools in relation to crim e prevention is a relatively easy case to m ake. T he bigger questions rem ain: such as, to w hat extent do we as a society w ant to see schools in general prioritizing a crim e prevention role; or w h eth er this role should only be prioritized in 'crim e hot spots' for schools in challengin g circum stances. Also, there is a need for a m ore realistic look at educational provision for young offenders of school age, both inside the secure estate and once they leave. In relation to the latter group w e need to consider urgently w hether reintegration to m ainstream school provision is realistic and fair to all concerned. In conclusion, schools are clearly potential sites for crim e as well as crim e prevention. They are generally protected and protective environ-

160

C r im e p re v e n tio n : the role and potential o f s c h o o ls

m ents, compared with life in many communities. Children and young people spend a great deal of time in school and schools are a crucial agent of socialization, as well as one of the main community organizations to which most people have a connection at some point in their lives. The potential of schools to foster pro-social behaviour and attitudes, as well as en h ance protective factors against crim inal involvem ent, is well appreciated. The key issue for policy and practice is how to realise fully this potential.

R e fe re n c e s Arson Prevention Bureau (2002) School Arson: Education under Threat. Available on­ line: www.arsonpreventionbureau.orR.uk. Audit Commission (1996) Misspent Youth. London: Audit Commission. Aye Maung, N. (1995) Young People, Victimisation and the Police, Home Office Research Study 140. London: HMSO. Berridge, D., Brodie, I., Pitts, J., Porteous, D. and Tarling, R. (2001) The Independent Effects o f Permanent Exclusion from School on the Offending Careers o f Young People, RDS Occasional Paper 71. London: HMSO. Boxford, S. (2004) Schools and the Problem o f Crime: The Importance o f School Context. Paper presented at the British Society of Criminology Conference, University of Portsmouth, 6 -9 July 2004. Carlen, P., Cleeson, D. and Wardhaugh, J. (1992) Truancy: The Politics o f Compidsory Schooling. Buckingham: Open University Press. DESAVO (Departm ent for Education and ScienceAVelsh Office) (1989) Discipline in Schools: Report o f the Committee o f Enquiry Chaired by Lord Elton. London: HMSO. DfEE (Departm ent for Education and Employment) (1994) Pupils with Problems. London: HMSO. DfES (Departm ent for Education and Skills) (1999) Social Inclusion: Pupil Support. London: HMSO. DfES (2002) Safer School Partnerships: Guidance. Issued jointly by the DfES, Home Office, YJB, Association of Chief Education Officers, ACPO. London: DfES. DfES (2004) Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions, Sum mer Term 2002/2003. Experimental statistics first release. 29 July, ESR 01/2004. Available online: http:// www.dfes.gov.uk/rsKateway/DB/SFR/, accessed on 12 October 2004. Downey, S., Keene, J. and Wincup, E. (2002) Getting It Right: Understanding and Evaluating an Evolving Partnership Education Programme. Reading, Canterbury: Universities of Reading and Kent. East, K. and Campbell, S. (2001) Aspects o f Crime: Young Offenders 1999. London: HMSO. Farrington, D. (1996) Understanding and Preventing Youth Crime. York: York Publishing Services Ltd/Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Fitz-Gibbon, C. (2000) 'Education: Realising the Potential', in H.T.O. Davies, S.M. Nutley and P.C. Smith (eds), What Works? Evidence-based Policy and Practice in Public Services. Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 69-92. Fum iss, C. (2000) 'Bullying in Schools: It's Not a Crime - Is It?' Education and the Law, 12: 9-29. 161

C o m m u n it y Justice

Gadd, D. (2004) 'Hate and Bias Crime: Criminologieally Congruent Law? A Review of Barbara Perry's Hate and Bias Crime: A Reader. The Australian and Neu> Zealand Journal o f Criminology, 37: 144-154. Gill, M. and H eam shaw, S. (1997) Personal Safety and Violence in Schools. Departm ent for Education and Employment Research Report, RR21. London: DfEE. Graham, J. (1988) Schools, Disruptive Behaviour and Delinquency, Home Office Research Study 96. London: HMSO. Graham, J. and Bowling, B. (1995) Young People and Crime. Home Office Research Study 145. London: HMSO. Hayden, C. (2000) 'Exclusion from School in England: The Generation and M aintenance of Social Exclusion', in G. Walraven, C. Parsons, D. van Veen and C. Day (eds), Combating Social Exclusion through Education. Leuven-Appledoorn: Garant/EERA, pp. 69-82. Hayden, C. (2002) 'Risk Factors and Exclusion from School', in E. Debarbieux and C. Blaya (eds), Violence in Schools and Public Policies. Paris: Elsevier Science, pp. 8 5 102 . Hayden, C. and Dunne, S. (2001) Outside, Looking In: Children and Families' Experiences o f Exclusion from School. London: The Children's Society. Home Office (2003) A Guide to Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and Acceptable Behaviour Contract. London: HMSO. Home O ffice (2004) Anti-Social Behaviour. Available online www.hoineoffice.gov.uk/crime/antisocialbehaviour/index/html, downloaded on 30 May 2004. Hopkins, B. (2002) 'Restorative Justice in Schools', Support fo r Learning, 17, 144-149. Howard League (2002) 96% of Teenagers are Victims of Crime. 11 April. Available online: www.howardleaKue.org/press/2002/11402.html, downloaded on 2 July 2004. Hughes, G., McLaughlin, E. and Muncie, J. (eds) (2002) Crime Prevention and Community Safety. New Directions. London: Sage Publications in association with the O pen University. Jones, S. (2001) Criminology, 2nd edition. Trowbridge: Butterworth. Katz, A., Buchanan, A. and Bream, V. (2001) Bullying in Britain: Testimonies from Teenagers. East Molesey: Young Voice. Kingery, P., Coggleshall, M. and Alford, A. (1998) 'Violence in School', Psychology/ in the Schools, 35, 247-258. Lloyd, R. and Ching, C. (2003) School Security Concerns. Departm ent of Education and Skills Research Report RR419. London: DfES. Loxley, A. and Thomas, G. (2001) 'Neo-Conservatives, Neo-Liberals, the New Left and Inclusion: Stirring the Pot, Cambridge Journal o f Education, 31: 291-301. McCarthy, P., Laing, K. and Walker, J. (2004) Offenders o f the Future? Assessing the Risk o f Children and Young People becoming in voked in Criminal or Antisocial Behaviour, Departm ent of Education and Skills Research Report RR545. London: DfES. McNeely, C.A., N onnemaker, J.M. and Blum, R.W. (2002) 'Prom oting School Connectedness: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, Journal o f School Health, 72: 138-146. M ORI (Market and Opinion Research International) (2004) M ORI Youth Survey 2004. London: Youth Justice Board. Muncie, J. (2002) 'A New Deal for Youth? Early Intervention and Correctionalism', in G. Hughes, E. McLaughlin, and J. M uncie (eds), Crime Prevention and Community Safety. New Directions. London: Sage Publications in association with

162

C r im e p re v e n tio n : the role and potential o f s c h o o ls

the O pen University, pp. 142-162. Muncie, J. (2004) Youth and Crime, 2nd edition. London: Sage Publications. NAS/UWT (National Association of School Masters/Union of W omen Teachers), (2003) NAS/UWT Report on Violence and Indiscipline. Available on line: www.teachersunion.org.uk, accessed on 27 March 2003. Neill, S.R.St J. (2000) Unacceptable Pupil Behaviour. A Survey Analysed for the National Union o f Teachers. Warwick: Institute of Education, University of Warwick. Noaks, J. and Noaks, L. (2000) 'Violence in School: Risk, Safety and Fear of Crime', Educational Psychology in Practice, 16, 69-73. Ofsted (2003) Education Not Fully M eeting the Needs o f the Most Vulnerable Pupils at Key Stage 4, Press Release, NR 2003-69,10 June 10. Available on line: www.ofted.Rov.uk/news. Parsons, S. (2002) Basic Skills and Crime: Findings from a Study o f Adults Born in 1958 and 1970. London: Basic Skills Agency. Phillips, C. (2003) 'W ho's Who in the Pecking Order?', British Journal o f Criminology, 43: 710-728. Resnick, M.D., Bearman, P.S. and Blum, R.W. (1997) 'Protecting Adolescents from Harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health', Journal o f the American Medical Association, 278: 823-832. Rutter, M., Giller, H. and Hagell, A. (1998) Antisocial Behaviour by Young People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rutter, M., M aughan, B., Mortimore, P. and O uston, J. (1979) Fifteen Thousand Hours: Secondary Schools and their Effects on Children. Shepton Mallet: O pen Books Publishing. SEU (Social Exclusion Unit) (1998) Truancy and Exclusion from School. London: Cabinet Office. SEU (2001a) A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Reneival. London: Cabinet Office. SEU (2001b) Preventing Social Exclusion. London: Cabinet Office. Smith, P.K. (2002) 'School Bullying, and Ways of Preventing It', in E. Debarbieux and C. Blaya (eds), Violence in Schools and Public Policies. Paris: Elsevier Science, pp. 117-128. Smith, P.K. and Myron-Wilson, R. (1998) 'Parenting and School Bullying', Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 3, 405-417. Smith, P.K., Morita, J., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, R., Catalano, R. and Slee, P. (eds) (1999) The Nature o f School Bullying: A Cross-national Perspective. London and New York: Routledge. Stephen, D. and Squires, P. (2003) Community Safety, Enforcement and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts: An Evaluation o f the Work o f the Community Safety Team in the East Brighton 'New Deal fo r Communities' Area. Brighton: Health and Social Policy Research Centre, University of Brighton. Straw, J. and Michael, A. (1996) Tackling the Causes o f Crime: Labour's Proposal to Prevent Crime and Criminality. London: Labour Party. Sullivan, J. and Beech, A. (2002) 'Professional Perpetrators', Child Abuse Review, 11: 153-167. Sutton, C., Utting, D. and Farrington, D. (2004) Support from the Start: Working with Young Children and their Families to Reduce the Risks o f Crime and Anti-social Behaviour, Departm ent of Education and Skills Research Report 524. London: DfES. TUC/MORI (2001) H a ifa Million Kids Working Illegally. 21 March 21. London: TUC.

163

C o m m u n it y Justice

Walsh, C. (2004) Drug Testing in Schools. Paper presented at the British Society of Criminology Conference, University of Portsmouth, 6 -9 July 2004. Whitney, I. and Smith, P.K. (1993) 'Bullying in Junior/Middle Schools', Educational Research, 35, 3-25. Wilson, D.B., Gottfredson, D.C. and Najaka, S.S. (2001) 'School-based Prevention of Problem Behaviours: A Meta-Analysis', ¡ournnl o f Quantitative Criminology, 17: 247-272. W inchester, R. (2003) 'W e Don't Want No Education', Community Care, 23-29 January: 26-28. Wolke, D.F.H. (1999) Research Report submitted to the ESRC, September. YJB (Youth Justice Board) (2002) Youth Study. London: Youth Justice Board.

164

C h a p te r IO

The identification and management of anti-social and offending behaviour Ruth M. Hatcher and Clive R. Hollin

O n 10 Septem ber 2003, the Home O ffice's Anti-Social Behaviour Unit conducted a one-day audit of reports of anti-social behaviour within England and Wales. The research incorporated inform ation collected by the police, local authorities, housing associations, voluntary organiza­ tions, the British Transport Police, the fire brigade, and the health services. In the chosen 24-hour period, 66,107 reports of anti-social behaviour were filed, am ounting to one report of anti-social behaviour every two seconds (Home Office 2003b). The governm ent estimates that the anti-social behaviour within our communities costs the taxpayer a substantial £3.4 billion a year (Home Office 2003a). In addition to this significant economic cost, there is also evidence of high psychological and emotional costs to the victims following experience of such acts. Shaw and Pease (2002) have high­ lighted that the cumulative effect of exposure to even m inor instances of anti-social behaviour can result in the victim's experience of psychological damage, sleep disturbance, and emotional trauma. Thus, when the economic, social and individual costs of anti-social and criminal behaviour are considered, it becom es obvious w hy tackling such behaviour has becom e an item that ranks high on the political agenda. Over the years there has been a variety of attempts to com bat the related issues of anti-social and offend in g behaviour. W ith the introduction of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, followed by the inauguration in June 2004 of the National O ffender M anagem ent Service, the Home Office has set out a vision to provide 'the tools for practitioners and agencies to effectively tackle anti-social behaviour'

165

C om m u n ity Justice

(H om e O ffice 2004a), with the aim o f 'en d to end m an agem en t of offenders, w hether they are serving sentences in prison, the com m unity or both' (H om e O ffice 2004c). Given this political policy, the procedures that flow from it will dem and attention to two areas by the relevant crim inal ju stice agencies. First, how can crim inal ju stices agencies seek to identify anti-social behaviour? Second, once recognized, how can it be m anaged w ithin com m unity settings? The issues raised by these tw o questions will be addressed in this chapter.

W h a t is anti-social behaviour? The starting point is one o f definition: if a given behaviou r is to be m anaged, then there m ust be agreem ent on w hat it constitutes. The Crim inal Justice Act 1998 defines an anti-social act as behaviou r 'th at caused or was likely to cause harassm ent, alarm or distress to one or m ore persons not of the sam e household as him self'. This broad definition encom passes a w ide range o f behaviours, such as using and selling drugs, harassm ent, graffiti, verbal abuse, dam age to property, excessive noise, alcohol abuse, prostitution, intim idation, and criminal behaviour. Such a broad definition o f this problem behaviou r can be seen to be allied to the view that anti-social behaviour is a subjective con cept and as such is based on individual perception (H arradine, Kodz, Lem etti and Jones 2004). In o th er w ords, w hat is view ed as anti-social by one individual m ay not be ju dged to be so by another. Therefore variations betw een the com m unities w ithin w hich w e live m ay m ean th at som e acts are to lerated , or ev en sou gh t after, w ith in one environm ent, b u t are seen as anti-social w ithin another. For exam ple, th e recreational use of m arijuana m ay be view ed by som e com m unities as alarm ing and so, follow ing the above definition, as constituting an anti-social behaviour. H ow ever, other com m unities m ay see the use of m arijuana in a neutral or desirable light. A rm itage (2002) argues that there are difficulties with a 'catch all' definition, such as the one posited by the Crim inal Justice Act. The issue is that th e definition is grounded in the consequences of the act, rather than the characteristics of the act itself. This approach to definition provides the potential not only for variation in interpretation, but also for confusion concerning to w hich agencies the behaviou r should be reported. Indeed, it would appear that using this type of definition m eans that the sam e act could be construed as anti-social or not d ep en ding on the views o f the observer. 166

The identification and management o f anti-social and offending behaviour

In recognition of the heterogeneity of anti-social behaviour and the ensuing conceptual confusion (Rutter, Giller and H agell 1998), there have been recent attem pts to create a typology of anti-social behaviours (Harradine et al 2004). The typology advanced by H arradine et al aim s to 'provide a practical fram ew ork and . . . a guide to the types of behaviours that local practitioners m ay w ant to include in a definition of anti-social behaviour' (Harradine et al 2004: 4-5). Based on the range of definitions already in use, as well as responses from British Crime Survey participants, this typology concentrates on the anti-social act itself, rather than its consequences, and is purely descriptive. W ithin the definition, anti-social behaviour is categorized into one of the follow ing four categories: (1) m isuse of public space, including begging, drug misuse and dealing, aband oning cars; (2) disregard for com m unity/personal w ell-being, including noise, row dy behaviour and hoax calls; (3) acts directed at people, including intimidation and harassm ent on the grounds of race, sexual orientation, gender, religion, disability or age; (4) environm ental dam age, including criminal dam age, vandalism and littering. It is apparent that a definition of anti-social behaviou r is neither straightforw ard nor clear-cut. There are a w ide variety of acts that m ay be perceived as anti-social behaviour and th e heterogeneity of the concept m akes it difficult to define. O n the other hand, the definition of crim inal behaviou r can be perfectly straightforw ard in adopting the position, as stated by W illiams (1955): 'A crim e is an act that is capable of being follow ed by crim inal proceedings, having one of the types of outcom e [punishm ent, etc.] know n to follow these proceedings' (W illiams 1955: 21). Thus, the term 'anti-social behaviour' encapsulates a range of acts, w hich m ight or m ight not be construed as crim inal. For exam ple, some kinds of behaviour, such as bullying and harassm ent, w hich Goldstein (2002) refers to as 'low level aggression', could result in a crim inal prosecution but are generally view ed as anti-social. O ne the other hand, behaviours such as being rude, shouting insults and han ging round streets could be view ed as anti-social under the Crim inal Justice Act's definition, but w hether these individual acts would be reported to the police and result in crim inal proceedings is doubtful. H ow ever, the term 'crim inal behaviour' is unam biguous in that it refers to behaviours that, by definition, are prohibited by crim inal law. As m ight be expected, it is clear that there is a strong connection betw een anti-social behaviour and crim e. Taylor and G ottfredson (1986) have reported correlations betw een the tw o behaviours as high as 0.63. If resources are to be directed to m anaging anti-social and crim inal behaviour, then som e level of understand ing of the extent of the issue is im portant. This takes us to the m atter of m easurem ent: how can the am ount of anti-social and crim inal behaviour be estim ated? 167

C om m u n ity Justice

M e a su re m e n t of anti-social behaviour T he highlighted problem in d efining anti-social behaviour naturally im pacts on the ability to m easure the volum e of such behaviou r over time. If there is little agreem ent on w hat acts constitute anti-social behaviou r then find ing a way to m easure the incidence and frequency of such behaviours is inevitably problem atic. H arradine et al (2004) have proposed that there are three ways of collecting data on anti-social behaviour: through w itness and victim reports, logging of incidents, and public perceptions. T hey propose that th e utilization of these m ethods will d epend upon the objective of the data collection exercise in hand. D ifferent approaches can b e useful in m easuring anti-social behaviou r in different circum stances, say according to type of behaviou r or geographical areas. The three approaches to m easurem ent are each discussed below. Rep ort data

This first type of data collection relies on cou nting the nu m ber of reports m ade to the appropriate agencies over a certain tim e period. H ence, inform ation from the police, social services, local authorities, housing associations, fire service, and other such organizations is collated. The collection and system atic organization of this type of inform ation can provide a one-off snapshot of anti-social behaviour w ithin a particular tim e-fram e. A lternatively, if such inform ation is routinely collected it can be used to establish patterns o f anti-social behaviou r w ithin particular locations. The m ost recent exam ple of data collected from reports was th e AntiSocial B ehaviour U nit's one-day cou nt of reported anti-social behaviour in Septem ber 2003 (H om e O ffice 2003b). As m entioned above, in order to build up a national picture, local organizations counted th e nu m ber of reports of anti-social behaviour that they received over a period of 24 hours. O ver 65,000 acts of anti-social behaviou r w ere reported nationally in this one-day period, the m ajority relating to litter and rubbish, crim inal dam age or vandalism , vehicle related nu isance, and nuisance behaviour (51.4 p er cent). W hilst this m ethod of data collection can be useful to local Crim e and D isorder Reduction Partnerships and C om m unity Safety Partnerships in providing approxim ations o f cost and indications of particular problem s, th e m ethod is not w ithout disadvantages. The utilization of different m easuring and recording techniques betw een national and local agencies can result in ad hoc results. Furtherm ore, it is suspected that a significant p rop ortio n of an ti-so cial b eh av io u r is n ot even rep o rted to the 168

The identification and management o f anti-social and offending behaviour

appropriate agencies due to fear o f recrim inations or because of lack of con fid ence in the agencies tasked to deal w ith it (H unter, N ixon and Parr 2004). Indeed, British Crim e Survey respond ents w ho adm itted experi­ encing problem s related to anti-social behaviour w ere unlikely to report such behaviour. In all, 80 per cen t o f respondents w ho had experienced problem s with d runk or row dy behaviour and 46 per cen t with noisy neighbours had not m ade any kind o f com plaint to the appropriate agencies (W ood 2004). W hilst the lack of reporting w ould result in an underestim ate in the count, there is also the risk that overlapping data m ay do the contrary and overestim ate the num ber o f anti-social acts. For exam ple, som e incidents m ay have been reported by different people to a single authority on m ore than one occasion, m eaning that one act o f anti-social behaviou r would be cou nted m ore than once. In addition, som e anti­ social behaviou r or acts could b e reported to m ore than one agency: for exam ple, graffiti m ay be reported to the police for them to investigate as a crim inal dam age offence, or to th e local authority becau se it is deem ed to be unsightly and needs rem oving. In such cases, again, one act w ould be recorded m ore than once in th e cou nt o f anti-social behaviour reports. Incident data

In an effort to elim inate the problem s of overlapping data and m ultiple cou nting of anti-social acts, data relating to specific incidents of anti-social behaviou r can instead be used to m easure the problem . H arradine et al (2004) propose a num ber o f sources for this m ethod of counting, including police recorded crim e figures on low -level crim e, CCTV recordings, and street, visual, or com m unity audits of observable signs of anti-social behaviour. This m ethod of data collection allows the estim ation of the frequ en cy of specific types of anti-social behaviour, perhaps w ithin specific locations at specific tim es. This m ethod m ay be useful for evaluation or th e m onitoring of the incid ence of specific behaviours at a given tim e and place, b u t it is unlikely to provide a general picture of the prevalence o f a m ulti-faceted construct such as anti-social behaviour. The problem in establishing a clear definition of anti-social behaviou r also m eans that this m ethod is not w ithout its lim itations. W ith little consensus on w hich precise acts or behaviours constitute anti-social behaviour, it is likely that different organizations could produce different counts from observing the sam e place on the sam e day. Public perception data

Surveys such as the British Crim e Survey or local crim e surveys attem pt 169

C om m u n ity Justice

to solve the problem s in h eren t in incid ent data by collating inform ation relating to public perceptions o f anti-social behaviour w ithin their com m unities. This m ethod of m easurem ent therefore relies on the subjective nature of the construct of anti-social behaviour and allows respondents to define the behaviour, rather than forcing a definition on the data collection. In surveys, participants are generally sam pled from the general public and are asked about their ow n experiences of certain behaviours, their perceptions of the behaviour, and its consequences w ithin their area of residence. This type of m easurem ent can provide rich data and allows com parisons betw een groups of respondents of, say, different age, gender, and locality. Public surveys have reported concern am ong respondents over anti­ social behaviour within their local neighbourhoods (Kershaw 2001). The latest British Crim e Survey therefore attem pted to explore further these public perceptions (W ood 2004). T he survey found that the m ajority of respondents said that they had not seen an im provem ent in anti-social behaviour over the preceding tw o years: speeding traffic and teenagers hanging around the area were reported as being the biggest problems. H ow ever, those respondents living in 'hard-pressed areas' - characterized by low -incom e families, a large proportion o f resident in council properties, high-rise developm ents and inner city estates - were m ore likely than those in m ore affluent areas to report anti-social behaviour w ithin their locality. There was also a qualitative difference in the profile of behaviours reported by the hard-pressed and affluent areas: those in affluent areas com plained of speeding traffic, whilst drug use and drug dealing was characteristic of the reports of those living in the less affluent districts. W hilst there are definitional and m easurem ent issues associated with un derstand ing the param eters o f anti-social behaviour, the critical point lies in th e w ay w e respond to anti-social behaviour. The w ay w e respond to anti-social behaviour is im portant at three levels: first, for the sake of those w ho have been victim ized; second, to try to prevent future victim ization; third, to attem pt to prevent offenders follow ing a pathw ay to m ore serious crim inal behaviour. Follow ing the last point, w hat do we know about th e characteristics o f those w ho com m it anti-social and crim inal acts?

Und e rstan din g anti-social and offending behaviour There are m any w ays to address the issue of understand ing anti-social and offend ing behaviour. To illustrate the issues, two approaches that are currently receiving attention, longitudinal studies and risk-needs assess­ m ent, are discussed. 170

The identification and management o f anti-social and offending behaviour

Lon gitud in al studies

O ne w ay to look for factors associated w ith the onset and m aintenance of anti-social behaviou r is to conduct 'life-span' or longitudinal research. This type of research has grown in sophistication in recent years and has inform ed theory and practice in crim inology and crim e prevention (Farrington 2003). O n e of th e m ain p oints to em erg e from th e longitudinal studies is that m uch ju venile crim e is 'ad olescen ce lim ited' - the m ajority of you n g people w ho behave in an anti-social and crim inal m anner (and lots of you ng people do) will 'grow out of crim e' by the age of 18 years (M offitt 1993). N ow, w hile this 'grow ing out' is true for the m ajority of you ng people, som e will con tin ue their offend ing w hile progressing to adulthood. M offitt (1993) draws on this evidence to m ake the distinction betw een 'ad olescence lim ited' and 'life-course persistent' o ffen d ers. The fin d in g s from lo n g itu d in al research stud ies allow identification of the factors associated w ith longer-term offending. It follows that know ledge of these factors is im portant in inform ing both theory and practice. There are several m ajor longitudinal studies in the literature, carried out in different countries (e.g. Kyvsgaard 2003, M offitt et al 2001). In England, the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development is a longitudinal study that began in 1961 with a cohort of 411 young m ales, then aged 8 -9 years, and is con tin u ing with over 90 per cen t of the sam ple still alive as they reach their early fifties (Farrington 2002). The data gathering for the Cam bridge Study has involved access to official records, repeated testing and interview ing of the m ales, their parents, peers, and teachers. W hilst the Cam bridge Study has produced a great deal of inform ation, how ever as the participants are all m ales the outcom es do not, say, apply to females. Interestingly, the official convictions recorded for the you ng m en corresp onded reasonably w ell w ith self-reported d elinquency. This m atch m eans that there can be a high degree of confidence w hen m aking com parisons of the w orst offenders with the other m en in the study. The force of m aking these com parisons is to identify the developm ental characteristics of the ju veniles that have predictive value w ith regard to offend ing as an adult. T he m ain predictive factors, encom passing individual, fam ily, and econom ic features, are sum m ar­ ized in Table 10.1.

171

C om m unity Justice

Table 10.1 Child and adolescent predictors of adult offending 1 2 3 4 5 6

A ntisocial childhood behaviour, inclu ding 'trou blesom eness' in school, dishonesty and aggressiveness. H yperactivity-im pulsivity-attention deficit, including poor co n cen ­ tration, restlessness, risk-taking and impulsivity. Low intelligence and poor school attainm ent. Fam ily crim inality as seen in parents and older siblings. Fam ily poverty in term s of low fam ily incom e, poor housing; and large family size. H arsh paren ting style, lack of parental supervision, parental conflict, and separation from parents.

Source: After Farrington (2002)

The Cam bridge Study, like other longitudinal studies, show s that certain adverse features in early life are associated w ith the onset of anti-social and crim inal behaviour. It also seem s th at these adverse features and d evelopm ental problem s m ay be con cen trated in certain fam ilies. Farrington, Barnes and Lam bert (1996) studied 397 fam ilies and found that half of the total convictions across all the families w ere accounted for in ju st 23 families.

R isk-ne e d s assessm ent In risk-needs assessm ent with offenders, the theory is that there are aspects of an individual's life - such as their attitudes to crim e, their relationships, and their financial circum stances - that are know n to be associated w ith their crim inal behaviour. These aspects of an individual's life that are associated w ith their offend in g are called crim inogenic needs and, as such, are risk factors for future offend ing (Andrews and Bonta 2003). The aggregate of an individual's crim inogenic needs form s their overall risk level for future offending. Follow ing this theoretical approach, several risk -n eed s assessm ent schedules have been developed. For exam ple, the Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI) was originally developed by A ndrew s (1982) and later renam ed the Level of Service Inventory; a revised version (LSI-R) was published by A ndrew s and Bonta (1995). Com pleted through file review and interview , the LSI-R assesses ten crim inogenic factors: crim inal history, education and em ploym ent, financial situation, family and marital relationships, accom m odation, leisure and recreation, com pa­

172

The identification and management o f anti-social and offending behaviour

nions, alcohol and drug problem s, em otional and personal problem s, and attitudes and orientation to crim e. T h e LSI has been show n to be a practical form of assessm ent to use w ith a range of offend er populations and perform s well in both identifying need and risk prediction (Hollin, Palm er and Clark 2003). T here are several sim ilar assessm ent schem es currently in use, such as OASys and ACE (Robinson 2003), to inform assessm ent w ith offenders. O n e function of both the longitudinal research and risk -n eed s assessm ent is to highlight those areas at w hich preventative m easures m ay be directed w ith m axim um effect. In the follow ing section we consider the range of preventative m easures than have been put into operation.

Initiatives to address anti-social and offending behaviour Society's response to anti-social behaviou r can, and does, take a num ber of routes, w ith crim inal prosecution the m ost obvious. H ow ever, the reporting of anti-social behaviou r does not always result in crim inal, or even civil, court action, although these routes are available if felt appropriate. N A C RO (2003: 1) has advocated a 'B alan ced approach to anti-social behav iou r', that should encom pass in terv en tio n s w hich include prevention, education and enforcem ent on individual, group and universal levels. Prior to the Crim e and D isorder Act 1998, anti-social behaviou r was dealt w ith by civil proceedings u n d er the H ousing Act 1996, the Environm ent Protection Act 1990, the N oise Act 1996, or through injun ctions against the anti-social individual. In addition, there w ere crim inal law solutions u n d er the Protection from H arassm ent Act 1997 and the Public O rd er Act 1986. D espite these num erous options, there w ere loopholes w ithin the legislation that led to a general dissatisfaction w ith the existing arrangem ents. For exam ple, the m ajority of the legislation listed above was not available to use against ju veniles, who are often the perpetrators o f the very behaviour that this legislation aims to com bat. In addition, m u ch anti-social behaviour, w h en considered in isolation, is not deem ed to be serious enough to bring about legal proceedings. It is the cum ulative nature o f small anti-social acts that creates the greatest im pact on the com m unity, but the laws could only be d irected tow ards individual instances o f behaviour that w ere often deem ed too trivial to pursue.

173

C om m unity Justice

The Crim e and D isorder Act 1998 and the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 therefore provided local authorities and the police w ith a num ber of preventative and enforcem ent m easures. Further, these m easures could be used with ju veniles and against the perpetrators of cum ulative sub­ crim inal acts in order to intervene to reduce the risk of further offending. Som e exam ples of the intervention schem es operation in England and W ales will be discussed to illustrate current practice.

Prevention: Y o u th Inclusion P ro g ra m m e s and Acceptable Be haviou r C on tra cts As seen above, perpetrators of anti-social behaviour m ay lead lives that result in increased exposure to the risk factors associated w ith anti-social behaviour and so increase the likelihood of anti-social acts. For exam ple, in a review of Anti-Social B ehaviour O rders it was found that alm ost one in five of those proposed for such an order had problem s w ith drugs and one in six had problem s w ith alcohol (Cam pbell 2002b). In recognition of this type of issue, preventative m easures have b een developed that attem pt to reduce anti-social behaviou r by tackling the problem s seen to be associated with the behaviour. Thus, rather than trying to prevent the anti-social behaviour by enforcin g set conditions, the aim of these m easures is to address the factors that are assessed as contributory to the behav iou r. If successfu l, such m easures should red uce anti-social behaviour and divert these individuals aw ay from a life of anti-social and crim inal behaviour. There are num erous exam ples of preventative interventions running at both local and national levels w ithin England and W ales. In the broad field of prevention, the distinction is m ade betw een three different levels of prevention, w hich can be applied to anti-social behaviour: (1) prim ary preventative m easures that are directed across society as a w hole to elim inate totally the d evelopm ent anti-social behaviour; (2) secondary prevention m easures that target those groups within society seen to be m ost at risk of d eveloping anti-social behaviour; (3) tertiary prevention that focuses on the individual kn ow n to have previously behaved in an anti-social m anner. Y outh Inclusion Program m es (YIPs), run by Youth O ffend in g Team s, were introduced in 2002 in order to tackle anti-social behaviour and crim e am ong youths w ithin the com m unity. These program m es, w hich tend to operate w ithin the most deprived and high crim e estates w ithin England and W ales, target high-risk youths through inter-agency inform ation

174

The identification and management o f anti-social and offending behaviour

sharing. Thus, w ithin the fram ew ork above they are an exam ple of a secondary prevention strategy. In this approach, local agencies such as the Y outh O ffen d in g Team , police, social services, schools, and local education authorities are charged w ith identifying risk factors relevant to the you n g people they know. Those individuals w ho are deem ed the highest risk - that is, those assessed to have the high est level of risk factors for anti-social and offend ing behaviour - are targeted for the YIP. Y outh Inclusion Program m es attem pt to engage the 'top 50' high-risk individuals w ithin the com m unity in positive activities for at least five hours per w eek. These activities can include sport, health and drugs education, m otor projects, fam ily projects, and arts, culture and m edia. In addition, they aim to provide inform ation and educational m aterial such as career guidance and educational assistance. R u nning alongside these activities are m entoring program m es that aim to provide positive role m odels to support and advise the selected you ng people. D raw ing on the grow ing 'w h at works' literature, especially in relation to responsivity and dosage (Bernfeld, Farrington and L eschied 2001), YIPs attem pt to target the intervention w ith regard to the individual needs of the person involved. Thus local areas, w hilst given guidance, have been given a free han d to decide w hich particular activities to inclu de w ithin their program m es. Finan ced jointly by the Y outh Justice Board and local agencies, Youth Inclusion Program m es have produced som e mixed early evaluation results in relation to their am bitious targets (M ackie, Burrow s and H ubbard 2003). Through the introduction of YIPs the aim s w ere: to reduce arrest rates of those targeted by the program m e by 60 per cent, to reduce truancy and school exclusion rates by 33 per cent, and to reduce recorded crim e in the targeted com m unity area by 30 p er cent. O f the national sam ple of 5,508 you ng people w ho have been identified locally as being w ithin th e 'top 50' at-risk individuals, an im pressive 4,050 (73.5 per cent) have voluntarily engaged in the projects provided by the YIP (M ackie, Burrow s and H ubbard 2003). In addition, those in the top 50 that have attended Y IP activities have reduced their arrest rates by 65 p er cen t com pared to the tim e preceding their involvem ent in the YIP. Furtherm ore, w hen those com pleting YIPs have been arrested, this has been for a less serious ind ex offence than before their engagem ent w ith the YIP. O n view ing this inform ation in isolation it would seem that the YIPs are already achieving their aim in relation to arrest rates, after only two years in operation. H ow ever, further data reported by M ackie, Burrow s and H ubbard (2003) have show n large reductions (44 per cent) in the average arrest rate of those 'top 50' individuals w ho did not engage in a YIP. It seem s that the YIP cannot take sole responsibility for the 175

C om m u n ity Justice

im p ressiv e red u ctio n s in the arrest rates o f its atten d ees. O th e r explanations for these findings could be changes in the police's arresting practices, or changes in local situations, or even grow ing out of crime. The findings in relation to the second and third aims of reductions in truancy and crim e w ithin the area have not been encouraging. Truancy has actually been seen to increase by an average 40 per cen t and crim e w ithin YIP-targeted com m unities has actually risen by 5.8 per cent, after ad justm ents for changes in national recording and changes in local crime. A cceptable B eh av iou r C on tracts are d esigned to serve as early w arnings to individuals that their behaviour is unacceptable, w ithout the need for court intervention. An Acceptable Behaviour Contract is a w ritten voluntary agreem ent betw een an individual w ho is deem ed to have been involved in anti-social behaviou r and the agencies that are tasked w ith dealing with such behaviour. W hilst A cceptable Behaviour C ontracts are generally used w ith you ng people they can also be used w ith adults. T he individual w ho has been acting in an anti-social m an ner is invited, in the case of a ju venile with their parents or legal guardian, to attend a m eeting with local agencies in order to discuss their problem behaviour. T he outcom e of this m eeting is an agreed list of conditions that the individual is to ad here to for the follow ing six m onths. Sim ilar to AntiSocial B ehaviour O rders, these conditions can encom pass geographical restrictions, the prohibition of dam age to property, and graffiti and verbal abuse of others (Bullock and Jones 2004). Tailored to the individual, these contracts are not legally binding; how ever, if breached they can be used to evict th e fam ily from council or registered social landlord prem ises. Fu rther, they can form the basis of evidence that can be presented to the court in support of an application for an A nti-Social B ehaviour Order. The A cceptable Behaviour C ontracts schem e has b een ru nning in the L ondon B orough of Islington in L ondon since 1999 and has been evaluated using both qualitative and quantitative m ethods (Bullock and Jones 2004). W hilst the num bers of anti-social acts w ere seen to reduce d uring the contract, they w ere by no m eans eradicated. A proportion of the people w ho signed a voluntary A cceptable B ehaviour Contract con tin ued to com m it the anti-social acts that w ere contained w ithin their contract. It is therefore not surprising that 43 per cen t of the contracts w ere breached, som e of them three or m ore times. W ith practitioners reporting a lack of available resources to m onitor the schem e, it is feasible that the breach rate was actually significantly high er with further u n detected breaches. T he latest statistics suggest that local Crim e and D isorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRP) have been increasingly using Acceptable Behaviour

176

The identification and management o f anti-social and offending behaviour

C ontracts in their attem pts at early intervention (H om e Office 2004c). O ne in four CDRPs reported u sing A cceptable Behaviour Contracts in the past year, with the national total of contracts reaching over 5,000. Indeed, representatives from M id-Bedfordshire stated that w ithin the local area, contrary to w hat was found in Islington, 'over 120 acceptable behaviour contracts have been served; this is a 95 per cen t success rate' (H om e Office 2004c: 18). The use of Y outh Inclusion Program m es and A cceptable Behaviour Contracts dem onstrates how difficult it is to work at the secondary prevention level. They also illustrate how problem atic it is in practice to produce unequivocal evid ence of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Enforcem ent: Anti-Social Be h aviou r O rd e rs and Parenting O rd e rs It is apparent from the above that w hilst prevention program m es can be d esigned and im plem ented, continuing to engage those at risk is not guaranteed. Accordingly, m easures have been introduced to enforce the individual's com pliance w ith preventative measures. Tw o exam ples of such interventions are Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and Parenting Orders. Anti-Social Behaviour O rders (A SBOs), introduced u n d er the Crim e and D isorder Act 1998, w ere designed to com plem ent existing proce­ dures for dealing with anti-social behaviour and to bridge som e of the lo op h o les m en tio n ed above. A vailable as a san ctio n against any individual aged ten years or over, they are civil orders that can be applied for by local authorities and/or the police (and since the AntiSocial Behaviour Act 2003 in con jun ction w ith registered social landlords, the British Transport Police, housing action trusts and county councils if necessary) against anyone w ho has displayed anti-social behaviour, in order to deter and prevent the escalation of further anti-social acts. O n passing an A SBO the court will specify certain conditions, such as p re v e n tin g the ind iv id u al from e n te rin g a g eo g rap h ical area or associating w ith other nam ed people, for a m inim um of tw o years. As the A SBO is a civil order, the standard of proof required w ithin the case is concord ant w ith civil cases and is hence ju d g ed on the balance of probabilities, rather than the stricter beyond reasonable doubt require­ m ent of crim inal cases. The latter point has been one of con tention , especially as breach of the civil order can result in a crim inal conviction and possibly im prisonm ent of up to five years. Civil rights groups, such as Liberty, have attacked the introduction of A SBO s, stating: 'T hey subvert the crim inal justice system by attem pting to tackle crim inal behaviou r and im pose crim inal-level

177

C om m u n ity Justice

p enalties through the civil courts - on the basis that som eone has “ probably" com m itted the offence' (Liberty 2002). There has also been concern over the identification to th e general public of juveniles w ho are subject to ASBOs. C oncern has been expressed over the nam ing and sham ing of anti-social individuals based on evidence assessed on the balance of probabilities and potentially through the use o f hearsay evidence. Previously, the court would use the Child and Y oun g Person's Act to dispose of people under the age of 18 years. This procedure prevented the nam es and addresses of these individuals being reported in the press. H ow ever, the governm ent has been firm in its view that the recipients of A SBO s, w h eth er ju venile or adult, should be nam ed to aid in the prevention of further anti-social behaviour: 'T h ere should b e a presum ption in favour of publicising the identity of the d efen dan t in ord er to ensure as far as possible that the A SBO will be effective in preventing further anti-social behaviour. It cannot be in the interest of ju stice or public order for an A SBO to be issued w ith little prospect of breaches b ein g noticed' (the H om e Secretary cited in Guardian, 2001). A H om e O ffice review in 2002 found that the m ajority of A SBO s that had b een ordered w ere against m en (84 per cent) and people under the age of 21 years (74 per cent). Practitioners reported that they were con cern ed over th e tim e it takes for an A SBO to get through court, the am ou nt of resources needed, and the cost of taking action through A SBO s (Cam pbell 2002a). The overall total average cost of an A SBO was found to be £5,350 and it took m ore than 13 w eeks from the date of application to th e order bein g im posed by the court. In addition, the uptake of the orders varied considerably across the country with som e areas choosing not using them at all. In those areas that did use ASBO s over one-third of orders (36 p er cent) w ere breached w ithin nine m onths of receiving the order, som e of them up to five times. A further intervention for anti-social behaviour that w orks on the principles of enforcem ent is that of the Parenting Order. Based on the research evidence that show s that a lack of parental supervision has associations w ith crim inal behaviou r (G raham and B ow ling 1995), a P arenting O rd er is placed on th e parents of a child w ho has displayed anti-social or crim inal behaviour w here it is deem ed that the order will prevent further such behaviour. W hilst there are options for w orking w ith parents w ithout the need for court intervention w hich follow sim ilar principles to the Acceptable Behaviour Contracts described above, w hen the parent is unw illing to cooperate with local agencies an application to the court can be m ade for an order to b e granted under civil jurisdiction.

178

The identification and management o f anti-social and offending behaviour

A Parenting O rd er consists of tw o elem ents: the first and core elem ent being the requirem ent of attend ance at a parenting program m e that can last up to three m onths. T he paren ting program m e aims to provide parents w ith the skills necessary to respond to the need s of their child. T his in te rv e n tio n can take th e form o f a co g n itiv e b eh av iou ral program m e, m entoring, parenting advice, individual family therapy, fu nctional fam ily therapy, solution focused therapy, fam ily group conferencing, and group based program m es (H om e O ffice et al 2004). T he second elem ent of a Parenting O rd er is an individualized collection of specific controls that the parent m ust exercise over their child for the follow ing 12 m onths. As u n d er an A nti-Social Behaviour O rder, these can vary from a curfew to ensuring attend ance at school. If a parent fails to carry o ut the conditions of a Parenting O rder w ithout reasonable excuse, they can be prosecuted and a crim inal offence can be recorded against them . T he court can im pose a fine of up to £1,000 in addition to a com m unity order, a curfew order, or an absolute or conditional discharge. W hilst associations such as the N ational Association of H ead Teachers w elcom e such enforcem ent, the high-profile prosecu tions and, on occasion, prison sentences for the parents of anti-social ju veniles has provoked argum ent concerning the use o f Parenting O rders. T h e idea that the parents can ultim ately be crim inalized because of acts com m itted by their child is not one w ith w hich som e cam paign groups, such as B arnardo's, find agreem ent. T hey argue that such m easures could result in m ore financial and em otional poverty w ithin the very groups that need support and education to prevent further anti-social and crim inal behaviour. In addition, from August 2002, the police w ere given the pow er, u n d er the Crim inal Justice and Police Act 2001, to issue fixed penalty notices for anti-social behaviou r w ithin four pilot areas. Previously these fines of either £40 or £80 w ere applicable only to persons over the age of 18 years for certain acts. Thus, offences resulting in a £40 fine included w asting police tim e or giving false report, sending false m essage, know ingly giving false alarm to a fire brigade, and using th reatening w ords or b eh av iou r likely to cause alarm , h arassm en t or distress. O ffences resulting in a £80 fine included being d run k in a highw ay, other public place or licensed prem ises, throw ing firew orks in a thoroughfare, trespassing on a railway, throw ing stones at trains or other railway traffic, buying or attem pting to buy alcohol for consum ption in a bar or licensed prem ises by a person u n d er 18 (the offence is for the adult b uying the alcohol for an underage person), disorderly behaviou r while d runk in a public place, and consu m ption of alcohol in designated public

179

C o m m u n ity Justice

place. H ow ever, th e A nti-Social B eh av iou r A ct 2003 exten d ed th ese fines to acts of graffiti and fly-p osting , as w ell as to peop le aged 16 and 17 years. T h e H om e O ffice reports th at over 20,000 notices su ch as these have b een issued to p erpetrators of anti-social beh av iou r (H om e O ffice 2004c). An early ev alu ation of th e pilot areas (Spicer and K ilsby 2004) foun d th at the m ajority o f fixed p en alty notices w ere given for causin g harassm en t, alarm or distress (49 p er cen t) or 'd isord erly beh av iou r w hile d ru n k' (41 p er cent). T h e basis of e n fo rcem en t lies in th e notio n of d eterrence. T h e con cep t o f d eterren ce is cen tral to th e crim inal ju stice system in m an y w estern societies. T h e fou n d ation of d eterren ce lies in h av in g m easu res in place that force p eo p le to beh av e in a social m an n e r for fear of the pu nitiv e c on seq u en ces should th ey d o otherw ise. W h ile fine in th eo ry and w ith p o p u lar ap p eal, it is altog eth er less clear th at crim inal ju stice m easu res b ased on d eterren ce actually h av e the in ten d ed effect (H ollin 2002). T h ere is a stro n g arg u m en t th at effectiv e m easu res to p rev en t crim e need to be con stru ctiv e rath er th an d estru ctive in nature.

C o n clu sio n It is ev id en t th at anti-social and crim inal beh av iou r is part of the fabric of society and is n o t g o in g to go aw ay. It follow s th at w e n eed to have in place policies and p ro ced u res that will allow for the m an ag em en t of an ti­ social acts in ord er to red u ce th eir likelihood and pro tect against their effects on victim s. As seen in this ch ap ter - from d efin itio n al issues to d eterm in in g w h at w orks in effectiv e crim e red uction - n o n e of this is sim ple. N o n eth eless, as th e h u m an scien ces ad van ce so our u n d er­ stan d in g im p rov es, tran slatin g u n d erstan d in g in to policy rem ains the ch allen g e of th e day.

References Andrews, D.A. (1982) The Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI): The First Follow-up. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services. Andrews, D.A. and Bonta, J. (1995) LSI-R: The Level of Service Inventory-Revised. Toronto: M ulti-Health Systems. Andrews, D A . and Bonta, J. (2003) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 3rd edition. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing. Armitage, R. (2002) Tackling Anti-social Belwviour: What Really Works, NACRO Comm unity Safety Practice Briefing. London: NACRO.

180

T h e identification and m anagem ent o f anti-social and offending behaviour

Bernfeld, G.A., Farrington, D.P., and Leschied, A.W. (eds) (2001) Offender Rehabilitation in Practice: Implementing and Evaluating Effective Programs. Chichester: Wiley. Bullock, K. and Jones, B. (2004) Acceptable Behaviour Contracts Addressing Antisocial Behaviour in the London Borough o f Islington, Home Office Online Report 02/02. London: Home Office. Campbell, S. (2002a) A Review o f Anti-social Behaviour Orders, Home Office Research Study 236. London: Home Office Research D evelopm ent and Statistics Directorate. Cam pbell, S. (2002b) Implementing Anti-Social Behaviour Orders: M essages fo r Practitioners, H ome Office Research Findings 160. London: H ome Office Research and Development Directorate. Dodd, T., Nicholas, S., Povey, D. and Walker, A. (2004) Crime in England and Wales 2003/4, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 10/04. London: Home Office. Farrington, D.P. (2002) 'Key Results from the First Forty Years of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Developm ent', in T.P. Thom berry and M.D. Krohn (eds), Taking Stock of Delinquency: An Overview o f Findings from Contemporary Longitudinal Studies. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Farrington, D.P. (2003) 'Developm ental and Life-course Criminology: Key Theore­ tical and Empirical Issues - the 2002 Sutherland Award Address', Criminology, 41: 221-255. Farrington, D.P., Barnes, G.C. and Lambert, S. (1996) 'The Concentration of O ffending in Families', Legal and Criminological Psychology, 1: 47-63. Goldstein, A.P. (2002) The Psychology o f Group Aggression. Chichester: Wiley. Graham, J. and Bowling, B. (1995). Young People and Crime, Home Office Research Study 145. London: Home Office. Guardian (2001) 'Sham e faced', Guardian, 24 October. Harradine, S., Kodz, J., Lemetti, F. and Jones, B. (2004) Defining and Measuring Anti­ social Behaviour, Home Office Practice and Development Report. London: Home Office. Hollin, C.R. (2002) 'D oes Punishment Motivate Offenders to Change?', in M. M cMurran (ed.), M otivating Offenders to Change: A Guide to Enhancing Engagement in Therapy. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Hollin, C.R., Palmer, E.J., and Clark, D. (2003) 'The Level of Supervision InventoryRevised Profile of English Prisoners: A Needs Analysis', Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30: 422-440. Home Office (2003a) Together: Tackling A n tisocial Behaviour: Action Plan. London: Home Office. Home Office (2003b) Together: Tackling Anti-social Behaviour: The One-Day Count of Anti-social Belwviour. London: Home Office. Home Office (2004a, 30 September) Anti-Social Behaviour Act. Available online: http:// w w w .h om eoffice.gov.uk/crim e/anti socialbehaviou r/legislation/asbact.h tm l#Dates. Home Office (2004b, 30 September) Reducing Crime, Changing Lives. Available online. http://www.probation.homeoffice.Rov.uk/output/paRe214.asp. H ome Office (2004c) Togetlu;r: Tackling Anti-social Belwviour - One Year On. London: Home Office. Home Office, Youth Justice Board and the Departm ent for Constitutional Affairs. (2004) Parenting Contracts and Orders: Guidance. London: Home Office.

181

C o m m u n it y Justice

Hunter, C„ Nixon, J. and Parr, S. (2004) What Works fo r Victims and Witnesses o f Antisocial Belwviour. Sheffield/London: Sheffield Hallam University/ASB Unit, Home Office. Kershaw, C., Chivite-Matthews, N., Thom as, C. and Aust, R. (2001) The 2007 British Crime Survey: First Results, England and Wales. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 18/ 01. London: Home Office. Kyvsgaard, B. (2003) The Criminal Career: The Danish Im gitu din al Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Liberty (2002, 30 January) Extending Anti-social Belwviour Orders Misses the Point, Liberty Press Release. London: Liberty. Mackie, A., Burrows, J., Hubbard, R. (2003) Evaluation o f the Youth Inclusion Programme: An Evaluation o f Pitase One o f the Programme. The Youth Justice Board for England and W ales (online publication). M offitt, T.E. (1993) Adolescence-lim ited and Life-course-persistent Antisocial Behavior: A Developmental Taxonomy. Psychological Revieiu, 100, 674-701. M offitt, T.E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., and Silva, P.A. (2001) Sex Differences in Anti-social Belwviour: Conduct Disorder, Delinquency, and Violence in the Dunedin Longitudim l Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. NACRO (2003) A Balanced Approach to A n tisocial Belwviour: A Summary of Interventions, Community Safety Practice Briefing. London: Nacro. Robinson, G. (2003) 'Im plem enting OASys: Lessons from research into LSI-R and ACE', Probation Jourm l, 50: 30-40. Rutter, M., Giller, H. and Hagell, A. (1998) Antisocial Belwviour by Young People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shaw, M. and Pease, K. (2002) 'M inor Crimes, Trivial Incidents: The Cumulative Impact of Offending', Issues in Forensic Psychology, 3: 41^18. Spicer, K. and Kilsby, P. (2004) Penalty Notices fo r Disorder: F.arly Results from the Pilot, Home Office Research Findings 232. London: Home Office. Taylor, R.B. and Gottfredson, S.D. (1986) 'Environmental Design, Crime, and Prevention: An Examination of Community Dynamics', in A.J. Reiss and M. Tonry (eds), Crime and Justice: A Review o f Research, Communities and Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wood, M. (2004) Perceptions and Experience o f Antisocial Belwviour: Findings from the 2003/4 British Crime Survey. Home Office Online Report 49/04. London: Home Office. Williams, G. (1955) 'The Definition of Crime', in J. Smith and B. Hogan (eds), Criminal Law, 2nd edition. London: Butterworths.

182

C h a p te r I I

Com m unity youth justice: policy, practices and public perception Nikki McKenzie

In the context of dealing with issues surrounding the offending behaviour of youths, it is necessary to understand that the term com m unity justice has, since the change of governm ent in 1997, becom e synonymous with restorative justice. Howard Zehr states that: Restorative Justice sees things d ifferently. . . crime is a violation of people and relationships. . . It creates obligations to make things right. Justice involves the victim, the offender and the community in a search for solutions which prom ote repair, reconciliation, and reassurance. (Zehr 1990: 181) This approach is som ewhat different from the way that youth justice services have dealt with the causes of crime as well as the young people them selves. However, in terms of w hether it meets the principles of com m unity justice it can be suggested that it does so, and perhaps more effectively than com munity justice in the adult sphere. Nellis (2001, cited in Nellis and Gelsthorpe 2003: 237) suggests that the key com ponents of com munity justice are 'the creation of com munity safety, the reduction of custody and the promotion of restorative justice', all of which should be understood within the realms of anti-oppressive practice. It is apparent that the inclusion of risk-based decision-m aking involved in the evidence-based approach to working with young people (Raynor 2001) and a m ulti-agency approach has allowed for community safety issues to becom e a significant factor in the assessm ent of and working with young offenders. It is also evident that current youth

183

C om m unity Justice

ju stice legislation has sanctioned the developm ent and use of restorative justice. N evertheless it is debatable w hether there has indeed been a reduction in the use of custody in preference to com m unity justice and com m unity penalties, given that the latest Audit Com m ission Report (2004) indicates that the juvenile prison population has rem ained stable. N otw ithstanding this, the you th ju stice system has no doubt m ade great advances in offering practice that is inclusive of you ng people and their fam ilies as well as the w ider com m unity and victim s, but a practice that is based on setting and m eeting targets, and in the process crim inalizes yo u n g people at an earlier stage. This chapter will draw up on an academ ic/practitioner's view of the youth justice system and will reflect upon the system 's ability to em brace effective practice and to incorporate the principles of restorative and com m unity justice. It will consider w hether the youth ju stice system offers em pow erm ent to all its participants, the effectiveness of using restorative ju stice w hen there is little or no victim input, and debate w hether the introduction of restorative ju stice is mainly a m eans for the state to relinquish responsibility. Finally, it will consider the extent of youth crim e, in particular focusing on public perception and the introduction of the Anti-Social Behaviour O rder as a m eans to control 'evil' you ng people. This discussion will be contextualized w ithin the param eters of the current political clim ate.

T h e youth justice system and the political context The historical background of the you th justice system and the w elfare versus justice debate has been well d ocu m ented and as such will not be covered here in any detail (see Brow n 1998, Sm ith 2003, H aines and D rakeford 1998, Pickford 2000). H ow ever, w ith the change of govern­ m ent in 1997 som e of the problem s relating to the ru nning and effectiveness of the system , identified by Straw and M ichael's Tackling Youth Crim e: Reform ing Youth Justice (1996) and the Audit Com m ission's M isspent Y ou th. . . Young People and Crim e (1996), w ould be eradicated. It was anticipated that N ew Labour, w ho had been bequeathed 18 years of Thatcher/M ajor neo-liberalistic policy, w ould 'rep resent a "th ird w ay " one distinct from old traditions and beyond the old taxonom ies of "le ft" and " r ig h t " ' (H effernan 2000: xii). H ow ever, this was not to be, particularly in relation to law and order. In the run-up to the 1997 general election, supporters of N ew Labour w ere m ystified by the party's new -found toughness on law and order. M any felt that this was a v ote-w inning artifice and that, once in 184

C om m u n ity youth justice: policy, practices and public perception

governm ent, the party w ould opt for the recognized m ore com passio­ nate, understanding attitude of the 1970s (Pitts 2000). This was not to be realized. It soon becam e apparen t that N ew Labour's rhetoric w ould indeed becom e fact and that they would not only be tough on the causes of crim e but even tougher on offenders. Their m anifesto claim ed that they w ere now the 'party of law and order' and that they w ould pursue the 'h eav y handed ' m easures dealing w ith sex offenders and sen tencing that the Conservative Party recom m ended (Savage and N ash 2001). It should be acknow ledged that part of the Conservative legacy was the new public m anagerialist approach taken to governing public policy. H ere it was envisaged that N ew Labour w ould offer a 'third w ay' style of m anagem ent and that m any of the Conservative m ethods w ould be pushed aside for a less radical and neo-liberal approach. H ow ever, Tackling Delays in the Youth Justice System (1997), w hich m ade proposals to introduce a sw ift adm inistration of ju stice for you ng offenders, offered an insight into the m anagem ent approach that N ew Labour were now adopting: The governm ent believes that financial penalties could provide an effective incentive to b etter perform ance. (H om e O ffice 1997a: 14) New Labour, rather than reverting back to old Labour w ays, or in fact offering a new w ay to m anage the public sector, in particular law and order, was opting for the new public m anagem ent stance: it w as a case of 'N ew Labour in Conservative clothing'. W hat was different w ith N ew Labour, how ever, was that they liked w hat m anagerialism had to offer in relation to 'w h at w orks', 'joined -u p solutions', 'em p ow erm ent', and 'com m unitarian' devolution of pow er to 'local people' aspirations (Pitts 2000: 7). T he Crim e and D isorder Act 1998, the first m ajor piece of legislation im p lem ented by N ew Labour, established the setting up of m ulti-agency team s (Youth O ffend ing Team s), through greater em phasis on partnerships and the introduction of restorativ e ju stice . Y outh O ffe n d in g T eam s are com p rised of representatives from the police service, probation service, health service, education, social services, con nexions, and often include reparation providers, such as Crim e Concern, to deliver a range of interventions and program m es that w ill en su re th at y o u n g people 'face up to the consequ ences of their crim es and learn to change the habits and attitudes w hich led them into offend ing and anti-social behaviour' (H om e O ffice 1997b: 27-28). The Crim e and D isorder Act 1998 (CDA) and the Y outh Justice and Crim inal Evidence Act 1999 (YJCEA) w ere the culm ination of an intense period of consultation and evaluation o f the you th ju stice system by both 185

C om m u n ity Justice

th e Labour gov ern m en t (Straw and M ichael 1996) and the Audit C om m ission (1996). The political rhetoric had a strong focus on parental responsibility, com m unitarianism and restorative ju stice, w hich should be seen as a progressive m ove tow ards the reintegration of you ng offenders back into society. H ow ever, it is apparent that the Labour governm ent was responding to crim e as the Conservatives did, by adopting a crim e control and pu nishm ent attitude, and by em bracing a N ew Right philosophy, directing responsibility back to the com m unity and the family. T h e changes in the you th ju stice system and the introduction of new orders, although providing the overdue reform of the system has, to som e degree, m eant that you ng people are becom ing crim inalized at an earlier point. This is particularly the case w here the cautioning system has been replaced w ith reprim ands and final w arnings and w here the Anti-Social B ehaviou r O rd er appears to have becom e the answ er to all evils. A lthough a restorative ju stice ap p roach is a positive m ove to encourage you ng people to take responsibility for their offend ing behaviour, it is perhaps the case that the governm ent's laissez-faire attitude is going too far and as a con sequ ence they are perpetu ating an already highly charged blam e culture. Brow n (1998) suggests that the m urder of Jam es Bulger by two ten-year-old boys in 1993 rocked the foundations of our beliefs and equanim ity w ith the w orld around us and changed the very notion o f childhood. Any form of deviation from social expectations by this age group challenges our sense of social order and this has resulted in a suspicion o f you th and a readiness to blam e you ng people for all the ills of society. N otw ithstanding this, the governm ent, through the changes in policy and the overhaul of th e youth justice system (see Sm ith 2003, H aines and Drakeford 1998), have found a w ay, through the introduction of restorative justice, of including and em pow ering citizens and young people w ithin a system that traditionally has not tolerated them . However, to w hat degree do citizens understand that they have a say in the youth justice system or are aw are of the changes that have taken place?

Restoration via referral orders The new orders in the CDA (1998) and the YJCEA (1999) have allow ed not only for you ng offenders and their fam ilies to have a voice w ithin the youth ju stice system but also for the victim and w ider com m unity to receive reparation and restitution for offences com m itted against them . H ow ever, it m ust be acknow ledged that restorative ju stice requires the system in w hich it is w orking to be p atient and accepting of the delays 186

C om m u n ity youth justice: policy, practices and public perception

that inevitably occur w hen all these individuals are involved. U nfortu­ nately this is not the case in a system such as in England and W ales that advocates a sw ift adm inistration o f justice. W hen used w ithin a punitive system its im plem entation m ight lead to distortions. Restorative m easures are often seen as an alternative to punishm ent, but as D uff (1992, in W algrave 2001) argues, restorative sanctions and processes should be seen as 'alternative p u nishm ents' rather than 'alternatives to pu nishm ent'. Both D uff (1992) and Daly (2001) argue that all hard burdens im posed and accepted u n d er pressure should be considered as a punishm ent, and thus restorative ju stice should be considered to be essential to crim e control as it provides 'h ard treatm ent' (W algrave 2001). W hat has developed in England and W ales is the m axim alist (Bazem ore and W algrave 1999) version of restorative justice. T he m axim alist version is oriented tow ards conducting ju stice through restoration as an alternative to th e punitive or rehabilitative ju stice system s that are presently in existence. A ccording to iMcCold (1999) there is a possibility for restorative ju stice to becom e punitive if coercive judicial sanctions are included bu t disguised as restorative m easures. He believes that all coercive interventions are punishm ents and therefore restorative ju stice should reject them . In the UK the Labour governm ent has recognized the benefits that m ay be offered through the use o f restorative ju stice, bu t M cC old's (1999, in W algrave 2001) notion that there is a possibility that it could becom e punitive is em erging as a reality. W ith the introduction of the referral order (see Craw ford and N ew burn 2003) and the reparation order (see Leng, Taylor and W asik 1998), an alternative brand or 'neo-restorative ju stice' has been introduced. Y oung people are sentenced to these orders by the court and have to becom e involved in the process, rather than having the choice to. This is not the case w ith all types of restorative ju stice being used w ithin England and W ales, b u t in m ost instances there is som e elem ent of coercion to take part in th e intervention. This underm ines the principles of restorative ju stice and threatens the effect of the outcom e. It is also com m on ly the case th at th e 'o rd e re d ' restorativ e ju stice interventions, such as the referral order and reparation order, have little or no victim involvem ent. As such this form o f restorative ju stice is a specific brand that fails to have any real personal im pact upon victims. A lthough this can be seen as problem atic it should be acknow ledged that as long as the victim is having a choice of w h eth er to be involved in the process, w hether they choose to take part or not, there needs to be respect for their choice and a recognition that this particular brand of neo-restorative ju stice has taken place. As a con sequ ence of the lack of victim involvem ent w ithin an initiative, it is necessary for com m unity 187

C om m unity Justice

re p rese n ta tiv e s, in the case of th e referral ord er, or restorativ e intervention providers/Youth O ffen d in g Team s officers, in the case of reparation orders, to portray the view of the victim. This is not necessarily a problem with the referral order as true restorative justice principles advocate com m unity involvem ent. But to have only a professional view of how the victim of a crim e m ay feel should be considered a w atereddow n version and a half-hearted effort at achieving inclusivity and em pow erm ent. The referral order, w hich show s the Labour governm ent's com m it­ m ent to restorative ju stice as a m eans of reducing and preventing youth offending, is a new prim ary sen tencing disposal for all 10-17-year-olds w ho plead guilty and are convicted for the first tim e by the court. The only other options for disposal open to th e m agistrates for these types of offenders will be an absolute discharge, custody or a hospital order. The length of the referral order is determ ined by th e severity of the offence and can be m ade for a m inim um of three m onths and a m axim um of 12 m onths. The length of the order should be proportionate to the offence and it is the responsibility of the court to specify the length for w hich the contract will have effect and to order a parent/guardian to attend a socalled youth offend ing panel with the you ng person if he or she is under 17 years of age. This new approach is intend ed to do the following. •

Ensure that the most serious offenders continue to be dealt with in a criminal court to provide punishm ent, protect the public and prevent re-offending.

•

Provide an opportunity for less serious offending to be dealt with in a new non-crim inal panel enforced by a criminal court.

•

Involve young people more effectively in decisions about them encouraging them to admit their guilt and face up to the consequences of their behaviour.

•

Involve the victim in the proceedings, but only with their active consent and focus on preventing behaviour. (Home Office 1997a)

The youth offender panel is m ade up of one m em ber of the Youth O ffend in g Team and at least tw o m em bers of th e local com m unity, who undergo training and may have som e expertise or interest in dealing with you n g people. The panel is governed by the principles of restorative justice, defined as restoration, responsibility and reintegration (Home O ffice 1997a). In order to encourage the restorative nature of the process other people m ay be invited to the panel m eeting, on a strictly voluntary role. This may include: 188

C om m u n ity youth justice: policy, practices and public perception

• • • • •

the victim or a representative of the com m unity at large a victim supporter a supporter of the young person, but not their solicitor signers and interpreters if required anyone else that the panel considers to be capable of having a 'good influence' on the offender (Newburn et al 2002).

The aim of the panel is to agree a contract with the yo u n g person and their family. The contract will include program m es, delivered predom i­ nantly by the Y O T , designed prim arily to prevent further offending. It also provides m easures of reparation eith er directly to the victim or indirectly to the w ider com m unity. Traditionally the crim inal ju stice system has tend ed to ignore the w ants or need s of the victim and assum ed that the victim 's interests are the same as those of the w ider public, w hich are served by the crown. Cayley observes that 'm odern crim inal ju stice has stressed the aggrand­ izem ent and edification of the state, rather than the satisfaction of victim s' (Cayley 1998: 217). The integration of a victim perspective w ithin the crim inal justice system , through the use of restorative ju stice, has evoked considerable debate am ong academ ics (Crawford 2000, see also Tapley, this volum e). The feasibility of using restorative ju stice as a m ethod that gives victim s a voice w ithin a crim inal ju stice system that is 'intrinsically bound up with state co ercio n a n d is n o t n e ce ssa rily th e a p p ro p riate crad le of redistributive ju stice' (Crawford 2000a: 10) has been well d ocum ented (see Crawford 2000b, Reeves and M ulley 2000, Shapland 2000, Erez 2000, W algrave 2000, Morris and Y oung 2000, Joh n sto n e 2002). A shworth (2000: 185) also places the victim m ovem ent into the political clim ate, stating that there is som e confusion, as greater penal severity and integrating the victim perspective seem to go hand in hand. H ow ever, w ith regards to integrating a victim perspective w ithin th e crim inal justice system , w orking under a m anagerialist philosophy the victim perspective is caught up in the same auditable perform ance outcom es as the rest of the players in the crim inal justice system . The establishm ent of the you th offend er panel was an attem pt, by the governm ent, to clarify their position w ithin the w elfare versus justice debate through the delivery of a 'w elfare form of com m unity ju stice'. The referral order is unique in that it allows for the yo u n g person's offending behaviou r to be view ed within its social context. The causes of crim e are recognized and the victim and w ider com m unity are involved in the process, and this all takes place w ithin a legislative fram ew ork. By u ndertaking the referral order the you ng person will have to com e face to

189

C om m u n ity Justice

face w ith w hat they have done. It could therefore be argued that through this legislation the aims o f restorative justice are param ount in the governm ent's vision for red ucing offend in g and healing com m unity w ounds. The panels represent an alternative to other form s of sen tencing and allow the courts to deal w ith the m ore severe and persistent offenders. At the tim e of w riting the referral orders have been ru nning for ju st over tw o years and to date no re-conviction data have been provided. It will be interesting to see, even at this early stage, w hat the data indicate and w h eth er the referral order is actually successful in preventing re­ offending. The real political agenda will becom e apparent if the order has not been successful, as this will raise the question of w hom to blam e. I would suggest a scenario w here in order to save face th e Labour governm ent will condem n th e com m unity panel m em bers for their inability to produce a contract that can tackle offend ing behaviour. T he failure of the order and the subsequ ent blam ing of panel m em bers would probably be w elcom ed by those you th ju stice professionals w ho have been less supportive of this process and w ho are not convinced by the principles of restorative justice. This disinterest on the part of youth ju stice professionals in restorative schem es is not a new issue and has b een d ocum ented in relation to other interventions as well (M cKenzie, forthcom ing). Equally, how ever, there are professionals w ho have been very supportive of the processes and will no doubt offer their own critiques in the face of adversity. T he training for com m unity participants is inform ative and provides a certain level of insight into the causes o f crim e, but it is lim ited and could b e argued to b e inadequate for som e m em bers of the com m unity, w ho are to b e entrusted with playing such an influential role w ithin you ng people's lives. Initially m any o f th e panels w ere reliant up on the Y O T m em ber to assist, significantly, in reinforcing the con sequ ences of o ffend ing behaviour and fleshing out the causes of crime. H ow ever, the early days of 'fresh faced' panel m em bers have now passed and at present experienced panel m em bers are able to guide their new er colleagues through this transitory stage. It w ould be unreasonable for the governm ent to blam e panel m em bers for the lack of success if the re­ conviction data turn out to b e poor. W hat they need to consid er is w hose responsibility it is to prevent re-offending, and also that the causes of com m unity disturbance by youths can lie w ithin social inequalities as well as w ith individual responsibility. T he crux is that there appears to be a difference betw een w hat practitioners understand by the term restorative justice and the nature of interventions the governm ent w ants practitioners to im plem ent through

190

C om m u n ity youth justice: policy, practices and public perception

restorative m easures. H ow ever, it m ust also be acknow ledged that although the governm ent is concerned w ith outcom e m easurem ents it is also in terested in d ev elop in g good and effective practice, but as precursors to m eeting its outcom e focused targets. The effective practice initiative introduced by the Youth Justice Board is intend ed to enable the service to w ork w ithin the param eters of evidence-based practice. Effective practice com prises 15 key elem ents. These are: • Assessment, planning interventions and supervision • Education, training and em ploym ent • fin al warning interventions • Intensive supervision and surveillance programmes • M ental health • M entoring • O ffending behaviour programmes • Parenting • Remand m anagem ent • Resettlem ent • Restorative justice • Substance misuse • Swift administration of justice • Targeted neighbourhood prevention programmes • Young people who sexually abuse. Each of these key elem ents is supported by research source d ocum enta­ tion to enable a process of effective practice quality assurance to take place w ithin each youth offend ing team via a self-assessm ent process. The inform ation gathered enables the Youth Justice Board to acquire a full picture of the w ork of the YO Ts as it provides a qualitative context to the quantitative inform ation collected throu gh the routine data returns for each office (Youth Justice Board, nd). From this inform ation effective practice can be assessed and dissem inated. T h e Youth Justice Board has d em on strated a com m itm en t to the effective practice p rocess by d eveloping, in con ju n ction w ith h ig h er edu cational institutions, a professional certificate in Effective Practice (Youth Justice). This is offered to all youth justice practitioners w ith the aim of having 80 per cent of its w orkforce passed through this course by 2006. A lthough it is adm irable that the youth justice board w ishes to have its professionals educated in this w ay and has been forthcom ing with developing a qualification fram ew ork for the youth justice sector, it has becom e apparent that financial support is less than forthcom ing. Practitioners w ho wish to

191

C om m u n ity Justice

pursue con tin uing education along the qualification fram ew ork have found funding to be problem atic and th e support of m anagem ent sporadic at best and non-existent at worst. In order for practitioners to feel com pelled to further their education there sim ply needs to be m ore m an agem en t, as well as governm ent, support. The Labour governm ent appears to appreciate the im portance of inclu ding th e victim w ithin the youth justice system and is truly w illing to put the 'com m unity' back into com m unity ju stice, even if their m otives are questionable. T he youth justice system and you th ju stice profes­ sionals, w ith the aid of restorative ju stice, have dem onstrated this com m itm ent to victim inclu sion and are eager to advocate equal opportunities and effective practice. H ow ever, the question that is still param ount is w hy, w hen victim s are said to be an im portant elem ent of the youth ju stice system , does there con tin u e to be a lack of victim involvem ent? A lthough there is a greater em phasis on the role of the victim and an increased u n derstand ing that their needs are param ount (Zehr 1990), the governm ent appears m ore concerned w ith the effect that restorative m easures have upon the offend ing behaviou r of th e you ng person rather than the overall satisfaction o f all parties with both the process and its outcom es. At tim es it seem s that the rhetoric that victims should b e at the centre of the crim inal justice system (Blunkett 2002) is ju st that, w ithout any real m eaning behind it. In this light, it is a sham e that society is unaw are of w hat is actually taking place w ithin the youth ju stice system and, consequently, seem s to have little regard for it. It is evid ent that, besides the continued view that new public m anagerialism is the best form o f m anagem ent, there have been great strides m ade to reform ing the youth ju stice system . W e should expect to see an increase in public confid ence and understanding of youth justice. Both of these expectations are a requirem ent for engaging victims and the w ider com m unity in restorative and com m unity interventions but so far they do not seem to have been forthcom ing.

T h e A u d it C o m m issio n ’s review 2004 T he Audit C om m ission's review o f the reform ed youth ju stice system concluded that on the w hole 'th e new system is an im provem ent on the old one' (Audit Com m ission 2004: 2): effective, efficient and econom ic and therefore m eeting new public m anagem ent outcom es. In particular, im provem ents w ere m ade in relation to the structure of the system , yo u n g people w ere more likely to be involved in interventions follow ing

192

C om m u n ity youth justice: policy, practices and public perception

their conviction, and m ore reparation was m ade to victims and the com m unity. T here was also an im p rov em en t in relation to faster sen tencing of you ng people follow ing their arrest that has had the effect of reducing offend ing on bail: a drop from one in three to one in five. There has also been a fall o f 5 p er cen t in know n offenders re-offending and a low er reconviction rate after the new com m unity penalties have been adm inistered (Audit Com m ission 2004). These are all positive outcom es and all those involved should be applauded for th e efforts m ade. H ow ever, it was indicated that there is a decline in public con fid ence regarding the crim inal ju stice system 's effectiven ess in dealing w ith you ng offenders and in part this can be put dow n to a lack of popular understand ing o f the w ork that is done by youth offend ing team s. Indeed , in 2001/2002, one quarter of the general public thou ght that the ju stice system dealt effectively w ith you ng offenders; a year later only one in five felt th e sam e. T hree out of four people had never heard of YO Ts (Audit Com m ission 2004). The lack of public appreciation of th e success of the youth ju stice system has im portant repercussions upon n o t ju st youth ju stice policy but on how young offenders and you ng people in general are treated. Sim m ons and Todd (2003) report th at follow ing the changes in the youth ju stice system there had been a fall in the public's confid ence in the youth ju stice system from 25 per cen t in 1999 to 21 per cen t in 2003. Regardless of the fact that youth crim e has not increased, H ough and Roberts (2003) state that three out of four people felt that crim e had w orsened over the past tw o years and that nine out of ten thou ght there w as an increase in violent crim es. This, in con jun ction with th e Audit C om m ission's (2004) report that seven out o f ten of the general public feel that the police and court are too lenien t on you ng offenders, conjures up a w orrying p ictu re for th e y o u th ju stice board and th e labour governm ent, prim arily because general elections can be w on or lost based on the public's confidence in law and order policy.

T h e vilification of you ng people T he A udit Com m ission (2004), through a contextual analysis o f national and local papers, concluded that public opinion tend ed to reflect the negative interpretations of you ng people portrayed throu gh th e coverage in th e national press. Young people, in som e instances throu gh no fault of their ow n, have becom e labelled as 'yobs' or 'thu gs'. There has been a great deal of stereotyping of them as evil-doers w ho are a threat to the law -abiding society and w ho are out for w hat they can get. This is not a new concept, how ever, and m uch o f this type of rhetoric can be traced 193

C om m u n ity Justice

back 100 years or m ore: 'T h e m edia have reported hooliganism d runkenness, disorderly behaviour, assaults on police, street robberies and fighting. It was som ething like organized terrorism in the streets' {The Times, 17 A ugust 1898, in Pearson 1983). As M uncie (1999) states, 'you th ' and 'crim e' and 'disorder7 are all social constructions: they are w hat we say they are. Som e behaviou r dem onstrated by you ng people m ust b e seen as problem atic, anti-social or sim ply unpleasant; how ever, it should be recognized w hen the behaviou r is truly offensive to society and not m erely a 'm edia-inspired term ' (M uncie 2004: 39). It is clear that public tolerance of incivility has low ered, w hilst the fear of you ng people has increased (Young and M atthew s 2003). T he Labour governm ent, as a m eans of w inning public votes, has seized up on this and through the introduction of th e A nti-Social Behaviour O rd er has taken advantage. T he order was introduced to com bat troublesom e and m ischievous behaviou r w hich w as likely to cause harm and distress to the local com m unity. These orders, as w ith som e o f the others introduced w ith the Crim e and D isorder Act 1998, are aim ed at m anaging the behaviou r of pre-delinquents. H ow ever, they actually blu r the distinction betw een crim e prevention and crim e control (Sm ith 2003: 61). W hat they also do is offer a false sense of com m unity safety, as the anti-social aspect is based u p on perceptions of row dy and troublesom e behaviou r and all that is perceived to b e w rong with youthfulness (Bland and Read 2000). R ath er th an tacklin g the problem s of ou r y ou th , A SB O s only perpetuate them as they con tin ue to stigm atize the you ng to the extent that 'yob culture' becom es a self-fulfilling prophecy. As M un cie (2004: 117) states, 'it is the application o f a stigm atizing label that is considered pivotal in inform ing future behaviou r patterns'. Society also becom es increasingly fearful, suspicious o f youths, w hich in turn m eans that they are m ore closely supervised by the police than o ther age group. This m eans that the focus is on the behaviou r of you ng people rather than on th e causes of their behaviour, and this is in direct conflict w ith Labour's rhetoric of being tough on the causes o f crim e. As a con sequ ence of the increased use of A SBO s, yo u n g people are bein g crim inalized m uch earlier and quite probably unnecessarily. Cam pbell (2002) states that in 2000, 74 per cent of A SBO s m ade w ere on th e under-21s, w ith over half of those sen tenced in court for breach receiving a custodial sentence. This suggests that A SBO s, though a civil m easure, are accelerating routes into custody (M uncie 2004). Finally, there should be concern about the am ou nt of intervention that som e yo u n g p eople find them selves on the receiving end of. A challengin g adolescent m ay find them selves having agreed to com ply w ith an anti-social behaviou r order contract, an education contract and

194

C om m u n ity youth justice: policy, practices and public perception

even a referral order contract, thus leading to contract confusion due to a cognitive inability to address all the interventions concurrently. The A SBO appears to be seen by th e general public and the governm ent as a m eans to cure all the ills of our out-of-control youth. H ow ever, it hardly seem s supportive of you ng people and indeed it contravenes the restorative ethos of reintegration through its stigm atizing sham ing effects, allegedly in opposition to the aspirations of the youth justice system . It is im portant to em phasize the good new s: the new youth justice system is beginn ing to accom plish the tasks set at its creation in 1998. H ow ever, the various views and influence of governm ent, media and the general public are set to spoil the progress already m ade by the Youth Justice Board and Y outh O ffend in g Team s. W e have already seen the governm ent recom m ending an adulterated version of restorative justice in order to tackle you th offending and a m edia w ho constantly portray a negative im age of yo u n g people and the you th justice system . M aybe the system would be better left to the guidance of the Y outh Justice Board with the interferences from governm ent kep t to a m inim um .

Conclusion The d evelopm ent of the youth ju stice system is ongoing and the response from the governm ent to the Audit Com m ission report (2004) is positive and realistic, envisaging the w ider d evelopm ent of children and yo u n g people's services (H om e O ffice 2004). The use of restorative justice to deal with youth offending should be considered as a progressive move tow ards offering proper com m unity ju stice. H ow ever, w hile the m edia is portraying you ng people as evil and con tin uing to vilify them , and the governm ent's response is to act in a m anner that reinforces such assum ptions, then the true m ean in g of com m unity ju stice will be lost: we will be ostracizing our you ng people, the adult com m unity of the future.

References Ashworth, A. (2000) 'Victims' Rights, Defendants' Rights and Criminal Procedure', in A. Crawford and J. Goodey (eds), Integrating a Victim Perspective within Criminal Justice. Aldershot: Ashgate. Audit Commission (1996) Misspent Youth . . . Young People and Crime. London. Audit Commission. Audit Commission (2004) Youth Justice 2004: A Review of the Reformed Youth Justice System. London: Audit Commission.

195

C o m m u n it y Justice

Bazemore, G. and Walgrave, L. (1999) 'Restorative Juvenile Justice: In Search of Fundamentals and an Outline for Systematic Reform', in: G. Bazemore and L. Walgrave (eds), Restorative Juvenile justice: Repairing the Harm o f Youth Crime. New York: Criminal Justice Press. Bland, N. and Read, T. (2000) Policing Anti-social Behaviour, Police Research Series Paper 123. London: Home Office. Blunkett, D. (2002) Keynote Address to the Conference o f HM Inspectors o f Prisons and Probation, 21 March 2002. Brown, S. (1998) Understanding Youth and Crime. Buckingham: Open University Press. Campbell, S. (2002) A Rroieiv o f Anti-Social Behaviour Orders. Home Office Research Study 236. London: Home Office. Cayley, D. (1998) The Expanding Prison: The Crisis in Crime and Punishment and the Search for Alternatives. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press. Crawford, A. (2000a) 'Introduction', in A. Crawford, and J. Goodey (eds), Integrating a Victim Perspective within Criminal Justice. Aldershot: Ashgate. Crawford, A. (2000b) 'Salient Them es Towards a Victim Perspective and the Limitations of Restorative Justice: Som e Concluding Com ments', in A. Crawford and J. Goodey (eds), Integrating a Victim Perspective within Criminal Justice. Aldershot: Ashgate. Crawford, A. and N ewbum , T. (2003) Youth Offending and Restorative Justice: Implementing Reform in Youth Justice. Cullompton: Willan Publishing. Daly, K. (2001) 'Conferencing in Australia and New Zealand: Variations, Research Findings, and Prospects', in A. Morris and G. Maxwell (eds), Restorative Justice fo r Juveniles, Conferencing, Mediation and Circles. Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing. Erez, E. (2000) 'Integrating a Victim Perspective in Criminal Justice Through Victim Impact Statem ents', in A. Crawford, and J. Goodey (eds), Integrating a Victim Perspective within Criminal Justice. Aldershot: Ashgate. Haines, K. and Drakeford, M. (1998) Young People and Youth Justice. Basingstoke: Macmillan. H effernan, R. (2000) New Labour and Thatcherism: Political Change in Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Home Office (1997a) Tackling Delays in the Youth Justice System: A Consultation Paper. London: Home Office. Home Office (1997b) No More Excuses: A New Approach to Tackling Youth Crime in England and Wales, CM3809. London: Home Office. Home Office (2004) Government Response to the Audit Commissions Report - Youth Justice 2004: A Review o f the Reformed Youth Justice System. Available online: http:// www.youth-iustice-board.ROv.uk/uk/NR/rdonlyres/pB8B6E2E-1265-4004-B82147C988ABDD7A/109/AuditCommissionResponse.pdf, downloaded 23 Decem ber 2004. Hough, M. and Roberts, J. (2003) Youth Crime and Youth Justice: Public Opinion in England and Wales, IPCR Research Paper 1. London: ICPR. Johnstone, G. (2002) Restorative Justice: Ideas, Values, Debates.Cullompton: Willan Publishing. Leng, R., Taylor, R. and Wasik, M. (1998) Blackstone's Guide to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. London: Blackstone Press. McKenzie, N. (Forthcoming) Beyond the Fringe: Family Group Conferencing and its Relationship with the Criminal Justice Process. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University

196

C o m m u n it y yo u th justice: policy, practices and public p e rce p tio n

of Portsmouth. M orris, A. and Young, W. (2000) 'Reform ing Criminal Justice: The Potential of Restorative Justice', in H. Strang and J. Braithwaite (eds), Restorative Justice: Philosophy to Practice. Aldershot: Ashgate. Muncie, J. (1999) Youth and Crime. London: Sage. Muncie, J. (2004) Youth and Crime, 2nd edition. London: Sage. Nellis, M. and Gelsthorpe, L. (2003) 'H um an Rights and the Probation Values Debate', in W.H. Chui and M. Nellis (eds), Moving Probation Forward: Evidence, Arguments and Practice. Harlow: Pearson Education. Newburn, T., Crawford, A., Earle, R., Goldie, S., Hale, C., Masters, G., Netten, A., Saunders, R., Hallam, A., Sharpe, K. and Uglow, S. (2002) The Introduction o f the Referral Order into the Youth Justice System: Final Report, Home Office Research Study 242. London: Home Office. Pearson, G. (1983) Hooligan: A History o f Respectable Fears. London: Macmillan. Pickford, J. (ed.) (2000) Youth Justice: Theory and Practice. London: Cavendish Publishing. Pitts, J. (2000) 'The New Youth Justice Under the Politics of Electoral Anxiety7, in B. Goldson (ed.), The New Youth Justice. Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing. Raynor, P. (2001) 'Com munity Penalties and Social Integration: "C om m unity" as Solution and as Problem', in A. Bottoms, L. Gelsthorpe, and S. Rex (eds), Community Penalties: Change and Challenges. Cullompton: Willan Publishing. Reeves, H. and Mulley, K. (2000) 'T he New Status of Victims in the UK: Opportunities and Threats', in A. Crawford and J. Goodey (eds), Integrating a Victim Perspective within Criminal Justice. Aldershot: Ashgate. Savage, S.P. and Nash, M. (2001) 'Law and O rder under Blair: New Labour or Old Conservatism', in S.P. Savage and R. Atkinson (eds), Public Policy under Blair. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Shapland, J. (2000) 'Victims and Criminal Justice: Creating Responsible Criminal Justice Agencies', in A. Crawford and J. Goodey (eds), Integrating a Victim Perspective within Criminal Justice. Aldershot: Ashgate. Simmons, J. and Dodd, T. (eds) (2003) Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003, Home Office Statistical Bulletin. London: Home Office. Smith, R. (2003) Youth Justice: Ideas, Policy, Practice. Cullompton: Willan Publishing. Straw, J. and M ichael, A. (1996) Tackling Youth Crime: Reforming Youth Justice. Consultation Paper. London: HMSO. Walgrave, L. (2000) 'Extending the Victim Perspective Towards a Systematic Restorative Justice Alternative', in A. Crawford and J. Goodey (eds), Integrating a Victim Perspective Within Criminal Justice. Aldershot: Ashgate. Walgrave, L. (2001) 'O n Restoration and Punishment: Favourable Similarities and Fortunate Differences', in A. Morris and G. Maxwell (eds), Restorative Justice for Juveniles, Conferencing, Mediation and Circles. Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing. Young, J. and Matthews, R. (2003) 'N ew Labour, Crime Control and Social Exclusion', in R. M athews and J. Young (eds), The New Politics o f Crime and Punishment. Cullompton: Willan. Youth Justice Board (nd) Effective Practice. Available online: http://www.youthiustice-board.gov.uk/practitionersportal/practice, dow nloaded 23 Decem ber 2004. Zehr, H. (1990) Changing Lenses. London: Herald Press.

197

C h a p te r 12

C om m u nity responses to hate crime Nathan Hall

The last decade of the tw entieth century saw an increasing political and social concern w ith crim inal behaviou r m otivated by racism, and latterly by religious intolerance. In response to a perceived rise in racially m otivated offend ing across Europe and a general shift in social attitudes regarding the abhorrence of crim es m otivated by bigotry, the UK follow ed a num ber of other European countries by introd ucing specific legislation to com bat it. The 1998 Crim e and D isorder Act, later am ended by the A nti-Terrorism , Crim e and Secu rity Act of 2001, contains provisions for additional penalties to be im posed by the courts to nine pre-existing offences w here it can be proved that those offences were racially or religiously m otivated or aggravated eith er in w hole or in part. In other w ords, not only is the offence punished but also the specific m otivation behind it. M ore recently, how ever, the rather narrow focus on race has begun to w iden to incorporate other aspects of diversity. A ttention has begu n to cen tre on the broader concept of 'h a te crim e'. The Crim inal Justice Act 2003 allows for hom op hobic m otivation and bias against disability to be taken into account by sentencers as aggravating factors in an offence, and the Serious O rganised Crim e and Police Bill contains a new offence of incitem ent to religious hatred. W hilst th e law at present only recognizes specific offences m otivated by racial or religious prejudice, for policing purposes the Association of C hief Police O fficers (ACPO 2000: 13) define hate crim e as 'a crim e w here the perpetrator's prejudice against any identifiable group of people is a factor in determ ining w ho is victim ised', a definition that has also been adopted by the Association of C hief O fficers of Probation.

198

C o m m u n ity responses to hate crime

Crim es m otivated by preju dice and b igo tiy are obviously nothing new . H ow ever, recent official recognition o f these offences as a distinct category of crim inal behaviou r has effectively presented the criminal ju stice system with a 'n ew ' category of offender. Indeed, hate offenders present a unique challenge to the crim inal justice system in that the law is con cern ed not only w ith the crim e, but also w ith the specific m otivation behind their offending. It establishes a n eed specifically to recognize and address the underlying preju dice that inform s that behaviour. This chapter will explore the challenge that hate offenders present. It will be argued that the prison system and traditional com m unity punishm ents are relatively ineffectual in challenging hate-m otivated behaviour. Instead, it is argued that for m ost h ate offenders, com m unity sentences that sim ultaneously punish the crim e and challenge the offend er's erroneous belief system s offer better potential for effective intervention. To this end the ch ap ter will explore som e of th e unique characteristics and dynam ics th at relate to hate offend ers before outlining som e of the key lim itations of traditional custodial and com m unity sentences. The ch ap ter will then exam ine recent develop­ m ents in program m es designed for intervening in hate-m otivated behaviour. The chapter conclud es by arguing that w hilst innovative com m unity sentences undoubtedly hold the greatest potential, they are not a panacea, and the developm ent o f successful program m es is at best uncertain because of both the com plex nature of hate and prejudice, and our relative lack of understand ing of them .

P erpe tra to r characteristics Before w e can consid er how w e m ight best respond to hate offenders, it is im portant to exam ine w hat is know n about them . This in itself is no sim ple task. Indeed, in his 1999 b ook Violent Racism, Ben Bow ling was able to describe the perpetrators of race hate crim e as 'devilish effigies' about w hich very little w as know n. Since then, how ever, a grow ing body of research has begu n to em erge, and it dem onstrates that hate offending is a com plex and m ulti-faceted form of crim inal behaviour. In her review of the socio-psychological literature, Kellina Craig (2002) presents evidence from a range of disciplines that suggests that hate crim e represents a unique form of aggression that has both sym bolic and instrum ental functions for the perpetrator and cannot be attributed to any one factor. Craig identifies that m any hate offenders will c a n y a d eep -seated re se n tm e n t o f m inority groups and th e ir m em bers. 199

C om m u n ity Justice

C om m itting hate crim es helps perpetrators to m aintain a positive social identity by lauding their in-group through the d enigration of an out­ group. Thus, she suggests, victim s will often be the targets of extrem e negative stereotypes. Craig also presents evidence to dem onstrate that stereotypes and resentm ent m ay b e fuelled by actual or im agined econom ic com petition and frustration (social strain), the presence of certain religious values, the d isproportionate presence o f psychopathological traits am ong hate o ffe n d ers as com p ared to o th e r crim in als, an d the p resen ce of authoritarian personality traits am ong a large num ber of haters. H ate crim e perpetrators can effectively be m otivated by one or m ore of a wide range of social, psychological, political, cultural and other factors. O n the basis of Craig's research, the search for a single, universal causal factor for hate crim e is likely to be fruitless. Rather, it is the interplay of a n u m ber of different factors that produces perpetrators. This situation is recognized by Rae Sibbitt (1997) in her British study of the perpetrators of racial violence and racial harassm ent. Sibbitt suggests that there are essentially tw o strands of theories to explain w hy certain people com m it racially m otivated offences. T h e first, she argues, links racist behaviou r to crim e in general. T h e psychological and contextual factors that facilitate other types of crim inal and anti-social behaviou r will also facilitate racist behaviour. The second approach suggests that racial harassm ent is a logical and predictable expression of underlying racism in society at large. In this sense then, preju dice is felt by a com m unity towards a m inority group, perhaps fuelled by perceptions o f strain, bu t there is a context in w hich a m inority of that m ajority will 'cross the line' and express their prejudice through harassm ent and violence. This approach assum es that the p erpetrator is sim ply expressing the view s and prejudices that are felt but not necessarily physically expressed by a w ider com m unity. Sibbitt (1997) argues that it is the interplay of contextual factors, such as unem ploym ent, econom ic hardship and/or deprivation, com petition for scarce resources (for exam ple, housing), and a lack of com m unity facilities (particularly in relation to youth and leisure facilities), and the psychology of certain individuals that produces perpetrators. O ffenders are also likely to be involved in other form s o f crim inal or anti-social behaviour, and operate with the passive support (or at least w ithout the condem nation) of som e sections of the w ider com m unity w ho share similar views. Sibbitt's work, and h er discussion of the w ider 'perpetrator com m unity', produces som e interesting im plications for criminal justice practitioners responding to perpetrators of hate crime in that the individual's prejudice is likely to be entrenched in th e w ider com m unity from w hich they w ere drawn, and to w hich they will likely return having served a sentence. 200

C o m m u n ity responses to hate crime

R esearch in the U nited States by M cD evitt, Levin and B en n ett (2002) has draw n upon the m otives cited by police officials, victim s as w ell as perpetrators them selves to produce a typology of hate offenders. Their research concluded that hate offend ers can be placed into one of four m otivational categories. 1

Thrill - Perpetrators in this category accounted for the m ajority of offenders (66 per cent of their sam ple). They com m it hate crim es in order to create excitem ent for them selves and to strength en their feelings of pow er over w hat they perceive to be subordinate groups.

2

D efensive - T hese offenders, com prising 25 per cen t of th e sam ple, see their crim es as a 'tool' to be used for th e protection o f w hat they perceive to b e 'threaten ed ' resources w ithin society. Clearly this category has strong links with the notion of social strain and indeed is analogous to the com m ents often inform ally cited by people w ho oppose the influx of asylum seekers in to the UK (for exam ple, 'they take all our jobs').

3

Retaliatory - O ffenders in this category (8 per cent of the sam ple) com m it hate crim es to avenge the perceived or real degradation of their in-group. They therefore respond w hen they perceive that m em bers of another group have in som e w ay 'attacked ' their own group and som e form of redress is required to secure revenge and to reaffirm dom inant social hierarchies.

4

M ission - Perpetrators w ho fit this typology are generally rare (less than 1 per cen t of the study) but are the m ost com m itted and preju diced of all hate offenders. They see their role as 'crusaders' w ho are essentially cleansing the earth o f a perceived evil rather than respond ing to any singular event. Thus, as M cD evitt et al (2002) suggest, for a m ission o ffend er hate can be view ed as a 'career', w hereas for th e thrill offender, hate is som ething akin to a 'hobby'.

W hilst these typologies have been som ew hat sim plified here (see M cD evitt et al 2002 for a com prehensive overview ) and despite the stud y's m ethodological lim itations, id entifying perpetrators through these categories and their associated case files has provided som e very interesting supplem entary inform ation, as illustrated in Table 12.1. W e can see from this that the m ajority of hate offenders are you ng adults, as is th e case for offenders generally. Also of interest is the suggestion that hate crim e is often a group activity, involving w hatever 'w eap on s' hap p en to be at hand, that occurs often with little or no v ictim -o ffen d er history. This supports th e view that hate crim es are 201

C om m unity Justice

Table 12.1 Characteristics of hate crim es by offender m otivation A ttack characteristics T hrill

D efensive

Retaliatory

M ission

N um ber of offenders Age of ofiender(s)

Group T eens-you ng adults Victim's turf

Group T eens-young adults O ffender's turf

Single offender T eens-you ng adults Victim's turf

H ands, feet, rocks None

Hands, feet rocks Previous acts of intimidation M oderate Unlikely

Hands, feet, sticks, guns Often no history Moderate Unlikely

Group Young adu ltsadults Victim s' or offender's turf Bats, guns

Location W eapon Victim offender history Com m itment to bias D eterrence

Little Likely

N one Full Most unlikely

Source: McDevitt et al (2002: 311)

im personal and that victims are interchangeable. The final point of note is a differential com m itm ent to their prejudice. W ith the exception of thrill offenders, the offender7s com m itm ent to their hatred is a significant factor, particularly in relation to w h eth er or not they can be deterred from their actions. The latter finding has im portant im plications for respond ing to hate crim e offenders, and w e shall return to this in due course.

A punitive approach to hatred D espite increasing interest in crim es m otivated by hate, the term 'h ate crim e' does not specifically appear in any UK legislation and therefore does not officially exist as a distinct category of crim inal behaviour in itself. Instead, specific legislation prohibits certain acts, w hich are already outlaw ed in other legislation, but allows for hate to be used as an aggravating factor. The key piece of legislation in this respect is the Crim e and Disorder Act 1998, w hich allow s for e n h an ced sen ten cin g for racially and religiously m otivated assaults, crim inal dam age, public order offences and harassm ent. U nder the Crim e and Disorder Act (1998, Part 2, Section 28) an offence is racially aggravated if: (a) at the time of com m itting the offence, or im m ediately before or after doing so, the offender d em onstrates tow ards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim 's m em bership (or presum ed m em bership) of a racial group; or

202

C o m m u n ity responses to hate crime

(b) the offence is m otivated (w holly or partly) by hostility towards m em bers of a racial group based on their m em bership of that group. A 'racial group' refers to persons defined by reference to their race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins and in Section 28(3a) includes m em bership of any religious group. The enactm ent of this legislation has effectively created nine 'n ew ' racially/religiously aggravated offences based upon pre-existing offences contained in other legislation. The CDA allow s for sen tence enhan cem en t for offences w here it can be proved that racial/religious aggravation was present at the tim e of the offence, except w here offences already carry a m axim um life sentence. T h e A ct also allows for the courts (with the exception of th e m agistrates' courts) to increase sentences for other n on­ specified offences aggravated by racial hostility. Thus, som e offences that w ould norm ally be sum m ary only have becom e either-w ay offences (m agistrates are able to com m it racist offenders to the Crow n court for sen tence), and m axim um sentences have increased 'to the next level' on th e sen ten cin g tariff. In addition to longer custodial sentences, the p rov isions for en h an ce d se n te n cin g also in clu d e in creased fines, com m unity sen tences and com pensation (Burney and Rose 2002), and require the courts to explicitly pronou nce in open court that the offence w as racially m otivated. The increasingly punitive approach to hate crim es and hate offenders through the im position of en h an ced sanctions for those convicted of specific hate-m otivated offences m akes it likely that the prison service will becom e m ore frequently involved w ith hate offenders. It is therefore im portant to consider the role o f the prison service in respond ing to hate offenders and its role in preventing future offending. Im prisonm ent o f hate offend ers raises a difficult dilem m a. O n the one han d there is the need to protect th e public from dangerous offenders, but on the other there is the need to effectively address th e underlying causes of the hate crim e (i.e. the offend er's prejudice) in order to prevent future offending. Prison m ay achieve the form er (at least for th e duration of the offend er's incapacitation), b u t it tends to fall short on the latter. The problem s associated w ith im prisonm ent as a response to hate offenders are threefold. First, becau se th e chances of bein g caught, convicted and ultim ately sent to prison are rem ote for m ost hate offenders, the d eterrent value of prison is w eak at best. Second, prisons are often divided along racial and ethnic lines, and are therefore 'h o tb e d s' for p reju d ice, in to leran ce an d hate group activ ity and recruitm ent (G erstenfeld 2004). Third, sim ply pu nishing offenders is not enough. If future offend ing is to be prevented, then som e form of rehabilitation that addresses the offend er's prejudicial attitudes that 203

Com m unity Justice

caused the offence to occur in the first place is crucial. In an overcrowded prison system, w here both effective rehabilitative programmes and the opportunities to im plem ent them are relatively rare, it is unlikely that prison will offer any effective solution beyond simply rem oving them from society for a period of time. Indeed, Levin and M cDevitt (2002) argue that im prisonm ent may in fact be counterproductive because hatebased views may be hardened whilst in prison, thereby increasing the likelihood that they will be physically expressed following release. The best hope, it would seem, lies in a dual approach whereby offenders are rightly punished for their crime, but also in which their underlying prejudices are challenged. Rehabilitating offenders, as well as punishing them , would appear to hold the key to preventing future offending. The question, of course, is how do we respond to hate as a prejudice and rehabilitate offenders? Clearly, much will depend on the type of offender involved. If w e refer back to Table 12.1, show ing the offender characteristics developed by M cDevitt et al (2002), w e can get some clues about the likelihood of influencing, deterring or indeed preventing future offending. From the evidence presented in the table, those offenders who commit hate offences for the 'thrill' hold the best hope for success in challenging their behaviour. W here the offend ers are characterized as 'd efen siv e', 'retaliatory' or 'm ission', the chances of success in this respect becom e increasingly uncertain as the p erpetrator's 'com m itm en t to bias' increases. Fortunately, those motivated by the thrill are more com mon than the other types. Still, if the prison system fails to address effectively the offending behaviour of those that are convicted, then we need to consider employing alternative sentences to imprisonment. Perhaps, then, com m unity sentences offer better prospects. Som e degree of success, particularly for first-time offenders, has been achieved in the United States through probation and com m unity service sentences. Levin and M cDevitt (2002) refer in particular to sentences consisting of probation including som e form of com m unity service to a local minority group or minority group organization. Based largely on contact theories, the intention here is that the offender will learn about the com m unity they have targeted, whilst returning som ething positive to that com m unity by repairing some of the damage and harm caused. Such an approach, however, is not always straightforward. As Levin and M cDevitt (2002: 201) suggest: A m ajor limitation of the com munity service sentencing approach is its lack of formal treatm ent programs. Having a location for the assignm ent of offenders is one thing; putting together an effective

204

C o m m u n ity responses to hate crime

program to reduce hatred is quite another. H aving an offend er paint the exterior of a synagogue that h e has defaced m ight return som ething to the com m unity he has harm ed, b ut it is questionable that this activity alone would teach the offend er w hy w hat h e did was w rong. To do that, he w ould need a program that effectively addressed his m isconceptions. Sim ilarly, w riting of probation practice with regard to racially m otivated offenders in the UK, Dixon and Court (2003) acknow ledge th e lim itations of existing practices. Given the unique nature of hate offending, they suggest that generalist offend er program m es are relatively ineffective because they fail adequately to address the d ynam ic risk factors that are, as w e have seen, inheren tly associated w ith hate as a m otivation for crim e. Sim ilarly, Dixon and C ourt su ggest th at gen eral cognitive behavioural program m es for h ate offend ers are ineffective because they fail to im pact up on the em otional aspects o f this type of crim inal behaviour. E choing Levin and M cD evitt, D ixon and C ourt (2003: 150) argue that the com plex psychological processes and th e w ide range of risk factors that underp in hate offend in g can only be effectively dealt w ith by developing interventions specifically tailored to hate offenders. But w hat elem ents m ight such interventions contain? In light of the problem s associated w ith the prison system and com m unity sentences that fail effectively to tackle the offend er's underlying prejudice, Levin and M cD evitt (2002: 203) m ake a n u m ber of suggestions for the con tent of such offend er program m es, stating that: a m odel hate crim e offend er treatm en t or rehabilitation program m ust include th e follow ing elem ents: assessm ent, discussion of im p act on victim s, cultural aw aren ess, restitu tion /com m u n ity service, d elineation of legal consequ ences, participation in a m ajor cultural event, and aftercare. For Levin and M cD evitt (2002) each stage represents an im portant step in th e rehabilitation of hate offenders. Based up on their offend er typology, th e assessm ent allows trained professionals to understand th e type of o ffend er they are dealing w ith, and th e strength of their prejudicial attitudes. Such u n derstand ing will serve to guide th e program m e in the m ost suitable direction. Follow ing the assessm ent, Levin and M cD evitt point to th e im portance of explaining to the offend er the harm they have caused to their victim. M any hate offenders see their victims as 'd ifferen t', 'inferior' or 'in h u m an ', and reversing this dehum anization process is an im portant aim.

205

C om m u n ity Justice

Furtherm ore, Levin and M cD evitt suggest that m any hate offenders readily accept false and negative stereotypes o f their victim 's group. Thus it is im portant to identify and challenge these m isconceptions w hilst sim ultaneously prom oting the benefits and values of diversity w ithin the com m unity. A ttem pting to deconstruct stereotypes and m isconceptions about a group is a crucial elem ent o f increasing an offend er's cultural aw areness. In addition, the sen tence should contain a gen uine reparative and restitutive elem ent. It should be related to the com m unity harm ed yet tailored to avoid resentm ent on the part of the perpetrator. In this sense, then, involving the offender in a m ajor cultural event w ithin the victim 's com m unity can help the offend er to see th e victim as a hu m an being, thereby serving as both a reparative purpose to the victim and their com m unity and an educative experience for th e offender. In addition, the legal con sequ ences of pursuing hate-m otivated behaviour should be explained, particularly as m any yo u n g hate offenders m ay be of the opinion that they can still 'get aw ay w ith it', even if they are caught again. A fu rth er sugg ested co m p o n en t o f a rehabilitativ e program m e involves 'aftercare' for the offend er so that they can return to the program m e to resolve any rem aining issues if they feel they need to. Finally, Levin and M cD evitt suggest, such offend er program m es should be continuously evaluated and m onitored, and am ended as new and im proved inform ation about preju dice and hatred com es to light. Such rehabilitative program m es m ay sound am bitious, possibly overly optim istic. There is little doubt that adopting such an approach for hardened hate offenders can be highly unsuitable. N evertheless, for young, first-tim e or thrill offenders, a carefully designed and im plem en­ ted program m e containing these elem ents m ay prove to be of value. Therefore, w hilst acknow ledging that for hardened hate offenders the only realistic option m ay be incarceration, Levin and M cD evitt (2002: 207) optim istically suggest that for other offenders: Interm ediate sen tences - less than prison but m ore than probation are necessary for assuring that hate crim es are treated m ore seriously than ordinary offences. H ow ever, m any hatem ongers can be rehabilitated - if they are fortun ate enough to benefit from a serious but hu m ane and im aginative approach to crim inality. The question rem ains, how ever, as to w hat form this 'h u m an e and im aginative' approach should take, and how realistic a proposition it really is. T he rem ainder of this chapter will explore som e of these issues.

206

C o m m u n ity responses to hate crime

C om m u n ity approaches T he aim s of probation w ork are to protect the public, reduce re­ o ffe n d in g , p ro p erly p u n ish o ffe n d ers in th e co m m u n ity , en su re offenders' aw areness o f the effects of crim e on victims and the public, and to rehabilitate offenders. To this end, probation w ork broadly involves assisting sentencers through pre-sentence reports follow ing an o ffe n d e r's co n v ictio n , co m b in in g the con tin u o u s asse ssm en t and m an agem en t of risk and d angerousness w ith the provision of expert supervision program m es designed to reduce re-offending, and the supervision of offenders sentenced to unpaid w ork in the com m unity through com m unity pu nishm ent orders (N PS 2004). In the U K the probation service therefore occupies a unique position am ong crim inal ju stice agencies in terms of w orking w ith hate offenders, and in particular race-hate offenders. In 2000, follow ing academ ic and professional criticism of th e probation service's approach to racially m otivated offenders (RM O s), the probation service's A ccreditation Panel established a national sub-group specifically to identify and develop effective program m es o f intervention w ith RM O s (D ixon 2002). H aving conducted a literature review in an attem pt to establish 'w h at w orks', a theory m anual was published in 2001 with the purpose of assisting practitioners and inform ing future program m e developm ent. U ltim ately the A ccreditation Panel concluded that no firm decision could be m ade regarding the m ost effective w ay to deal with RM Os and recom m ended that a range of different approaches be piloted and evaluated in an attem pt to un cover effective interventions (Dixon 2002). O n the basis of this recom m endation, David Perry (2002) states that the N ational Probation Directorate identified three potential avenues to explore in relation to RM O s. T h e first is to test the im pact of existing general offend ing behaviou r program m es on RM Os. The justification for this approach is that in addition to the uniqu e factors that influence hate offending, m any RM O s also share sim ilar crim inogenic risk factors with o ther types of offenders, and therefore interventions that are already in place, if m anaged appropriately, m ay prove to be valuable with RM O s. T he second potential avenue for w orking w ith RM O s involves the d evelopm ent of a citizenship education m odule to be added to existing general program m es of intervention. Perry suggests that by developing an RM O 's know led ge, skills and identity in the area of 'citizenship', the additional factors that specifically relate to racist offend ing m ay be challenged.

207

C om m u n ity Justice

The third avenue involves the d evelopm ent of new program m es specifically for RM O s that draw upon existing know ledge about hate offenders and offending. David Perry argues that this option would only be pursued if th e other tw o failed to w ork or w hen th e dynam ic risk factors alluded to above are conclusively identified. This approach m irrors that of th e rehabilitative program m e suggested by Levin and M cD evitt but is also the m ost com plex of the three approaches, given that the potential factors that com bine to produce hate offenders are so m any and varied. In m any respects, this latter approach is really about finding o ut w hat w orks and w hat doesn't. A nu m ber of probation areas have recently developed and piloted specific program m es of intervention for RM O s in an attem pt to find out w hat works in practice. In review ing this program m e developm ent, D ixon (2002) suggests that m any probation areas have draw n on the 'F ro m M urm ur to M urder M an u al' (Kay and G ast 1999), w hich em phasizes the need for effective interventions to address holistically issues of offend er denial and m inim ization, en h an ce pro-social values, exam ine the basis of the offend er's racism , raise aw areness of the victim 's perspective and help th e o ffend er develop new skills to reduce re­ offending. Dixon describes in further detail the Diversity A w areness Program m e (DAP) piloted in th e L ondon probation area. T h e ultim ate purpose of the D iversity A w areness Program m e is to assist practitioners in challenging the prejudicial assum ptions that inform hate offend ing w ith th e aim of reducing re-offending. Crucially, th e DAP seeks to expose the targeted nature of the offend ing by focusing on issues of race, cultural identity and the need to develop skills to m anage anger and aggression on a single program m e. It is thus inform ed by th e research w hich suggests that cultures of violence and cultures of racism both need to be challenged. T h e program m e works to help offenders develop a positive non-racist identity - it challenges the factors that inform racial violence and seeks to highlight their receptivity to som e of the m yths circulated in their com m unities. (Dixon 2002: 212) In considering his experience of piloting th e DAP, C ourt (2003: 56) states: I have been encouraged by the response of offenders participating in th e program m e, both in custody as well as in th e com m unity. The program m e consists of seven m odules that assess and explore socialization processes from childhood, m oving onto th e develop­ m en t of racial identity, attitudes, beliefs and values. The purpose is 208

C o m m u n ity responses to hate crime

to encourage the offend er to consider how prejudicial attitudes have contributed tow ards their offend ing and how to develop the thinking skills and practice strategies to avoid offend ing in the future. Dixon and C ourt (2003) further explain that the use of 'race diaries' as part of the program m e has been a particularly effective w ay of engaging w ith hate offenders. H ere, offenders are encouraged to record, consider and positively m anage their thoughts and behaviou r in relation to any interactions w ith m em bers o f m inority groups. In describing the race diary as a 'pow erful tool in prom pting behavioural change', C ourt (2003: 5 6-57) further suggests that th e program m e enables participants to identify and disclose their racial prejudices and encourages them to take greater responsibility for the im pact of these prejudices upon their behaviou r both w ithin the offence and in their lives generally. C ou rt also suggests that w hen offenders have reached this stage of recognition, they are often m ore prepared to learn and develop the skills and strategies to m anage their behaviou r in a less offensive and m ore pro-social m anner. W hilst these are encouraging signs, this rem ains a developing area of intervention w ork and, given that the interventions involved are not universally used across all probation areas, it is difficult to draw firm and generalizable conclusions as to w hat m ight universally work. N ever­ theless, this ongoing activity w ithin the probation arena is clearly cause for a certain degree of optimism . H ow ever, it is not ju st probation that is looking at innovative approaches to hate offenders. G erstenfeld (2004) suggests that potential success in rehabilitating hate offenders m ight be found in restorative justice through victim -offend er m ediation. This approach, w hich has grow n in popularity in recent tim es, seeks to actively involve the offender, the victim and the w ider com m unity in the ju stice process by bringing the victim and the offend er together w ith the aim of achieving reparation and reconciliation. U nd er controlled circum stances the victim has the opportunity to explain to the offend er th e im pact that th e offence had on them and to ask questions o f the offender. In response, the o ffend er has the opportunity to explain their actions and to apologize for w hat they have done. A ccording to Sh en k (2001) v ictim -offen d er m ediation is ideal for respond ing to hate crim es for three reasons. First, because hate offenders often 'd eh u m an ize' the objects of their stereotypes, com ing face to face w ith their victim allows the offend er to understand the harm they have caused and to view their target as an individual: as a hu m an as opposed to a 'faceless' representative o f a hated group. Such an experience can

209

C om m u n ity Justice

play an im portant role in d econstructing an offend er's stereotypes. Second, both parties are afforded the opportunity for em otional release, an im portant factor in overcom ing the effects of crim e; and third, the experience m ay serve to encourage reporting of hate crim es by victims and curtail future offend ing by the perpetrator. W e m ight also reasonably add a fourth and fifth ben efit to this list. First, such an approach places the victim at the cen tre of the delivery of ju stice (a situation hitherto largely avoided by the ju stice system ; see Tapley, this volum e) and signifies em pow erm ent of the victim. Second, the use of v ictim -o ffen d er m ediation does not necessarily m ean that o ther m ore punitive approaches cannot be used as well (Gerstenfeld 2004).

C o m m u n ity sentences: limitations, prob le m s and solutions D espite these recent and ongoing developm ents there are a nu m ber of problem s associated w ith th e com m unity punishm ent/rehabilitation approach to RM Os. T he first and m ost obvious problem is that w e still have rem arkably little idea about w hat w orks w hen responding to hate offenders. This is a product of a nu m ber of factors, m ost notably the relative novelty of this type of offend ing (or at least of our interest in it) and the com plexity of preju d ice as a hu m an em otion and as a m otivational factor in crim inal behaviou r (Allport 1954). As w e have seen, hate offending can be underp inned by on e or m ore of a w ide range of factors and thus developing effective interventions can never be a straightforw ard task. O f course, the only w ay to overcom e this issue is for research into hate to continue, for interventions to be based on the findings of such research, and for those interventions to be tried and tested by practitioners in th e field. W e have already noted that this is already occurring, but we should be prepared for a long journey. This is n ot a problem that can be solved overnight. In addition w e are faced w ith a n u m ber of m ore specific problem s. T h e first is that th e probation service is at present largely d ep en d en t up on the courts to provide them w ith their clientele. T h e attrition rate for racially m otivated offend ing w ithin the crim inal ju stice system is very high. H om e O ffice figures (1996) suggest that in only 2 per cen t of notifiable offences is an offend er caught and convicted, and research suggests that this figure is even less for racially m otivated crim es (Bow ling 1999, Lem os 2000). Therefore relatively few hate offenders ever reach court for their offence, w hich m eans that the probation service will sim ply not have the opportunity to w ork w ith the vast m ajority of offenders.

210

C o m m u n ity responses to hate crime

P lea-bargaining offers a further obstacle. Because the hate elem ent of a crim e is often difficult to prove, research has d em onstrated extensive plea-bargaining in cases w hereby the 'racist7 elem ent of a crim e is dropped before the case reaches court in order to secure a conviction of a lesser offence (Burney and Rose 2002). B ecau se of this, those offenders are unlikely to be subjected to any specific 'h ate' related interventions. In this sense, th en , even w here offenders do not slip through the net, the hate elem ent does, unless o f course the offend er displays som e form of hatred during the course o f their supervision. Put sim ply, the high rate of attrition ensures that most hate offend ers are never identified and officially labelled as such, in w hich case it is quite irrelevant how good any interventions m ight be. It is of concern that the probation service and youth offend ing team s con tin ue to rely on the courts to identify their racist offenders. iMany racist o ffen d ers rem ain h id d en from view and th eir u n d erly in g prejudices are therefore not addressed. T he danger here is that the risk assessm ents carried out by probation officers m ay subsequently be inaccurate. Indeed, despite som e positive progress, C ourt (2003: 58) concludes his evaluation o f recent probation w ork in this field by stating: ...u n t il the probation service and the youth offend ing team s develop the skills and confid ence to explore racial hostility, in particular w here the victim rather than the court alone have identified it, assessm ents of harm to the public can only be partial at best, and at w orst dangerously m isleading. Such a proposition m ay well have merit. There m ight be a role for probation in identifying hate. The foundations are there because the probation service has adopted A C PO 's definition of hate crim e, w hereby the hate elem ent of an offence can b e identified by anyone. If adequate screening for offenders can be im plem ented as part of their initial interview and assessm ent by probation officers, as is the case in parts of th e London probation area, then perhaps the need to rely so heavily on the courts for identifying offenders can b e lessened and m ore effective interventions can be m ade. This situation m ight be eased by, for exam ple, closer liaison with court officials, im proved assessm ent of offenders, and through the training of probation staff to identify confid ently racist attitudes in offenders (Court 2003). A resulting problem o f failing to identify properly racist or hate offenders is that they will rem ain a tiny fraction of th e probation service's caseload and m ay not be seen as a priority. In a bureaucratic world the logical follow -on is that if hate offenders are so small in their num ber

C om m u n ity Justice

then w here is the urgency or need to devote finite resources to developing interventions for them ? In reality the likelihood is that there are m any m ore offenders u n d er the supervision of the probation service w ho have racist or hateful tendencies, but that have ju st not been officially recognized. It is telling that in her study of racist offenders and responses to them , Sibbitt (1997) found that very few of the probation officers she studied had experience of dealing w ith racist offenders and, w here racist attitudes w ere expressed, few knew w hat to do about them . This was reflected in research by Lem os (2000). O ffend ers' racist tend encies either rem ained hid den from view or w ent unchallenged , w hich show s that w ithout experience or training, probation w orkers appear ill-equipped to deal with hate. As a related issue, Sibbitt suggests that part of the problem for the probation service has been that as an organization it has traditionally view ed offenders as needy and disadvantaged individuals in need of help and guidance. Sibbitt argues that racist offenders, like sex offenders and child abusers, do not neatly 'fit' this traditional im age of th e offend er and therefore pose som ething of a uniqu e bu t rare challenge to the cultural orientation of probation officers. Perhaps selecting 'specialist' probation officers to deal specifically w ith racist offenders m ight offer a solution here. D espite its ap p aren t benefits, w e should not assu m e th at the restorative ju stice approach will prove to be any kind of p anacea for hate offending. There is an ongoing scholarly debate surround ing the practical efficacy of v ictim -o ffen d er m ediation w ith its true value at present uncertain, particularly for hate offences w here its success rem ains u nproven (G erstenfeld 2004). Furtherm ore, this approach is entirely d ep en d en t on the offend er bein g caugh t and convicted, the victim w ishing to m eet them , and cooperation bein g established betw een the tw o parties. There m ay also be the possibility that the offend er's hatred of the victim 's group m ay be so strong as to rend er the process useless. As such, th e cases suitable for m ediation need to be chosen carefully. W hatever approach w e take, bein g able to explain to the offender why their actions w ere w rong is a key elem ent. Sibbitt (1997) argues that w hen dealing with racist offenders (and therefore by analogy, hate offenders) agencies need to look beyond the offender and recognize both the relationship betw een the individual and the w ider 'perpetrator com m unity' from w hich h e or she is drawn, and the function that the hatred serves for the individual offender. Attem pts to com bat hatred need to extend beyond the individual offender and also consider th e social situation in w hich th e hatred was fostered and shaped and the purpose it serves.

212

Com m unity responses to hate crime

O nce the im portance of these two factors is recognized, Sibbitt argues, it will becom e easier to engage the offender in a constructive manner. She describes four responses that professionals m ight adopt in dealing with an offender's expressions of hatred. First, the professional may not respond at all, in which case the problem rem ains unchallenged. Second, the professional may respond with 'm oral opprobrium ', where the inappropriateness of the offender's views are explained and further sanctions threatened. Third, the professional may attem pt to deconstruct and challenge the logic of the offender's argum ents by pointing out the irrationality of their thinking, although Sibbitt cautions against making the offender feel intellectually inferior and appearing insensitive to what may be genuine underlying concerns on the offender's part. Finally, Sibbitt advocates the challenging of hatred in the context of a holistic approach in which perpetrators, potential perpetrators and the perpe­ trator com m unity should be targeted. W ith regard to individual perpetrators, Sibbitt suggests that the most appropriate intervention for the perpetrator will be dependent upon a num ber of issues, including their criminal history both specifically in racist activity and in anti-social behaviour m ore generally, the wishes of the victim, the risk posed to the public, the effectiveness or otherw ise of previous attem pts at intervention, and the perpetrator's personal circumstances. To this end Sibbitt highlights the im portance of multi­ agency inform ation sharing, so that a com prehensive account of relevant inform ation and related issues is kept and can be used to determ ine which agency is best suited to working with the offender, be it the police, the probation service, housing officers, or youth, com m unity or social workers. In addition to the provisions for racially and religiously aggravated offending, the Crime and Disorder Act (1998) includes a legal require­ m ent for local agencies and groups to work together to find solutions to local crime problems. Lemos (2000) suggests that m ulti-agency forums typically have three areas of concern w hen dealing with hate crime. First, they are responsible for developing and im plem enting a coherent strategy for preventing and dealing with hate crime, including the publication of targets and progress m ade towards those targets. Second, they are required to cooperate on policy and practice and third, they may cooperate in dealing with individual cases of hate crime. The emphasis is therefore on the form ing of alliances with any group or individuals who are in a position to contribute inform ation and intelligence, and w ho can assist in the developm ent of strategies to com bat hate crime in a community.

213

C om m u n ity Justice

Such strategies m ight include the d evelopm ent of inform ation-sharing protocols to identify effectively th e natu re of the local hate crim e problem and to allocate appropriate resources w here they are m ost needed. They m ight also include the creation of 'h ate crim e panels' to develop, im plem ent and oversee anti-hate initiatives w ith offenders and the w ider com m unity. A lternatively, the d evelopm ent o f inform al or civil sanctions, for exam ple throu gh tenancy agreem ents, m ight prove m ore effective in certain cases than the traditional crim inal ju stice approach (see ACPO 2000 for further exam ples of m ulti-agency partnerships and strategies). H ow ever, the existence of a legal requirem ent to tackle hate crim e holistically is no guarantee of success, and neither is the m ere existence of a m ulti-agency forum. W ith regard to w orking w ith potential perpetrators, w hich Sibbitt defines as those w ho have not yet offend ed (or m ore to th e point, have not yet been caught) but w ho are at risk of offending, th e role of local com m unity diversionary projects and schem es is advocated, particularly aim ed at (disillusioned) youths. A gencies such as the police and probation service m ay play a part here by helping to identify w here such schem es would be m ost beneficial and w ho m ight be best placed to run them . Sibbitt points to the apparen t success of an established youth project in L ondon that engaged you ths on a hou sing estate and challenged their specific prejudices and general attitudes to crim inality using a variety of m ethods (for a detailed account see Sibbitt 1997). Finally, in respect of 'p erp etrator com m unities', professionals m ay play a part by challenging inappropriate language or behaviour w hen ev er it occurs in th e course of their w ork by, for exam ple, using one of th e four strategies suggested for individual offenders, described above. Fu rther­ m ore, Sibbitt outlines the positive benefits of com m unity projects, w here m em bers of a com m unity are required to w ork together to achieve a goal that is of m utual concern so that it becom es necessary to view each other in term s w ider than ju st 'race' or 'religion' or 'sexuality' in order to achieve that com m on goal - for exam ple, a youth club, the acquisition of leisure facilities, or through the form ation o f tenant associations on estates. Sibbitt points to th e success of such schem es in various parts of inner L ondon, Bristol and Leicester.

T h e (im )possibility of successful intervention D espite this range of available options, and regardless of w hether crim inal ju stice agencies w ork individually or in partnership, there is a further issue th at affects all interventions to hate crim e, in England and

214

C o m m u n ity responses to hate crime

W ales, in that it is only possible to be convicted of a racially or religiously m otivated or aggravated offence. Such a situation therefore at w orst precludes, and at best hinders, o ther types of hate offend ing from being officially respond ed to by crim inal ju stice agencies. For exam ple, it is not possible to be convicted of a hom ophobically m otivated offence, as one could be for a racially m otivated offence, even though hom op hobia can be considered as an aggravating factor at sentencing. Such an offence is sim ply not on the statute books; it d oesn't legally exist. Therefore, the im petus and necessity for agencies such as the probation service to d evelop interv ention s for such offend ers isn 't there. Interventions therefore understandably focus largely on issues of racism, and n o t on o ther form s of hatred. It w ould require a change in the law to cover aspects of diversity other than ju st race, but such a m ove w ould o p en up a myriad m oral and political dilem m as about exactly w hich prejudices to outlaw. Such a debate is beyond the scope of this chap ter (see Hall, 2005: forthcom ing). T he practical alternative w ould be for th e probation service and others to develop the skills and confidence to identify and challenge all negative p reju dice as and w hen it surfaces in offenders. The overriding problem here stem s from the fact that hate crim e is rarely about pure hate. As we saw from Levin and M cD evitt's typology, mission offend ers are rare. In reality the situation is considerably m ore com plicated because hate crim e as legally and practically defined is really about prejudice, and w hat w e m ight perceive to be real hatred is ju st a small part. P rejud ice is a broad and cloudy con cept of uncertain origin about w hich we conclusively know relatively little other than that it is probably an unavoidable and universal hu m an trait (Jacobs and Potter 1998). As A ndrew Sullivan (1999) rightly points out, hu m ans are social beings. W e associate, and therefore w e disassociate, and on e cannot hap p en w ithout the other. Instead, w e have adopted the w ord 'h ate ' as catch-all term for a bew ildering range of hu m an em otions th at apparently require an official response to challenge them . In the case o f clear, im m utable hatred this is relatively unproblem atic. B u t this is rare. Few offences are m otivated solely by hate to th e exclusion of all oth er m otivational factors. M ost 'h ate' crim es are m otivated by preju dice, and w hen w e use th e term hate, preju dice is usually w hat w e m ean. For exam ple, in th e Crim e and D isorder Act the w ord 'hostility' is not explained, but the com m on dictionary definition of 'hostile' includes sim ply being 'u nfriend ly'. This is w here th e situation becom es com plicated. Is being 'u nfriend ly' really the sam e as being 'h atefu l'? As A ndrew Sullivan (1999) fu rther suggests, there are so m any different form s of hate and prejudice, som e strong,

215

C om m u n ity Justice

som e w eak, som e understandable and acceptable, som e abhorrent and unacceptable, and all w ith different psychological dynam ics u n d er­ pinning them . Like m uch hum an em otion, he argues, hate is often not rational but does have its reasons, and w e cannot understand nor condem n it w ithout know ing them . D espite this, Sullivan suggests, both the notion and concept of hate crim e take a psychological m ystery and turn it into a facile political artefact, yet the boundaries betw een hate and prejudice, and prejudice and opinion, and opinion and truth are so com plicated and blurred that really w e should not be too surprised that w e do not conclusively know how to respond effectively to hate offenders. T h e range of psychological em otions w e have labelled u n d er the w ord 'h ate ' is sim ply too w ide, and no tw o 'h ates' are th e same. These are hardly solid foundations to build upon. Perhaps instead w e should consid er an alternative approach. D am pening the optim ism of others, Sullivan (1999: 7-8) suggests: . . . violence can and should be stopped. In a free society, hate can't and shouldn 't b e . . . in an increasingly diverse culture it is crazy to expect that hate, in all its variety, can b e eradicated. A free country will always m ean a hateful country. This m ay not be fair, or perfect, or adm irable, but it is reality, and w hilst we need not endorse it, we should not delude ourselves into thinking we can prevent it. That is surely the distinction betw een toleration and tolerance. Tolerance is the eradication of hate; toleration is co-existence despite it. We m ight do better as a culture and a polity if w e concentrated m ore on achieving the latter rather than the form er. W e w ould certainly be less frustrated.

C oncluding co m m e n ts In this chapter I have presented a brief overview of existing and ongoing efforts to com bat hate crim e and the preju dice that underpins it. But despite recent advances the obvious question still rem ains: ju st how effective are these responses to hate? U nfortunately, as w e have im plied throu ghou t this chapter, this is a question that is im possible to answ er w ith any great degree of certainty at the present time. As G erstenfeld (2004: 193), speaking primarily o f efforts to com bat hate crim es in the United States, suggests: There is no shortage of individuals and organisations that w ish to com bat hate crim es, but there is alm ost a com p lete lack of

216

C o m m u n ity responses to hate crim e

a ssessm en t of th eir efforts. If w e k n ew w h ich en d eavou rs w o rk and w hich do not, these p eo p le could ch an n el their en erg ies and fin an ces in m u ch m ore u sefu l w ays. It will n o t necessarily be easy to d eterm in e w h at w orks, bu t, at this p oint, an y ad dition to existing kn o w led ge w ould be of great ben efit. T h e sam e can also be said for efforts h ere in th e UK. It seem s th at th e best w e can su gg est is th at som e tech n iq u es w ork b etter th a n others, d ep en d in g on d ifferen t circu m stan ces an d situ ations. T he n atu re of the crim inal ju stice system en su res th at regardless o f ho w effectiv e crim inal ju stice in terv en tion s m ay be, th e m ajority of h ate offen d ers will n ev er be su b jected to th em , an d e v en w h e n th ey are the success of existing in terv en tio n s and p rev entative m eth o d s are un certain largely becau se we still do n o t k n o w v ery m u ch ab ou t this 'n e w ' co n cep t called 'h a te ' that has b eco m e th e operative w ord. W hat is certain , how ev er, is th at h ate crim e is h ere to stay. C rim inal ju stice professionals and others see k in g to com bat hate are requ ired to 'th in k outsid e th e box' an d be im agin ativ e and creative in th eir ap p roach w h e n d ealing w ith th e perp etrators o f h ate crim e in ord er to ad dress the ran ge of associated risk factors. S o m e issu es can be relatively easily o vercom e. O th ers can n o t. W e also n eed to th in k a little m ore clearly abo u t exactly w h at it is th at w e are tryin g to ch allen g e: broad p reju d ice or narrow hatred ? Tn a w orld w h ere p reju d ice and hate are em bed d ed in social structures, public discou rse from n eigh b ou rly d isp u tes to in te rn a ­ tion al relations, this is a m oral, political an d above all a social issue that tran scen d s th e con cern s o f crim inal ju stice.

References ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) (2000) ACPO Guide to Identifying and Combating Hate Crime. London: ACPO. Allport, G.W. (1954) The Nature of Prejudice. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Bowling, B. (1999) Violent Racism: Victimisation, Policing and Social Context. N ew York: Oxford University Press. Burney, E. and Rose, G. (2002) Racist Offences: How is the Law Working? Hom e Office Research Study 270. London: Home Office. Court, D. (2003) 'Direct Work with Racially Motivated Offenders', Probation Journal, 50: 52-58. Craig, K.M. (2002) 'Exam ining Hate-Motivated Aggression: A Review of the Social Psychological Literature on Hate Crimes as a Distinct Form of Aggression', Aggression And Violent Behaviour, 7: 85-101. Dixon, L. (2002) 'Tackling Racist Offending: A Generalised or Targeted Approach?', Probation Journal, 49: 205-216.

217

C o m m u n it y Justice

Dixon, L. and Court, D. (2003) 'Developing Good Practice with Racially Motivated O ffenders', Probation Journal 50: 149-153. Gerstenfeld, P. (2004) Hate Crimes: Causes, Controls, and Controversies. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Hall, N. (2005) Hate Crime. Cullompton: Willan. Home Office (1996) Action for Justice. London: HMSO. Jacobs, J.B. and Potter, K. (1998) Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics. New York: Oxford University Press. Kay, J. and Gast, L. (1999) From M urmur to Murder: Working with Racially Motivated Offenders. West Midlands: West Midlands Probation Training Consortium. Lemos, G. (2000) Racial Harassment: Action on the Ground. London: Lemos and Crane. Levin, B. and McDevitt, J. (2002) Hate Crimes Revisited. Oxford: Westview. M cDevitt, J., Levin, J. and Bennett, S. (2002) 'Hate Crime Offenders: An Expanded Typ ology, Journal o f Social Issues, 58: 303-317. NPS (National Probation Service) (2004) About Us: Our Aims. Downloaded on 2 February 2005 from www.probation.homeoffice.gov.uk. Perry, D. (2002) 'Racially Motivated Offenders: The Way Forward', Probation Journal 49: 305-309. Shenk, A.H. (2001) 'Victim -Offender Mediation: The Road to Repairing Hate Crime Injustice', Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 17: 185-217. Sibbitt, R. (1997) The Perpetrators o f Racial Harassment and Racial Violence, Home Office Research Study 176. London: Home Office. Sullivan, A. (1999) What's So Bad About Hate? Downloaded 31 January 2005 from www.andrewsullivan.com.

218

C h a p te r 13

Marginalized and disenfranchised: community justice and mentally disordered offenders Jane Winstone and Francis Pakes

M entally disordered offenders pose a unique challenge to the criminal ju stice system and have done so for som e time. It was widely undisputed w hen Prins described the plight of this group on the fringes of society as 'the people that nobody owns' (Prins 1993: 152, 571-78). H owever, by 1998, Nigel Stone had made the claim that this was no longer the case, as a num ber of official reports had addressed this issue. These included official reports and guidance from the Hom e Office and the Departm ent of Health, such as the Reed Report (1992), various com mittees of inquiry (e.g. Ritchie 1994 on the events leading up to the killing of Jonathan Zito by Christopher Clunis; Blom-Cooper 1995 on the m anagem ent of Andrew Robinson at Torbay) and a flurry of other publications (e.g. Staite 1994, CLC 1994, Vaughan and Badger 1995). Stone claimed that all of these contributed to a concerted focus on m entally disordered offenders as a special challenge within the criminal justice system and a particular priority within mainstream health service provision (Stone 1998). However, the question is raised as to w hether all this attention has m eant that the marginalization of m entally disordered offenders has been properly addressed. These publications were key to developing the proposed reform of the outdated and problematic M ental H ealth Act 1983. In 2000 a White Paper, Reform o f the Mental Health Act, was introduced (DOH 2000) to wide critical com m ent and subsequently subjected to further consulta­ tion. However, its provisions were so broadly drafted that in the opinion of the British Medical Journal it 'threatens the civil liberties of the whole 219

C om m u n ity Justice

population and the professional boundaries o f psychiatrists' (Km ietowicz 2002). This consultation subsequently resulted in the M ental H ealth Bill 2004. The M ental H ealth Alliance responded to the new Bill 2004 by stating: W e have a Bill that is rooted in an out-dated, false stereotype that people w ith m ental health problem s are a d anger to society and are unable to m ake their ow n decisions about care and treatm ent. The revised Bill rem ains objectionable in principle and unw orkable in practice. (M edical News Today 2004) If, before considering the M ental H ealth Bill 2004 in further detail, it is accepted that these responses from em inent bodies establish a prim a facie case that the proposed reform s appear to exacerbate rath er than resolve the underm ining of the rights and liberties of m entally disordered offenders, th en it is necessary to trace how the potential for such social exclusionary processes have taken root and exhibit them selves so m anifestly at policy-m aking level. W e not do deny an association betw een certain form s of m ental disorder and offend ing behaviour. H ow ever, as M cG uire (2002) states, it is a m isunderstanding of the relationship betw een the tw o that gives rise to fears out of all proportion to the risks posed. There is not a w ealth of em pirical research published in the area, how ever a recent study (Johnson and Taylor 2001) dem onstrates that there are significantly low er reconviction rates for offend ers w ho are m entally disordered com pared to those w ith no m ental disorder, m atched for dem ographic factors and offence gravity. This study identified that betw een 1984 and the end of 1998,1,846 patients w ere conditionally discharged for the first time. Few er than one in ten (9 per cen t) of those discharged w ere reconvicted of a standard list offence w ithin two years of discharge. Included w ithin this group w ere 1 p er cen t w hose reconviction w as for a grave offence. Since 1987 reconviction rates for this group have continued to be noticeably low er than the m atched group, averaging 7 per cen t for a standard list offence. O v er a five-year period reconviction rates are 3 p er cen t for grave offences. For sexual offences the expected reconviction rate is 11 p er cen t and the actual reconviction rate for m entally disordered offenders convicted of a sex offence is 2 per cen t or nine points low er than w ould be expected of discharged prisoners and those sen tenced to com m unity penalties w ho m atch the restricted patients on crim inal history and dem ographic factors (Johnson and Taylor 2001).

220

Marginalized and disenfranchised: com m unity justice and mentally disordered offenders

This is convincing evidence that people categorized as m entally disordered offenders are significantly less likely to engage in repeat o ffend ing even w here their conviction is for a serious offence; the rates of recidivism are significantly less than for their m atched group w ithout a m ental health com plication. M entally disordered offenders can therefore be argued to pose less risk to the public than other offenders, w hich begs th e question of how this group have becom e so stigm atized. Part of the problem m ust be th e 'axe-w ield ing m aniac' archetyp e of popular perception. The tend ency to equate outbursts of violence with m ental illness serves to highlight w hat is, in fact, quite a rare p hen om enon, such as the case of Peter Bryan. In M arch 2005 Bryan was discharged from a psychiatric hospital and subsequently killed his friend and ate his brains. T he im pact of this type o f ev en t is that all potentially dangerous behaviou r is linked to m ental illness - and all people w ho are m entally ill becom e labelled as potentially dangerous. This is an im age, w e will argue, that is b ein g perpetuated through the proposed reform s of the M ental H ealth Act.

Issues of definition There is no widely accepted definition of m ental disorder. This m akes it difficult to decide w hat distinguishes it from the norm al or healthy m ental states that the term is intend ed to exclude. Legal definitions (M ental H ealth Act 1983) have given rise to a series of com m entaries for guidance u n d er the heading o f m ental disorder. O n e definition states that m ental disorder is any illness w ith significant psychological or behavioural m anifestations that is associated with either a painful or distressing sym ptom or im pairm ent in on e or m ore areas of functioning (see D avison and N eale 2000). It is im m ediately obvious that such a d efinition of m ental disorder requires interpretation. O n the other hand, the term 'm en tal illness' (as opposed to m ental disorder) is the working tool of description of the health professions. M edical d efinitions of m ental illness are also not absolute. This m eans that the diagnosis of m ental illness becom es ju st as m u ch of an art as a science with all the attend ant diagnostic issues of differences betw een professional expertise and opinion. N ot only therefore is m ental disorder poorly defined legally, bu t th e legal and m edical professions do not w ork to the sam e definitions. In addition, for both legal and professional bodies, there is tension w ithin and betw een regarding interpretation. A ttem pting to define m entally disordered offending m erely exacerbates the problem . W ith regard to m entally disordered offending, the search for a definition to inform this chapter produced no m ore satisfactory 221

C om m u n ity Justice

results than that for m ental disorder, how ever a definition of m entally disordered offending is offered as follows: any offence w here m anifestations of m ental disorder, w hich can be clinically diagnosed, are a contributory factor to offend ing b e h a ­ viour. (W instone 2004) Labelling an individual as a m entally disordered offend er requires both a psychiatric d eterm ination of disorder as well as a d em onstration by a m ulti-agency panel that the disorder has contributed to the offend ing behaviour, before the court can m ake a decision to sen tence u n d er the provisions of the M ental H ealth A ct 1983 (with provision for m anage­ m en t as set out under the Crim inal Justice Act 1991). Such a range of professional perspectives, w ith the additional issue of com peting m ulti-agency philosophies and aim s, brings about a situation in w hich th e im p lem en tatio n of com m u n ity ju stice for m en tally disordered offenders rests on, to put it m ildly, less than firm foundations. T he potential for getting it w rong is form idable and w ithin this context there are various ways - through expectation and association, cultural norm s and attitudes - in w hich unconscious stereotyping and bias in assessm ent can occur. Certain behaviours do not by them selves signify a m ental disorder but m ay sim ply be a form of social deviance on the individual's part (Davison and N eale 2000). For exam ple, there are som e offences so appalling that it is tem pting to assum e that the individual con cern ed m ust be m entally deranged, as in serial m urder and child m olestation. This was the case in the Soham (2003) m urders of tw o young girls w here the accused u n d erw en t intensive psychiatric assessm ent before it was decided that he w as fit to plead u n d er standard crim inal ju stice provisions. H ow ever, the very fact that m ental disorder and horrific behaviour are linked in this w ay suggests that there exists this association in th e public and professional m indset: if a certain behaviou r is deeply offensive then it is likely to be u n derp in ned by a pathology. Such a link establishes a fram ew ork from w hich stereotyping can em erge, based on belief, norm ative social codes and individual experience - all of w hich prom ote unconscious bias in assessm ent processes. W ith regard to cultural issues, specific definitions of m ental disorder will vary slightly from culture to culture because of differing social and cultural norm s. Cultural m isconceptions can therefore confuse the ways in w hich the concepts of m ental disorder and m entally disordered offend er are applied. For exam ple, in som e cultures a norm al display of grief is to rend clothing and express grief vocally and publically. This is seen as an act of respect upon the d eath o f a loved one. In m ost European 222

Marginalized and disenfranchised: com m unity justice and mentally disordered offenders

cultures such behaviou r would be interpreted as excessive, suggesting that the bereaved had becom e m entally unstable as a result of grief and in need of psychiatric support. W ithin a m ulti-cultural society such lack of aw areness of different cultural norm s can result in a m isguided assessm ent of m ental fitness and an unnecessary fear of the danger that an individual poses to them selves or others. Sentencin g statistics do suggest a cultural bias in identification and application of the concept of 'm en tally disordered' (W alton nd). This source quotes research that suggests that if a person is young, m ale and black they are m ore likely to be d etained as a m entally disordered offend er than a young, m ale, w hite counterpart. T h e BBC reported (BBC 2005) that black, m ale, m entally disordered offenders w ere significantly m ore likely to be subjected to physical restraint than their w hite counterparts. This highlights th e fact that m ental disorder is surrounded by a lack of clarity, and the risks that that poses: it further opens the door to introduction of bias in clinical assessm ent and m anagem ent. Badger, N ursten, W illiam s and W oodw ard (1999) produced additional empirical evidence that unintended bias in clinical assessm ent and professional ju d g em en t leads to an unrepresentative profile of m entally disordered offenders in th e sen tenced population. Psychotic rem and prisoners are m ore likely to be black and older than other m entally disordered prisoners and these figures are particularly significant for w om en . F u rth e r fin d in g s w ere th at n o n -w h ite groups are o v er­ represented in special hospitals, m aking up alm ost 20 per cent of the population. Schizophrenia m akes a small ind ep en den t contribution to the risk of acquiring a crim inal record, but m ore substantial influences are gender, substance abuse, ethnicity and age of onset of crim inal career (Badger et al 1999). N ot only does this further confirm that m ental disorder is not a substantial influence on th e likelihood of attainin g a crim inal record, but it supports the claim that bias has been introduced in clinical risk assessm ent, w hich arises, partly, from a w eak understand ing of the risk that m entally disordered offenders pose.

D iagn osis and risk assessm ent It should not be surprising that it is difficult to apply the concept of m ental disorder to risk assessm ent. T here is no rigorous actuarial risk assessm ent tool in use across the m edical and crim inal ju stice sectors for this group; professional assessm ent has to guide the process, despite the subjectivity of diagnosis and all the attend ant evidence that clinical assessm ent introduces bias (Kem shall and M aguire 2001). This is a

223

C om m u n ity Justice

situation that is unlikely to resolve itself w ithout focused research, especially given the tensions in how diagnosis is arrived at. The m edical priority in the m an agem en t of m ental illness is to accurately diagnose and treat. H ow ever, m ental disorders can vary greatly in their sym ptom s, in term s of their severity, course, outcom e and am enability to treatm ent. T hey can adversely affect any and every aspect of a person's life, including his or her enjoy m ent, m ood, attitudes, occupation or career, sexual functioning, fam ily and marital life, other interpersonal relations, and the m anagem ent of financial affairs (Davison and N eale 2000). As m entioned at the outset, there is no single com p reh en siv e d efinition. T h e guide that m edical experts use to distinguish betw een norm al and abnorm al behaviou r is that abnorm ality is usually determ ined based on th e presence of several characteristics at o n e tim e (Davison and N eale 2000). T h e b est m edical definition and determ ination of abnorm al behaviou r takes into account the character­ istics of statistical infrequency, violation of norm s, personal distress, disability or d ysfunction and un expected ness (Davison and N eale 2000). There is n othing clear-cut as to how these criteria are interpreted. It has already b een dem onstrated that personal distress is subject to variations in social and cultural norm s. An individual m ay be experiencing a period of disruption in their lives and dem onstrating chaotic behaviour as a result, bu t this d oes not necessarily im ply m ental disorder. T he difficulties in diagnosis m ultiply w hen linked to classification. Davison and N eale (2000) set out a range of classifications that include anxiety disorders, som atoform and dissociative disorders, psychophysiological disorders, eating and m ood disorders, schizophrenia, substance-related disorders, personality disorders, sexual and gender identity disorders, disorders of childhood and disorders o f ageing. Each of these disorders has sub-categories, and presenting features and sym ptom s can vary in their severity and presence. T h e challenge to professional expertise in form ing an accurate diagnosis is evident. M ental disorder does not inevitably lead to m entally disordered offending, but offenders are found in each of th e categories listed. N either does it follow that th e m ental disorder has contributed to the offend ing or, as show n above, that becau se a person exhibits form s of anti-social behaviou r w ith features o f unexpected ness, that they are also m entally disordered. Therefore, w ithout a reliable universal actuarial system for diagnosis, the classification of sym ptom s is a real and problem atic issue. Som e of the challenges faced by health professionals are that professional agreem ent is required betw een psychiatrists as to w hether an offend er is m entally disordered, their susceptibility to and type of treatm ent, the extent to w hich the disorder has contributed to an offence, and the likelihood o f causing harm to self or others (now and in 224

Marginalized and disenfranchised: community justice and mentally disordered offenders

the future); or, alternatively, w hether the individual is exhibiting anti­ social behaviour that violates the socially constructed expectation of norms, but is not mentally disordered.

Intervention O nce a patient has been classified and diagnosed, a regime of m anage­ m ent can com m ence. Intervention for mental disorder typically combines a therapeutic approach com bined with a traditional medical model, which is the delivery of drug treatm ent to produce symptom atic control. D epending on the degree and severity of the symptoms and the nature of the risk posed by the individual, intervention can take place in the com munity, in halfway houses, in special hospitals or secure units, and in the case of the mentally disordered offender, in prison or under probation supervision with a multi-disciplinary input. Resourcing is an issue here, as provisions for the treatm ent and m anagem ent of m entally disordered offenders remains lim ited com pared to the demand. MIND (2004) claims that one in four people are turned away during a m ental health crisis and that lack of resources to manage mentally disordered offenders in the com m unity leads to the increasing use of prison, which is an inappropriate setting for the treatm ent of severe mental illness. Program m atic approaches and mental disorder

The accredited programme initiative to address offending behaviour is based on the 'w hat works' research evidence and can be broadly understood as a clinical intervention. H owever, it does not appear to be widely recognized that such interventions are unsuitable for anyone with a mental disorder, w hether or not this has been judged to be a contributory factor to the offending behaviour. The guidance offered on the offending behaviour program m es (O ffending Behaviour Programmes U nit 2005) is that clinical and therapeutic interventions should be recognized as differing in the follow ing respects: • Clinical (accredited) programmes are aimed at reducing crime, not at reducing distress or the symptoms or causes of mental disorder. • Most therapeutic programmes run for mental health problems will run for much longer than the three months of accredited offending behaviour programmes.

225

C om m unity Justice

• The clinical standards applied to 'consent' differ from those applied to therapeutic health interventions. U nder the accredited O ffending Behaviour Programmes, progress through, for example, the prison system, including transfer to more open conditions and access to release on parole, m ay be made conditional on a prisoner's agreem ent to attend a particular programme. Were a similar course (e.g. an anger m anage­ m ent course) to be offered as a health care intervention, for consent to be valid in this context no such conditions could be attached to the offer. •

O ffending Behaviour Programmes in prison are usually overseen by forensic psychologists, not clinical psychologists. In the com m unity they will rarely be overseen by a psychologist at all, the responsibility for the supervision of the sentence being w ith the identified probation officer.

These guidelines, w hilst applying to the prison environm ent, also apply to the delivery of com m unity based accredited program m es for those offenders w ho are suffering from a clinically diagnosed m ental health condition. H ow ever, the problem s w ith accurate identification and diagnosis present the dilem m a that individuals m ay be exposed to a program m e of intervention that could exacerbate their m ental health condition and to w hich issues of con sent have been inappropriately applied. The dilem m as for intervention w ith regard to sym ptom atic m anage­ m ent is particularly acute in those patients w here agreem ent cannot be secured as to w hether the individual has a treatable disorder. If the disorder is not treatable then there is no current legal or m edical m andate for detention or forcible intervention. The diagnosis and m anagem ent of personality disorder illustrates the issues well.

Personality disorder Personality disorders are a problem atic diagnosis: a m ental disorder that cannot be classified as either a psychosis or a neurosis. These are long­ term , m aladaptive accentuations of one or a set of particular personality traits (Davison and N eale 2000), w hich m ay first be exhibited in infancy or childhood. The heart of th e dilem m a for classification and diagnosis is the lack of specificity. It seem s that patients with a personality disorder do not necessarily have traits different from the general population. Rather, they share tend encies but exhibit them in extrem is (Clark and W atson 1999). D iagnosis m ay rely upon a detailed clinical and social history that is mainly interpretive. Sym ptom s may vary and traits may

226

Marginalized and disenfranchised: com m unity justice and mentally disordered offenders

not be definite. To m ake m atters w orse, clinical literature distinguishes betw een various form s of personality disorder, som etim es referred to in shorthand as psychopathy, and the debate as to w hether psychopathy actually represents a distinct form of personality disorder is far from settled (see H arris, Rise and Q uinsey 1994). The first exam ple is the hystrionic personality disorder. Its dom inant sym ptom s include excessive levels of egocentrism and insincerity. The anti-social type exhibits physical aggression and irresponsible attitudes tow ards m oney, w ork and other 'social bonds' including a notable absen ce of rem orse, w hereas the borderline personality disorder is characterized by affective instability and im pulsivity (Blackburn and Coid 1998). The extent to w hich these disorders are distinct is quite possibly o n e of gradation and m any o f the sym ptom s are shared across types of personality disorders. Personality disorders are often established via the adm inistration of questionnaires, such as H are's Psychopathy C hecklist (revised) (H are 1991), or via structured interviews. Blackburn and Coid (1998) assessed 167 violent m ale offenders w ho w ere either in prison or in a m axim um -security m ental hospital. They identified four factors that m ight underlie personality disorders, at least in th e incarcerated population. These are im pulsivity, detachm ent, sensitivity (or lack of it) and com pulsivity. Particularly high scores on im pulsivity related to their offend ing history, including age of first offence, as well as total levels of offending. O ther factors, such as detachm ent and sensitivity, hardly correlate with offend ing at all. It again highlights the com plex nature of the relationship betw een personality disorders and offending: frequency of personality disorders in prisons and secure m ental institutions is high, but it is increasingly acknow l­ edged that m any w ho suffer from a personality disorder lead m ore or less successful lives (Board and Fritzon 2005). Blackburn and Coid (1998), in debating the perplexing nature of identifying th e various form s of personality disorder, suggest that in their mildest form these disorders relate m ost closely to anti-social behaviour, with reasons for anti-social behaviou r that are com m only found in the norm al offend er population, for exam ple cognitive distortions around victim em pathy, w hich are th e focus of cognitive behavioural w ork that is being dissem inated across the N ational O ffend er M anagem ent Service. H ow ever, the nature and extent of th e cognitive distortions of people w ith a diagnosis of m ental disorder, including personality disorder, renders them unsuitable for this type of clinical program m e - if ind eed they have been accurately diagnosed before they com e under the auspices of sen tence m anagem ent.

227

C om m u n ity Justice

The sad new s is that there is no m edical intervention available to people w ith a diagnosis of personality disorder that can be dem onstrated to am eliorate the sym ptom s reliably. So not only is the individual problem atic to classify; once diagnosed, there is no treatm ent. This is the group, how ever, that com es before the court m ost frequ ently for sen tencing u n d er m entally disordered o ffend er provision (H um phreys 1992 in B adger et al 1999). H um phreys further com m ents on the low priority of people w ith a dual diagnosis o f personality disorder/offending behaviou r w ith regard to adm ission and treatm ent statistics, bein g the group m ost rapidly discharged from psychiatric provision and the m ost likely to have unexplained delayed adm ission w hen their behaviou r was considered life-threatening to them selves. This suggests that this group is bein g severely affected by the lack o f clarity in diagnosis, th e paucity of e ffe ctiv e tre a tm e n t reg im es an d th e risk o f b e in g su b je c te d to inappropriate clinical intervention. It w ould appear from the lim ited research available that they are eith er not being treated u n d er the psychiatric provision but bein g sen tenced under the norm al crim inal ju stice processes, or are rapidly discharged w hen they do m eet the psychiatric services. In short, w e do not know w hat to do w ith them , or w hat to do for them . This group clearly stands out as an exam ple of the lack of resourcing in term s o f com m unity and health service arrange­ m ents, lack of understanding as a result o f the lim ited research in this area and lack of clarity in legal arrangem ents. In conclusion, personality disorder acutely typifies the dilem m as a sen tencing court faces. A closer exam ination of the legal issues and priorities dem onstrates the problem s faced in the application of the curren t legislation.

Tw enty-first century reform s: a bleak future for rehabilitation and hum an rights It is im portant for the integrity o f crim inal ju stice that the purpose of p u n ish m en t is seen to b e u p h eld and to be d ifferent from the m an agem en t of those before the court with a m ental disorder and m en tally disord ered offend in g. T h e con stitutional ju stificatio n for pu nishm ent is the blam ew orthiness o f an individual. H ow ever, an individual's insanity m eans that he is legally blam eless, for h e cannot possess mens rea, a guilty m ind (Savage 2000). Furtherm ore, since pu nishm ent is unlikely to have any o f its intend ed effects on a m entally disturbed person - that is, rehabilitation, d eterrence, or retribution - it is

228

Marginalized and disenfranchised: com m unity justice and mentally disordered offenders

ineffective at best and a m iscarriage o f ju stice at worst to inflict this upon a m entally disordered offender. Additionally, if there is no curative treatm en t available for a m entally disordered offender, there are no legal grounds to order treatm ent, as the provisions of the M ental H ealth Act 1983 require that the justification for health care intervention is that it can positively im pact upon the condition. The M ental H ealth Act 1983 deals with states of m ental disorder. It specifies that people m ust not be deem ed to have a form of m ental disorder or m ental illness by reason only of prom iscuity or other im m oral conduct, sexual deviancy or d ep en d en ce on alcohol or drugs. In the past people have been brought into the psychiatric system because, for exam ple, they have had a child outside m arriage, or they engaged in adult hom osexual practices, so this statem ent is an im portant safeguard. Use of alcohol and other substances m ight som etim es cause a m ental disorder or m ental illness, w hich is w ithin the scope of the Act, but use of these substances in itself cannot be w ithin the scope of the Act. O f the four sub-categories of m ental disorder specified in the M ental H ealth Act 1983, one refers to arrested or incom plete developm ent of the m ind, psychopathic disorder and any other disorder or disability of the m ind, tw o refer to m ental im pairm ent linked to a state of arrested or incom plete developm ent of the m ind, and the fourth to psychopathic disorders. This latter is taken to m ean a persistent disorder or disability of th e m ind that results in abnorm ally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the person concerned. This is linked to a range of disorders, inclu ding personality disorder, but in no w ay reflects the categories and sub-categories of m edical classification and definition. D efinitions, the base for com m on understanding, are im portant w hen they are linked to risk assessm ent and disposals, and in the case of m en tally d isord ered offend ers, w h ere th ere are legal and ethical problem s around hu m an rights and public protection. Davison and N eale (2000) argue th at the m an ag em en t of m en tally disordered offenders needs to address th e follow ing legal and ethical issues: that to detain a person w ho is m entally capable under m ental health provisions is a grievous injustice and a label for life; to detain a person w ho is not m entally capable under m ental health provisions m ay result in a longer period of detention w here that person presents only the same or sim ilar risk factor as a person w ho has com m itted the sam e act but is m entally stable; how to m anage an individual w ho was m entally ill at the tim e the crim e w as com m itted but is no longer m entally ill at the tim e of sen tencing or at th e tim e o f com m ittal or shortly thereafter; that to fail to detain a person w ho is not m entally capable u n d er m ental health provisions m ay present a risk to the public that is unacceptable.

229

C om m u n ity Justice

At present, people w ho are m entally ill but deem ed untreatable by psychiatrists, such as people w ith personality disorders or psychopaths, cannot be detained u n d er the M ental H ealth Act 1983. For exam ple, if a person is convicted of m urder w ith the disposal of a H ospital O rder, but is deem ed untreatable, they could be released, unless they are com m itted to a secure hospital or a prison such as Ram pton. W ith regard to mens rea, that is, a disordered m ind cannot be a guilty m ind, Davison and N eale (2000) d ebate w h eth er em otionally disturbed perpetrators are less crim inally responsible than those w ho are not m entally disordered but com m it th e sam e crimes. T hey raise the question as to w h eth er such individuals should even be brought to trial. A lthough efforts to excuse or protect an accused person b y invoking the insanity d efence or by ju dgin g him or her incom p etent to stand trial are undoubtedly w ell-intentioned, invoking these doctrines can often subject those accused to a greater denial of liberties than th ey w ould otherw ise experience. It is these dilem m as that m ental health reform need s to address. In their introduction to m ental health reform , th e D epartm ent of H ealth stated that the focus was upon people w ith personality disorder w ho at present cannot be com pelled to take m edication unless they are sectioned and rem anded to a secure hospital. T hey estim ated that there w ere ju st over 2,000 people w ho fall into the category of severe personality disorder w ho m ay cause harm to them selves or others. O f these, 98 per cen t are m en and at any tim e m ost are in prison or in secure hospitals (D O H 2000). The un derp in ning rationale for reform was th at as the law stands at present it fails to protect the public from the d anger that these people represent. T he aim s o f reform w ould be: th e m an agem en t of dangerous people w ith severe personality disorder; to strike the balance betw een the interests of individuals and society; m eet the n eed of this group better than the present patchy provision; firmly ground in evidence from research and be capable of adapting over tim e as new research evidence com es fo rw ard ; p ro v id e b e tte r v alu e for m o n ey th an th e p resen t arrangem ents; lead in tim e to a reduction in the level of the m ost serious offend ing by people w ith severe personality disorder, as better m easures are identified and im plem ented and throu gh the early identification and d etention of those w ho are dangerous. (D O H 1999: 1) In 2000 a W hite Paper was issued to reform the M ental H ealth Bill. It proposed to give doctors new pow ers to lock up patients and force them to have treatm ent, including the provision for people w ith severe and

230

Marginalized and disenfranchised: com m unity justice and mentally disordered offenders

untreatable personality disorders to be d etained indefinitely if experts considered an individual w ith this diagnosis to be a danger to the public - w h eth er or not they had com m itted an offence. The H om e O ffice received over 2,000 responses to these proposals, w hich exhibit a sharp divide betw een public, expert and legal opinion. T he Zito Trust, representing a voice for those con cern ed chiefly with public protection issues, broadly supported the proposals. The N ational H ealth Service C onfederation objected to them on the basis that any legislation m ust be based on rigorous d efinitions of dangerous severe personality disorder as well as on sound data on treatability. N either of these requirem ents was provided for. In addition, it argued that available provisions had to be consistent w ith th e constraints im posed by the E uropean C onvention on H um an Rights and the H um an Rights Act 1998. M en tal h ealth professionals also objected to the proposals, reiterating the problem s in th e areas of diagnosis, treatm ent and risk assessm ent. They questioned how any system of ju stice could possibly ju stify ind efinitely detaining a citizen w ho has com m itted no offence on th e basis of poor diagnostics and flimsy evidence. It is to their credit that they are aw are of the lim itations of diagnosis and, w hilst recognizing the need for reform , also require that reform should not be based upon bias and stereotyping. It is also to the credit of the D epartm ent of H ealth that it took the points raised so seriously as to delay proceeding w ith the legislation w hilst they engaged in further consultation. In 2004 the draft M ental H ealth Bill w as published. The bill revises the d efinition of 'm en tal disorder' to cover 'a disturbance in the functioning of the m ind or brain resulting from any disability or disorder of the m ind or brain. E xam p les o f a m en tal d iso rd er in clu d e sch izo p h ren ia, d ep ression or a learn in g d isability.' T h e 1983 A ct's con d ition of 'treatability' w ould also be rem oved so that there would be no exclusion of p eop le w ho h av e a sole d iag nosis of m en tal im p airm en t or psychopathic disorder, as well as sexual deviants and those addicted to drugs or alcohol (Guardian 2005). W hilst th e governm ent first ann ou nced plans to detain psychopaths w ho have not com m itted a crim e, follow ing the public outrage at the m urder by M ichael Stone of Lin Russell and h er six-year-old daughter M egan in K ent in 1996, the proposals, w ithout doubt, w iden the net of those w ho can be assessed as m entally disordered - and indefinitely d etained w ithou t ever having com m itted an offence. C om pulsory treatm ent in the com m unity is also proposed in order, it is claim ed, to address the 'revolving door' of relapse and readm ission because of failure to take m edication. Pow ers to enforce both treatm ent and detention have therefore been extended.

231

C om m u n ity Justice

These new proposals focus upon rights and com pulsion. They appear to serve only to exacerbate further the issues of exclusion and m argin­ alization of those w ho suffer from a m ental illness. In response, M IN D (2004) pointed out that in terms of treatm ent, current resourcing does not cope w ith current dem and and therefore the right to treatm ent is not linked with the provision available. Furtherm ore, th e term 'sufficient m ental capacity' that underpins the assessm ent of w hether an individual can exercise rights to refuse treatm ent, is poorly defined, unclear and o p en to abuse. M IN D observes, w ith regard to com m unity com pulsion to treatm ent, that the constraints proposed are such that they suggest that if a person is that ill they should be treated in hospital. They criticize the reduced safeguards, w hich they claim w eakens the role of non-m edical and m ulti-agency staff, and note th at there are insufficient arrangem ents for the right to advocacy at the beg in n in g of th e assessm ent process. The safeguards against people b ein g given invasive treatm ent, including irreversible m easures such as psychosurgery, are weak. By extending com pulsion to people w ho are already in prison, it condones an inappropriate setting for the treatm ent of severe m ental illness. M IN D (2004) further claims that th e proposals not only hind er the exercise of h u m an righ ts for th ose w ith a m ental d isord er b u t p articu larly discrim inate against people w ith a m ental disorder w ho appear in court, suggesting an exponential d isenfranchisem ent of this group. In term s of risk m anagem ent it could be argued to uphold the principle of exclusion and herald the end of rehabilitation (Young 1999, W orrall 1997). Rather than balancing risks and right, the M ental H ealth Bill attem pts to elim inate risk altogether - a futile venture (H udson 2001, Fen nell 2002). T he new reform s have united health professionals and m edical practitioners in their condem nation o f the proposals. T h e M ental H ealth Professionals (M edical News Today 2004) reiterated that d etention was proposed w ithout clear diagnostic rigour and upon people w ho have not contravened the law in any way. P sychm inded (2004) (an online journal for psychiatrists) stated that the revision of the w ording from 'for the health and safety of the patient' to 'fo r the protection o f th e patient from suicide, or serious self-harm , or serious neglect by him or his safety', poses risks to m edical practitioners in determ ining treatm ent versus rights of the p atien ts. T h e M e n tal H ealth A llian ce (2004) resp o n d ed th at the 'd efin ition of those w ho qualify for treatm ent against their will is far too broad, forcing professionals to brin g too m any people in for com pulsory treatm ent and dam aging the vital trust betw een doctor and p atient'. The Royal College of Psychiatrists (2004) called the provisions 'u nfair, stigm atising and dangerous', not ju st for patients w ith a clear diagnosis, but for any person exhibiting w hat could be

232

Marginalized and disenfranchised: com m unity justice and mentally disordered offenders

interpreted as sym ptom s of m ental confusion. T h e agreem ent across the p ro fessio n al sp ectru m is th at th e n ew leg islatio n cou ld lead to com pulsion infringing up on hum an rights. The professional bodies opposing the proposals argue that the bill's em phasis on m anaging risk will reinforce the public m isconception that m entally ill people are dangerous. Richard Brook, chief executive of the charity M IN D , stated that the proposed legislation 'risks introd ucing fear and coercion into w hat should be a purely therapeu tic relationship. It risks driving those w ho m ost need care and treatm ent aw ay from seeking help as and w hen they need it m ost' (M IN D 2004). The future looks bleak, w ith a M ental H ealth Act that threatens to focus excessively on control and repression, at the expense of treatm ent and rehabilitation. Ironically, to be m entally ill, w hether of an episodic or long-stand ing nature, appears to b e becom ing an increasingly risky diagnosis, first, because o f the high levels o f victim ization directed tow ards the m entally ill and second, because o f the increased pow ers of the state to control the lives and m ovem ents o f people w ith a diagnosis of m ental disorder, w ithout draw ing up on sound evidence, or having appropriate resources or treatm ent to offer.

Conclusion: a m issed opportunity In conclusion, this chapter has explored w h eth er m entally disordered offenders are m arginalized and disenfranchised m em bers of society. The sen tencing profile confirm s the prim a facie case that current arrangem ents discrim inate against offenders w ith a m ental disorder and especially those from a m inority ethnic group or from other than a W estern European cultural background. T he bias in sen tencing statistics confirm s the stereotyping and labelling based on m isinform ed public perceptions of risk and a poor legal conceptualization of com plex m edical issues, resulting in a blurring of th e boundaries betw een risk m anagem ent and hum an rights (see Gray, Laing and N oaks 2002). Does this am ou nt to m arginalization? If to be assessed as m entally disordered m eans that an individual is perceived as posing a threat to society, that the lack of resources in this area m eans m ore limited opportunities for treatm ent than people w ith other diagnoses, that the individual is not a priority for treatm ent w hen treatm ent is sought, that appropriate care in the com m unity and the supported hou sing stock for people with m ental disorder is lim ited, then the answ er to that question m ust be 'yes'. If this is the situation for people w ith m ental disorder, how m uch m ore is it com pounded if the label of m entally disordered offend er has been applied? 233

C om m unity Justice

D oes the debate evidence d isenfran chism ent of people with m ental disorder? The views of m ental health professionals on the proposed legislation suggest that if d isenfranchisem ent is taken to m ean lim ited or obstructed access to hum an rights, rights of representation and equality of treatm ent and opportunity, then individuals with a m ental disorder experience d isenfranchisem ent under the current arrangem ents and the proposed arrangem ents perpetuate the social exclusion of this group, again exacerbated if the individual has acquired the label of m entally d isordered offender. W hilst the governm ent has stated that reform s and future d evelop­ m ents in the arena of m ental health provision should be based on evidence and research, M cG uire (2002) argues that even the lim ited research in this area produces ideologies and practices focusing on blam e and risk avoidance. Any legislation that sim ply reflects back the pow er base in society to define and label stereotypically those m em bers of society w ith the least pow erful voice, arising out of poorly constructed definitions and preju dice based on m isund erstand ing and m isplaced fear, is bound to perpetuate injustice. Should the M ental H ealth Bill (2004) becom e enshrined in law w ithout significant and fundam ental change, it will represent a lost opportunity to bring m ental health provision into the tw enty-first century, to shed outdated and historical attitudes and to bring ju stice to this group of people.

References Badger, D., Nursten, J., Williams, P. and Woodward, M. (1999) Systematic Review of the Internation Literature on the Epidemiology of Mentally Disordered Offenders, CRD Report 125. Available online: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/reportl5.htm, ac­ cessed 18 February 2002. BBC (British Broadcasting Association) (2005) Today Programme, 12 January. Blackburn, R. and Coid, J.W. (1998) 'Psychopathy and the Dim ensions of Personality Disorder in Violent Offenders', Personality and Individual Difference, 25: 129-145. Blom-Cooper, L. (1992) Report of Committee of Inquiry into Complaints about Ashworth Hospital. London: HMSO. Board, B.J. and Fritzon, K. (2005) 'Disordered Personalities at Work,' Psyclwlogy, Crime and Law, 11: 17-32. Clark, L. and Watson. D. (1999) 'Personality, disorder, and personality disorder: towards a more rational conceptualization', Journal of Personality Disorders, 13: 142-151. CLC (Children's Legal Centre) (1994) Mental Health Handbook: A Guide to the Law Affecting Children and Young People, 2nd edition. Essex: CLC.

234

M argin alize d and disen franchised : c o m m u n it y justice and m entally d is o r d e r e d offe n d e rs

Davison, G. and Neale, J. (2000) Abnormal Psychology, 8th edition. Chichester: Wiley. DOH (Departm ent of Health) (1999) Executive Summary. M anaging Dangerous People with Severe Personality Disorder: Proposals fo r Policy Development. July 1999. London: DOH. DOH (Departm ent of Health) (2000) Refonn o f the Mental Health Act - White Paper and Summary o f Responses. London: DOH. Fennell, P. (2002) 'Radical Risk M anagem ent, Mental Health and Criminal Justice', in N. Gray, J. Laing and L. Noaks (eds), Criminal Justice, Mental Health and the Politics o f Risk. London: Cavendish. Gray, N., Laing, J. and Noaks, L. (eds) (2002) Criminal Justice, Mental Health and the Politics o f Risk. London: Cavendish. Guardian (2005) 'Draft Mental Health Bill', 29 March. Available online: http:// society.guardian.co.uk/inentalhealth/story/0,8150,836476,00.html. Hare, R.D. (1991) The Psychopathy Checklist - Revised. Toronto: M ulti-Health Systems. Harris, G.T., Rice, M.E. and Quinsey, V.L. (1994) 'Psychopathy as a Taxon: Evidence that Psychopaths are a Distinct Class'Jou rn al of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62: 387-397. Hudson, B. (2001) 'Punishm ent, Rights, and Difference: Defending Justice in the Risk Society', in K. Stenson and R. Sullivan (eds), Crime, Risk and Justice: The Politics o f Crime Control in Liberal Democracies. Cullompton: Willan. Johnson, S. and Taylor, R. (2001) Statistics o f Mentally Disordered Offenders 2000. London: Home Office. Kemshall, H. and Maguire, M. (2001) 'Public Protection, Partnership and Risk Penality: The Multi-agency Risk M anagem ent of Sexual and Violent Offenders', Punishment and Society, 1: 237-264. Kmietowicz, Z. (2002) 'N ew Mental Health Bill, British Medical Journal', 325: 678. Available online: http://bmj.bmjjournals.eom/cgi/content/full/325/7366/678/b. M cGuire, J. (2002) Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment: Effective Programmes and Policies to Reduce Re-offending. Chichester: Wiley. M edical N ews Today (2004) 'R evised M ental H ealth Bill M ust not W aste O pportunity. Available online: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com, accessed 16 Septem ber 2004. M ental Health Alliance (2004) Available online: http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/ page.cfm ?pagecode=PRCM M H , accessed 16 September 2004. MIND (2004) 'The new Mental Health Bill'. Available online: http://www.mind.org.uk, accessed 16 Septem ber 2004. Offending Behaviour Programmes Unit (2005) Offending Behaviour Programmes (Prison Service Accredited). London: O ffending Behaviour Programmes Unit. Prins, H. (1993) 'The People Nobody O w ns', in W. Watson and A. Grounds (eds), The Mentally Disordered Offender in an Era o f Community Care: New Directions in Provision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Psychminded (2004) 'G overnm ent Publishes Revised Draft M ental Health Bill', Pyschminded.co.uk, 9 September. Reed, J. (1992) Review o f Health and Social Services fo r Mentally Disordered Offenders and Others Requiring Similar Services. Cm 2088. London: HMSO. Ritchie, J. (1994) The Report o f the Enquiry into the Care and Treatment o f Christopher Clunis. London: HMSO. The Royal College of Psychiatrists (2004) Draft Mental Health Bill: RCP Anxious about Civil Liberties, Ethics, Practicality and Effectiveness, press release, 16 September.

235

C o m m u n it y Justice

Savage, S. (2000) 'An In-Depth Review of M entally Disordered Offending”, in J. W instone and C. Dixon (eds), Strategies fo r Tackling O ffending Behaviour. Portsmouth: ICJS, University of Portsmouth. Staite, C. (1994) Diversion from Custody for Mentally Disordered Offenders. Harrow: Longman. Stone, N. (1998) A Companion Guide to Mentally Disordered Offender. West Yorkshire: O wen Wells. Vaughan, P. and Badger, D. (1995) Working with Mentally Disordered Offenders in the Community. London: Chapman and Hall. Walton, M. (nd) Mentally Disordered Offenders. Available online: http://www.markwalton.net/mdo/index.asp, accessed 15 January 2005. Winstone, J. (2004) Are Mentally Disordered Offenders Marginalised and Disenfranchised? U npublished Paper, ICJS student conference. University of Portsm outh, Feburary 2004. Worrall, A. (1997) Punishment in the Community. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman. Young, J. (1999) The Exclusive Society: Social Exclusion, Crime and Difference in Late Modernity. London: Sage.

236

C h a p te r 14

Improving confidence in criminal justice: achieving community justice for victims and witnesses Jacki Tapley

O ne of the m ost profound influences up on crim inology and criminal justice policy during the last tw o decades has been the significant shift in em phasis from an offender-focused crim inal justice system to the un preced ented focus now being placed upon the victims of crim e. W hilst tw o centuries ago victims of crim e w ere the m ain protagonists in crim inal m atters, the em ergence of a com plex m od em crim inal justice system resulted in the overriding issues of d eterrence, detection, prosecution, pu nishm ent and reform of the offend er usurping the once prom inent role of the victim. The rise in the professional adm inistration of crim inal ju stice by ju dges, law yers, th e police and crim inal experts, led to a decline in the role of the victim in crim inal proceedings, w ith the concerns of the w ider public interest subsum ing the m ore particular needs of the victim (Christie 1977, Fattah 1986). As a consequence, the relationship betw een the offend er and the state cam e to dom inate all developm ents in crim inal ju stice prosecution, pu nishm ent and rehabi­ litation, to the exclusion of the relationship betw een the victim and the state (Ashworth 1983). H ow ever, this re-em ergence o f victim s o f crim e as a legitim ate third party in the crim inal justice process, and the long overdue recognition of victim s as vital participants for the efficien t and effective adm inistration of crim inal ju stice, has not been an accom plishm ent easily attained. In stead , th e a ch iev e m e n ts m ad e so far hav e been th e gradu al culm ination of a nu m ber of factors - historical, social, political and crim inological. Fu rther im provem ents to the status of victim s in the 237

C om m u n ity Justice

crim inal process will require continued vigilance to ensure that the current populist political rhetoric, pledging to 'rebalance the crim inal ju stice system in favour of victim s' (H om e O ffice 2002: 2) is actually converted into the reality of victim s' experiences, by respecting th e rights of victim s, w hilst continuing to acknow ledge the rights of th e defendant. It is now w idely acknow ledged that for too long both academ ic and professional concerns have focused too narrow ly on the offend er (Christie 1977, C ayley 1998, Fattah 2000). Explanations regarding the causes of crim e have sw ung from biological to psychological and sociological and back again, w hilst questions of w hat to do with the offend er have alternated regularly b etw een punitive and rehabilitative m odels. This has left us at the begin n in g of the tw enty-first century with an apparently uneasy com prom ise betw een th e two, influenced strongly by social, political and econom ical factors, and reflected in the return to crim inal ju stice policies w hich now em phasize a com m unity justice approach. H ow ever, th e use of the term 'com m unity' during th e last tw o decades has becom e politically expedient, and as a result w hat is m eant exactly by th e term d ep ends heavily up on th e political m otivations at any particular time. Both the previous Conservative governm ent and the N ew Labour governm ent em phasize the role of com m unities in relation to reducing crim e. The C onservatives attached great im portance to the con cept of 'active citizenship', w hich placed increasing responsibilities upon individuals, w hilst reducing the role of the state (H eater 1990, Rose 2000). This notion of individual responsibility for preventing both crim e and v ictim ization has con tin u ed u n d er the L abou r go v ern m en t, transferred w ithou t difficulty into 'N ew Labour's rights and duties com m unitarianism ' (Driver and M artell 1997: 38). This con cept reflects earlier right-w ing policies w hich reduced th e role of th e state: a shift from a ben ev o len t w elfare state built upon social-liberal notions of citizenship, towards the em bracem ent o f free-m arket principles with an increasingly influential 'd uties discourse' based upon th e notion of active citizenship and obligations and rights (Lister 1997: 19). This ch ap ter w ill first exp lo re briefly som e of th e im p o rtan t contributory factors that have placed victim s' issues so predom inantly on the political agenda. This will provide a broad understand ing of the contem porary and often controversial debates concerning the status of victim s of crim e in the crim inal process. The chapter will then exam ine som e of th e m ajor initiatives that have been introduced to im prove public confid ence and encourage the public to participate in th e criminal process, as part of th e Labour governm ent's agenda to m odernize the crim inal ju stice system . Crucially, the stated aim s of these reform s are to im prove access to justice for both victim s and com m unities. Therefore, 238

Im proving confidence in criminal justice: achieving com m unity justice for victims and witnesses

this chapter will explore w hat th e con cept of com m unity ju stice m eans from a victim perspective.

T h e re-em erging victim T he relatively recen t red iscovery of crim e victim s has b e e n well d ocum ented by com m entators, tracing the em ergence since th e 1960s of increasingly w ell-organized groups set up to assist or cam paign on behalf of victims (M awby and Gill 1987, Rock 1990). The subsequent collection of groups with diverse interests and aim s later becam e com m o nly and co n v en ien tly k n ow n as th e 'v ictim s' m o v em en t'. H ow ever, this term gave a m isleading im pression of unity and has been m ore accurately described by Van D ijk (1988: 126) as 'ideologically heterogeneou s'. As such, the 'm ovem ent' rem ains a loose association of groups and individuals supporting different aspects of victim ization, ranging from far right groups to fem inist groups and w ith som e enjoyin g far greater political and financial support than others. For exam ple, the com patible philosophy and politically neutral stance originally adopted by Victim Support helped it to gain prom inence and assisted in attracting increasing financial support from the Conservative governm ent in the 1980s (W illiams 1999a). H ow ever, it has been argued that this has been at the expense of those groups w hose philosophies challenge conventional thinking, particularly those from a fem inist perspective, e.g. Rape Crisis, and, as a con sequ ence, these groups have becom e the 'h id den w ing' of the victim s' m ovem ent (W illiams 1999a). D espite their diversity, ho w ­ ever, it is clear that the increasing com bined influence of these groups d uring the last 30 years has contributed towards the raising of public, political, m edia and crim inological concern for victims of crime. A favourable factor coinciding w ith the em ergence and developm ent of victim interest groups d uring th e 1970s was the grow ing dissent regarding the effectiveness o f interventions w ith offenders based upon m odels of 'rehabilitation' and 'training ', sparking off w hat later becam e com m only know n as the 'n oth in g w orks' debate (Priestly and M aguire 1995). As described by Brody (1976) and Bottom s (1977), w e had entered a period of 'penological pessim ism ', a dem ise of faith in the ability of the crim inal ju stice system to rehabilitate offenders. Thus, 'th e 1970s end ed in a pervasive sense of crisis w ith the Conservative opposition proposing new "to u g h " m easures in w hich questions of law and order featured prom inently' (Jefferson and Shapland 1994: 266). Subsequently, the Conservative election victory in 1979 heralded the advent of tw o com plem entary ideologies - m onetarism and authoritarian populism , m arking a fundam ental departure from the post-w ar welfare 239

C om m u n ity Justice

consensu s governing state econom ic and social policy (Phipps 1988). Public sector reform s governed by th e ideology of the free-m arket extended to the crim inal ju stice system , w ith the subsequent im p lem en­ tation of new m anagerialist principles, based on cost efficiency and service effectiveness, largely borrow ed from the private sector (Hood 1991, Stew art and W alsh 1992). Subsequently, responsibility for the adm inistration of crim inal ju stice was devolved to the crim inal ju stice agencies and, in line w ith m arket-style reform s, such agencies becam e responsible to the 'consum ers' of their services. H ow ever, it has been argued that this was a subversive strategy in so far as it involved a redefinition of crim inal justice as a service industry con cern ed with custom er care, rather than as a regulatory function of governm ent: The idea of consum ers o f the crim inal ju stice system is one of the m ore im portant initiatives of the 1980s. Agencies, for the first time, are bein g conjoined to care about lay people using their 's e rv ic e s'. . . Consum erism has also had a certain pay-off econom ically. If the cost of controlling a rising crim e rate w ere apparently spiralling out of reach, d em onstrating con su m er satisfaction m ight ju st prove a m ore feasible (cheaper) alternative. (Jefferson and Shapland 1990: 12, cited in M aw by and W alklate 1994: 81) T h u s, it w as this ap p aren t acce p tan ce of the in e ffe ctiv e n ess of rehabilitating offenders that attention started to focus on the effects of crim e and those w ho had suffered the real injury - the victim s and the com m unities in w hich crim e occurred. As observed by G rim shaw (1989), an im portant factor in the regeneration of crim inological concern for victim s of crim e was the developm ent o f national and local crim e surveys d uring the 1980s, w hich started to reveal th e true extent of victim ization and provided an alternative source of inform ation to official statistics. In 1982, the findings of the first national British Crim e Survey (BCS) in the UK conclud ed that for every offence recorded, four w ere actually com m itted (H ough and M ayhew 1983), thus revealing th e greater extent of victim ization w hich was previously un know n . Fu rther national surveys w ere condu cted biannu ally from 1988 and since 2000 the BCS has m oved to an annual cycle w ith interview s taking place throughout the year. This reflects the governm ent's increasing use of the BCS as a tool to ju d g e public opinion and to inform crim inal policy, particularly in relation to identifying patterns of victim ization. H ow ever, th e m ethodologies of such large-scale studies as a m eans of u n derstand ing the processes of victim ization has been subjected to a nu m ber of criticism s, in particular their focus on conventional crim es, for exam ple, street crim e, w hilst being un representative of victim s of m ore 240

Im proving confidence in criminal justice: achieving com m unity justice for victims and witnesses

serious crim e (Zedner 1994). H idden violence, as characterized by Stanko (1985, 1988), including cases of dom estic violence and sexual assault, is likely to be grossly undercounted , as the technique of data collection does not lend itself to gaining inform ation concerning sensitive areas of victim ization. Therefore, it is argued that the aggregate results produced 'ten d to w ash or attenuate the overall effects o f crim e' (Lurigio 1987: 456). In an attem pt to rectify the failings of the mass survey techniques, smaller-scale, qualitative studies began to focus on specific victim groups and more serious types of crime. By doing so, academ ic research em erging during the 1980s, particularly from a fem inist perspective, began to highlight the acute stress and adverse physical, practical effects and financial hardship suffered by m any victims of crim e (Zedner 1994). This not only suggested that victimization entailed greater costs to victims than the mass crim e surveys had im plied, b ut also began to provide evidence that the pendulum had sw ung too far in favour of the offender (Maguire and Bennett 1982). As observed by Van D ijk (1988), there was a growing realisation that society was m ore concerned w ith rehabilitating the offender than with rehabilitating the victim. W hilst the reform period of the 1960s and 1970s had done m uch to ensure better rights for the d efendant, based predom inantly on a welfare model of justice, they occurred w ithout any consideration for the victim. Subsequently the research had discovered that victims w ere being exposed to insensitive treatm ent by the criminal justice process, resulting in w hat has now becom e com m only term ed as 'secondary victimization' by the system itself. Instead, w hat was needed was research from the victims' perspective.

V ictim research and reform In an attem pt to rem edy this apparent lack of know ledge, Shapland, W illm ore and D uff (1985: 4) u n d ertook a longitudinal study aim ed at providing a 'victim 's eye view ' of the experiences of victims as their cases passed through the w hole of the crim inal justice system . A m ong the m ost significant findings to em erge from th e Shapland et al (1985) study was the attitude of the police as a prim e determ inant of victim satisfaction. The study concluded that victim s' problem s w ith the crim inal justice system seem ed to stem from their lack of an accepted role w ithin it and the fact that the system was not geared to the perspective of the victim. The victim s' experiences dem onstrated the presence of a paradox w ithin the crim inal ju stice system , highlighting in particular: 'th e contradiction betw een the practical im portance of the victim and the ignorance of and ignoring of his [sic] attitudes and experiences by the professionals w ithin the crim inal justice system ' (Shapland et al 1985: 177). 241

C om m u n ity Justice

Fu rther studies supported the findings of the Shapland et al (1985) research. Such studies focused on the effects of crim e (Janoff-Bulm an 1985, M aguire and C orbett 1987), the treatm en t of victim s by the criminal justice system (Adler 1987) and the need s and services for crim e victims (M aw by and Gill 1987, Shapland and C ohen 1987). The sheer consistency of the findings m eant that the experiences of victims could no longer be overlooked, creating a surge of interest in crim e victims, including increasing international pressures (U nited N ations 1985, Council of Europe 1985). Eventually, the H om e O ffice began to develop an interest in the victim s of crim e, aw akening to the realization that bein g seen to be doing som ething for victim s had potential political benefits. As a consequ ence, the 1990s w itnessed a rapid politicization of victim s' issues supported by a plethora o f initiatives and reform s aim ed at im proving services to victims of crim e (Tapley 2003). H ow ever, these developm ents led com m entators to argue that victim s of crim e had com e to serve a political purpose for N ew Right politicians w ishing to shift the agenda aw ay from th e rehabilitation of offenders tow ards their punishm ent. In particular, they w ere seen to encourage harsher sentencing and to brin g crim inal ju stice professionals under firm er central governm ent control (Phipps 1988, Elias 1993). Victim s, it w as argued, filled a vacuum and distracted attention aw ay from the grow ing penal crisis and the rapidly expanding expenditure on prisons, both in Europe and America. T h e purpose of this, as described by Phipps (1988: 180), was 'to invoke outrage and sym pathy on behalf of crim e v ictim s. . . to excite hostility against the offend er and to discredit the "so ftn e ss" of the crim inal ju stice system '. Thus observers w ere led to com m ent that the rediscovery of crim e victims had been m otivated primarily, not by a new -found com passion for victims, b u t to m ask a h id den political agenda aim ed at prom oting tougher law and order policies to appease the populist vote (Fattah 1992, H end erson 1992). Fattah (1997) w arns of the dangers of creating a false contest betw een the rights of offenders and victim s and discusses this further in an article tracing th e history and d evelopm ent of victim ology (Fattah 2000). H e describes the transform ation of victim ology 'from an academ ic discipline into a hum anistic m ovem ent, the shift from scholarly research to political activism ' (Fattah 2000: 25) and w arns o f the im plications of this 'm etam orphosis' on crim inal ju stice policy. W hilst Fattah (2000) is right to criticize the use of em otive rhetoric relating to victim s to provide am m unition to im plem ent punitive political agendas, w hat h e fails to acknow ledge is the dissatisfaction caused by the lack o f status and entitlem ents afforded by the state to victim s w ithin the crim inal justice process. It is this im balance, w hich d enies recognition and redress for the harm suffered, w hilst acknow ledging the rights of those w ho have 242

Im proving confidence in criminal justice: achieving com m unity justice for victims and witnesses

inflicted the harm , that need s to be addressed in order to achieve a fairer system (Tapley 2003). H ow ever, contrary to Fattah's fears, research undertaken in the United States indicates that the introduction of legislative reform s can have surprisingly little im pact upon the crim inal ju stice system . In particular, it found that im plem entation dep en ds prim arily up on the attitudes of crim inal ju stice professionals and that the lack of legal sanctions often results in victim s' rights rem aining privileges to be granted or denied (Kelly 1990, Kelly and Erez 1997). This dem onstrates that legislative changes will have little im pact unless accom panied by attitudinal changes w ithin organizational cultures, w hich later research has proved to be a far m ore difficult task to achieve (Tapley 2003).

T h e V ic tim ’s C h a rte r and its im pact W hilst no n e of the reform s in the UK w ere legislated for, the stated aims and purposes un d erp in ning these reform s contributed further to the grow ing aw areness concerning the need s and rights of victim s. As a con seq u en ce, d uring the 1990s th e term inology of rights becam e synonym ous with victims of crim e. Perhaps the m ost significant of victim reform s w as the Victim 's C harter initiative, w hich refashioned victims of crim e as the consum ers of crim inal justice services (Crawford and Enterkin 1999). This consum erist perspective conform ed to the w ider C itiz e n 's C h a rte r in itiativ e, in tro d u ced in 1988 by Jo h n M ajo r's C onservative governm ent. T he Citizen's C harter aim ed not only to im prove service delivery, but additionally to im pose a new culture upon public sector agencies, one of 'custom er service' (Bellam y and G reenaw ay 1995: 479). The first Victim 's C harter w as published in 1990 (H om e O ffice 1990). W hilst it was acknow ledged as a significant move in the right direction, com m entators concluded that the lack o f legislative backing underm ined its presentation as a statem ent o f rights. Instead, they argued that the C harter represented more accurately a code of practice, i.e. a statem ent of 'm oral rights' rather than legal ones (Spicker 1988, cited in M aw by and W alklate 1994: 171). The lack of accountability should any agency fail to m eet its responsibilities was a further lim itation to the effectiveness of the C harter, as was the failure o f the governm ent to provide any additional resources with w hich to facilitate the shift in practices required. Fenw ick (1995) therefore argued that whilst recent years had seen a num ber of developm ents which gave rise to the notion that in som e sense victims have 'rights', these were 'seriously m isleading, m erely providing m inim al, inexpensive and unenforceable entitlem ents' (Fenw ick 1995: 845). 243

C om m unity Justice

In fact, the crim inal justice agencies were u n d er no legal duty to ensure that victims had access to the services under the Charter and there was no recourse for victims should they be breached. O f course, a necessary prerequisite of exercising one's rights is having know ledge of them in the first place. As previously observed by Marshall (1975: 207, cited in Williams 1999: 74): 'C itizens only have rights if they are aware of what these rights are, believe in the authenticity of such rights and have the skills needed to exercise them .' Therefore, having the know ledge and ability to com plain is based upon the assum ption that victims are aware of the existence of such entitlem ents. H ow ever, as noted by Williams (1999b), although the Charter is available on dem and from Victim Support schem es, police stations, the H om e Office and more latterly the internet, its existence and purpose are not widely known outside these agencies. Consequently, as observed by Ashworth (1998: 64), w hen right-holders are not inform ed of their rights, 'it underm ines the very value that the right was intended to respect'. This increasingly political and controversial debate concerning victim s' rights during the 1990s subsequently m ade the politically neutral stance adopted by one of the UK's m ost influential victim interest groups, Victim Support, harder to m aintain. W hilst Victim Support w elcom ed the intentions outlined in the V ictim 's Charter, it proposed that a series of im portant questions rem ained unansw ered, and subsequently adopted a more assertive strategy concerning not only the needs of victim s, b ut also directly addressing the issue of victim s' rights. W ith the publication in 1995 of its policy paper entitled The Rights o f Victims o f Crime (Victim Support 1995), Victim Support com m itted itself to the view that affording victim s rights w ould assist in im proving and protecting their position in the crim inal justice process. As such, the policy d ocu m ent contains a statem ent of the rights to w hich Victim Support believes all victim s of crim e are fundam entally entitled. By focusing on the experiences of crim e victims and w itnesses w ithin the crim inal ju stice system , it concludes: The state's concern to deal w ith the offend er w hile at the sam e time protecting his/her hum an rights need s to be m atched by a similar concern for the victim. T he loss of public confidence in the crim inal ju stice system depends m ainly on the w ay people are treated w hen they are required to take part in the crim inal justice process, and it is here that there is particular scope for im provem ent. (Victim Support 1995: 4) As a result response to published a Standards fo r 244

of the grow ing m om entum in favour of victim s and in criticism s of the first V ictim 's Charter, the governm ent revised version in 1996, re-entitled A Statement o f Service Victims o f Crim e (H om e O ffice 1996). W hilst its provisions are

Im proving confidence in criminal justice: achieving com m unity justice for victims and witnesses

m ore extensive and specific than its predecessor it is im portant to note the subtle change in term inology adopted b y the revised Charter, from 'a statem ent of rights' to 'a statem ent of service standards'. In particular, this bestow s upon victim s a status not as citizens w ith rights, b u t as consum ers of services, thus subtly w eakening their access to these entitlem ents. This, Fenw ick (1997) argues, reveals the apparent paradox of the current rights-based approach, in that it still denies th e possibility of individual action as a m eans of enforcing the rights. A lthough the revised C harter does include a general grievance procedure, this advises victim s to com plain directly to the agency w ith w hich they have a co m p lain t. H o w ev er, it cou ld be arg u ed th at exp ectin g alread y disem pow ered individuals to com plain about the services of a pow erful crim inal ju stice institution is unrealistic, especially w hen they are confused as to w hat those services should b e and w hat exactly their entitlem en ts are. This is ind icative of a process that intentionally constructs victims as 'passive consum ers', w hilst the political rhetoric expressly intim ates their status as citizens w ith enforceable entitlem ents (Tapley 2003). It can be argued that th e term inology of the Victim 's Charters, sw itching from one of advocating rights to that of providing service standards, reflects the lack of theoretical coh erence un derp in ning the reform s and the redefinition of victim s as consum ers not citizens. As a consequ ence, attem pts to im plem ent the reform s have been am biguous and slow , relying on the discretion of those agencies involved and a com petition for scarce resources betw een achieving organizational needs un d er new m anagerialist principles and attend in g to th e needs of victims. Instead of reform s being based upon clear theoretical principles, w ith victims regarded as citizens w ith valid entitlem ents to justice, they w ere im posed up on the principles of m anagerial ju stice, w hereby victims are regarded as the passive consum ers of discretionary and u n accou n­ table services (Tapley 2003). In an attem pt to explore the im pact of these reform s, I undertook a qualitative, longitudinal study, focusing on the ability of th e crim inal ju stice agencies to fulfil their responsibilities towards victim s, as outlined in the Victim 's C harter and th e associated d ocum ents (Tapley 2003). T he study focused on the experiences of victims of violent crim e and revealed that w hilst 73 per cent of th e research population w ere satisfied w ith their initial contact w ith the police, lack of inform ation as their cases progressed through the crim inal process rem ained the prim ary cause of victim dissatisfaction (Tapley 2003). In particular, the research found that the inform ation victims require falls into tw o m ain categories: (1) practical inform ation and advice about the crim inal ju stice process itself and the procedures involved; (2) specific inform ation relating to their case. 245

C om m u n ity Justice

The im portance victims attach to bein g kept inform ed has been well d ocum ented in the studies of victim s' need s since the m id-80s (M aguire and B en nett 1982, Shapland et al 1985). T h e m ain problem s cited by victim s have included lack of contact w ith the police, lack of inform ation and a general feeling of being accorded low status by the crim inal ju stice authorities (Victim Support 1995). In particular, victims of violent crim e and crim es against the person have been found to experience further stress if they are not kept fully inform ed as to w hat is hap p en in g and w hy at all stages of the crim inal process, both pre- and post-trial (N ew burn and M erry 1990). As identified earlier by Shapland et al (1985: 92), people's attitudes and ju d g em ents of satisfaction are based on expectations and these, in turn, are to som e extent a product of their ow n prior know ledge about w hat m ay happen. T he lack of know ledge concerning the crim inal justice system found in the earlier and m ore recent study illustrates clearly the need for the police and the courts not to presum e that victim s will know w hat m ay h ap p en and w hat his/her part in th e proceedings will be. A lthough the H om e O ffice published its first Victims o f Crim e leaflet in 1994 (H om e O ffice 1994), w hich provided a condensed version of the V ictim 's C harter and has since been regularly revised, together w ith a nu m ber of other leaflets providing inform ation to victim s and w itnesses about different aspects of the crim inal ju stice process, it is questionable as to how helpful these are to people w ho m ay be suffering from the initial traum a of victim ization or the longer-term psychological effects (Zehr 1990, N orris, K aniasty and Thom pson 1997). As acknow ledged by W illiam s (1999b: 389): 'It is difficult to im agine distressed victim s and survivors turning to this turgid, bureaucratic prose for relief.' This raises th e im portant issue as to how inform ation can best be effectively conveyed to victim s, as th e research highlights this as a substantial problem throu gh ou t the process. As acknow ledged by A shworth (1998: 64), greater attention need s to be devoted to techniques of com m unication, as 'being told is not the sam e as being caused to understand'. By utilizing a qualitative longitudinal research design, necessitating repeat in-d ep th interview s at each stage of the crim inal ju stice process, it w as found that the greatest frustration experienced by the research participants w as the inability to obtain inform ation from the relevant agencies w hen it was need ed (Tapley 2003). Consequently, there needs to be b etter com m unication betw een the different agencies concerned, but m ore im portantly it needs to be clarified as to w ho is responsible for inform ing victim s at the different stages o f the case and that this responsibility be held accountable. This em pirical study found that specific responsibilities becom e subm erged beneath a hierarchy of 246

Im proving confidence in criminal justice: achieving com m unity justice for victims and witnesses

bureaucratic docum ents, procedures and priorities. As a consequence, this bureaucratic response fails to acknow ledge the victim s' needs, focusing instead on organizational needs. The study identified a need not only for m ore basic inform ation about th e crim inal process and their case, but for the level of com m unication to be based upon a m ore hum anist approach. Crucially, victim s required som ebody to talk to, an interactive response to assist them in their understand ing of the com plex legal processes involved. W hilst inform a­ tion leaflets can be a helpful additional tool, they do not provide an o pportunity for an exchange of inform ation. M ost im portantly, they cannot offer often anxious victim s reassurance that their case is being dealt w ith and that som ebody cares enou g h to be doing som ething about it (Tapley 2003).

Beyond the rhetoric D espite tw o decades of increasing political rhetoric and reform s, the research foun d that victim s w ere con tin u in g to suffer second ary victim ization by the process itself, due to their redefinition as consum ers and the lack of status this provides w ithin the crim inal ju stice process. T he study concluded that w hat victims require is inform ation to be provided by a consistent, professional source that can be contacted and relied upon to provide up-to-date and accurate inform ation w hen required. This suggests the need for on e designated point of contact for victim s, to be provided by individuals w ho are specifically trained to w ork with victim s and have an understand ing of both the im pact of victim ization and a thorough know ledge o f the crim inal ju stice process. This service could provide the bridge betw een the tw o parallel discourses identified betw een crim inal ju stice professionals and victim s, and w ould provide victim s w ith access to a fair and balanced crim inal ju stice process (Tapley 2003). Indicative o f the research participants' lack of confidence in the CJS was their response w hen asked if they would report an offence again. N o less than 84 per cen t of the participants stated that they w ould only report an offence to th e police again if it w ere very serious. The definition of 'serious' used by the participants tended to im ply serious physical injury, w hich raises serious concerns bearing in m ind that all the participants in the study w ere already the victims of a violent crim e. The apparent failure of reform s to be im plem ented based upon the provision of service standards indicates the need for victim entitlem ents to be placed upon a statutory footing that holds the different criminal justice agencies accountable for their specific roles. As observed by Rock (1999), up until now reform s have been m ore aspirational than practical in character. 247

C om m u n ity Justice

This evidence supports the argum ents of those w ho have suggested that the politicization of victims' issues has been a relatively cheap and convenient ploy to divert attention aw ay from the other failings of the crim inal justice system. H owever, w hilst this m ay have been the original m otivation, the ploy has certainly backfired over recent years due to an increasing dem and for victims to be accorded legislative rights. Instead of pacifying victim advocates, the increasing focus on victims has drawn even greater attention to the distinct im balance b etw een the rights of defendants and the absence of rights for victims, contributing to the grow ing public dissatisfaction with the CJS as a whole. D espite statistical evidence that crim e rates are falling (D odd, N icholas, P ov ey and W alker 2004), fear o f crim e am o n g in d iv id u als and com m unities rem ains high, further evidenced by research that indicates a lack of public confid ence in th e CJS. M easures of public confid ence are taken by the BCS, w hich in 2000 found that although 69 per cent of respond ents w ere con fid ent that the system respects the rights of the accused and treats them fairly, only 26 per cen t w ere confident that it m eets the needs of victims. Furtherm ore: H aving been a victim of crim e reported to the police at som e tim e is highly related to a lack of confid ence that the crim inal ju stice system m eets the needs of victims or delivers justice. G enerally, having had co n tact w ith th e system at som e tim e ap p ears to d ecrease confidence. (M irrlees-Black 2001: 6) Research un dertaken by the Institute of Public Policy R esearch (2001), entitled Reluctant W itness, revealed a shocking apathy tow ards the CJS. The study found that one in ten Britons would not even bo th er to report a m urder they had w itnessed, 69 p er cen t w ould not call the police if they heard scream ing from their neighbours and 70 per cent w ould not report a street brawl. The report stated that people are frightened of retribution, anxious about how police and th e courts w ould treat them , and did not actually fancy the in con ven ience (Institute of Public Policy Research

2001). Thus, despite a plethora of initiatives introduced to im prove the services offered to victims of crim e, victims feel unsu pported and alienated by the w hole process, illustrating that w hilst possible solutions have been produced rhetorically, these have not resulted in an increased responsiveness to victim s' need s in reality (Tapley 2003). These findings have been supported by the Audit C om m ission, in w hich their report found public confid ence is con tin uing to fall. In 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 only 30 per cen t felt that the system m et the needs of victims, com pared with 34 per cen t in 2001/2002 (Audit C om m ission 2003). 248

Im proving confidence in criminal justice: achieving com m unity justice for victims and witnesses

As a con sequ ence of this evidence, th e true extent of victim and w itness dissatisfaction has now gained som e political acceptance, with the realization that the CJS relies on the goodw ill of m em bers of the public, and in particular victim s, to appreh end , prosecute and punish those w ho com m it crim inal offences. The now apparent unw illingness of victim s and m em bers of the public to participate in the crim inal justice process and an acknow ledgem ent of the im portance of th eir role was finally recognized in the objectives outlined in the Criminal justice System Strategic Plan 1999-2002 (H om e O ffice 1999: 1): The crim inal ju stice system stands or falls on w hether it jointly m eets w hat people can reasonably expect o f it - victims, w itnesses, jurors and the w ider public - w hose confid ence and trust need to be earned, and interests respected. A ddressing th e need s of victim s and w itnesses is now routinely recognized as a central objective of the crim inal ju stice system , outlined by Tony Blair in his forew ord to Cutting Crime, D elivering justice: A Strategic Plan fo r Crim inal Justice 2004-08 (Office o f Crim inal Justice Reform 2004: 5): W e start with one overriding principle - that the law abiding citizen m ust be at the heart of our crim inal ju stice system . For too long, that w as far from the case. T he system seem ed to think only about the rights of the accused. T he interests of victims appeared to be an afterthought, if considered at all. This w hole program m e am ounts to a m odernising and rebalancing of the entire crim inal justice system in favour of victim s and the com m unity. It can be argued, therefore, th at steadily d eclining public confidence in the ability of the crim inal justice system to deal effectively w ith crim e and, in particular, to assist those m ost affected by it, has caused the state to reflect quite intently upon its ow n policies and practices. This has been evid enced in a num ber of im portant d ocum ents published, all of w hich focus on attem pts to reform and m odernize the crim inal ju stice system . T hese include the N arey Report (1997), the G lidew ell Report (1998), the H alliday Report (2001) and the Report by Lord Justice Auld (2001). Auld (2001) acknow ledges that w hilst the rights of the d efen dan t as a citizen m ust be protected , the curren t system pursues this w ithou t due consideration for the rights and protection of the victim. In response to the recom m endations o f Lord Justice Auld's Report (Auld 2001), A CPO launched an initiative entitled The Search fo r the Truth (ACPO 2002). This describes the culture of the crim inal trial as a tactical 249

C om m u n ity Justice

gam e played betw een law yers rather than a search for the truth, with the cum ulative effect of providing a hostile environm ent for victim s and w itnesses. It is this em phasis w ithin the courts and legal culture that is blocking current attem pts to integrate a victim perspective, and thus contributing to the im plem entation failure o f reform s (Tapley 2003). In addition to these w ider attem pts to m odernize the crim inal justice system , reports have also been published focusing specifically on victims and w itnesses. These include the report on the treatm ent of vulnerable or intim idated w itnesses (H om e O ffice 1998), the introduction of special m easures in courts by the Youth Justice and Crim inal Evidence Act (1999), the introduction of Victim Personal Statem ents (H om e O ffice 2001), a new role for the CPS involving direct com m unication with victim s (CPS 2001a, 2001b) and, finally, a consultation paper review ing the Victim 's C harter (H om e O ffice et al 2001). T he review of the Victim 's C harter initiatives sum m arized w hat it som ew hat optim istically described as the 'progress' the governm ent has m ade so far in providing better services to victim s and stated its intention to look to the future by considering further im provem ents (H om e O ffice 2001). These included the possible introd uction of statutory rights for victim s and the establishm ent o f a V ictim s' O m budsm an to investigate com plaints and to cham pion victim s' interests. P rofessing 'g reater aw areness of the rights, duties and expectations of victims of crim e' (H om e O ffice 2001: 4), the d ocu m ent set out w hat the governm ent believed should be the guiding principles o f the new Charter, together w ith the responsibilities o f the relevant agencies. In addition, the d ocu m ent responded to criticism s o f the form at of the previous C harter and suggested w ays in w hich this could be im proved. T he governm ent further ann ou nced its intentions w ith the publication of the W hite Paper Justice fo r All the aim s o f w hich are 'to rebalance the system in favour of victim s, w itnesses and com m unities and to deliver ju stice for all, by building greater trust and credibility' (H om e O ffice 2002: 1). The proposals included the establishm ent of a Victim s' C om m issioner, su p p orted by a new N atio nal V ictim s' A dvisory P anel, and the introduction of m ore m easures for vulnerable and intim idated witnesses. This w as follow ed by th e publication o f a national strategy to deliver im proved services to victim s, entitled A N ew Deal fo r Victims and W itnesses (H om e O ffice 2003a). T he strategy incorporates the two Public Service A greem ent targets for the crim inal ju stice agencies, to bring m ore offenders to ju stice and to im prove public confidence, stating that im proving services to victims and w itnesses is key to delivering both these targets. To achieve these targets and as part of its w ider process of reform s to m odernize the crim inal ju stice system , the governm ent published a 250

Im proving confidence in criminal justice: achieving com m unity justice for victims and witnesses

national fram ew ork d ocum ent in 2003 entitled Im proving Public Satisfac­ tion and Confidence in the Criminal Justice System (H om e Office 2003b). This docu m ent acknow ledges that low confid ence m eans that the public are less likely to report crim es, lack of local intelligence m akes it harder to detect crim e, victim s and w itnesses are less willing to give evidence in court, and the recruitm ent and retention of crim inal ju stice professionals is m ade more difficult w hen the agencies are not held in high esteem . Th e d o cu m en t id e n tifies key p o in ts th at a ffe ct satisfactio n and confid ence and outlines five perform ance areas that Local Crim inal Justice Boards are responsible for im proving. These com prise staff en gagem ent, com m unity en g agem ent (with a focus on race issues), com m unications, increasing victim and w itness satisfaction and increas­ ing overall public confidence. Local Crim inal Justice Boards (LCJBs) w ere new ly form ed in April 2003, replacing the Trials Issues Groups. T he 42 boards represent a m ulti­ agency approach to im proving th e crim inal justice process locally and in each area consist of all the chief officers in every crim inal ju stice agency, inclu ding the police, the CPS, th e Crow n and m agistrates courts, probation, prisons, the W itness Service and Victim Support. Each LCJB has b een tasked to increase confid ence and satisfaction locally by raising the standards of each agency, im proving provision of services and in com m issioning services to m eet the need s of victim s and the local com m unity. Very recently I undertook research on behalf of one LCJB to assist in the d evelopm ent of its delivery plan, as required by the H om e Office (2003b). The research involved an audit of victim and w itness services provided by local statutory and voluntary agencies, and a w itness satisfaction survey (Tapley 2005a; 2005b). A recent initiative to im prove victim and w itness satisfaction, follow ing on from the recom m endations o f earlier research (Tapley 2003) is the establish m ent of W itness Care Units. T hese are to be introduced nationally in 2005, follow ing five pilot studies u n d er the No Witness, No Justice project, (Crim inal Justice System 2004). The m ain aim of the W itness Care U nits is to provide one point of contact for victim s and w itnesses w ho are required to attend cou rt to ensure that their need s are m et and to enable m ore victims and w itnesses to give evidence. The project involved five pilot areas and, although a final evaluation of the schem e was still p en d in g , ad ditional fu n d in g was an n o u n ced in February 2004 so that the W itness Care Units could be introduced nationally in 2005. This further reflects the haste with w hich som e initiatives are ann ou nced, w ithout due consideration of the full costs and im plications for those agencies required to im plem ent them . To im prove public confid ence and encourage w ider com m unity en gagem ent, the crim inal ju stice agencies are also bein g required actively 251

C om m u n ity Justice

to con su lt and com m u nicate w ith local com m u nities. Som e local partnerships have already been achieved through the creation of local Crim e and D isorder Reduction Partnerships, introduced by the Crim e and D isorder Act (1998), w hich placed a responsibility upon local authorities to reduce crim e in local com m unities (see Loveday, this volum e). Figures have recently been published detailing the perform ance of the LCJBs one year on, w ith the A ttorney G eneral, Lord Goldsm ith (2004) claim ing: The LCJBs are the visible proof o f the crim inal ju stice agencies w orking effectively together to m ake com m unities safe. T he Boards have m ade significant progress over th e last year, helping to bring m ore offences to justice and few er ineffective trials. These initiatives should now be further strengthened by the changes in legislation being introduced by the D om estic V iolence, Crim e and Victim s Act, w hich gained Royal A ssent in N ovem ber 2004. Focusing on dom estic violence, the governm ent claim s that this Act will overhaul dom estic violence law, providing the police and the courts w ith tougher pow ers to protect victims and prosecute the perpetrators (Tapley 2005a). Section 13 of the Act requires the H om e Secretary to publish a C ode of Practice for victims. This outlines the obligations of the CJS agencies and, w here a victim 's right under the Code is breached, it details the com plaints procedure and referral to the In d ep en d en t Com m issioner for Victim s and W itnesses, an appointm en t established by the bill to give a voice to victims in Parliam ent. At the tim e of writing, the C ode of Practice rem ains an indicative draft, aw aitin g the ou tcom e o f the con su ltatio n process. H o w ever, the responsibilities place a considerable bu rd en up on all the crim inal justice agencies and will have serious im plications for additional training and resources. Earlier research has dem onstrated that failure to im plem ent previous initiatives has been d ue to the haste w ith w hich they have been introduced and a lack of necessary resources to support them , thus seriously underm ining the abilities o f th e relevant agencies to im plem ent the required practices (Tapley 2003). W hilst concerns have already been raised by crim inal ju stice professionals regarding their ability to m eet the requirem ents of the C od e w ithin existing resources, little response has been received from the central governm ent. That casts doubt upon the governm ent's com m itm ent to ensuring that victim s and w itnesses really are to be placed at the centre of the crim inal ju stice system .

252

Im proving confidence in criminal justice: achieving co m m u nity justice for victims and w itnesses

C o n clu sio n As this ch ap ter has d em o n strated , th e re has b een a p lethora of initiatives an d reform s aim ed at im p ro v ing services to victim s an d w itnesses. T he g o v ern m en t no w accep ts th at th e C JS relies on th e goodw ill o f th e public, as victim s an d w itnesses, to rep o rt an d assist w ith the inv estigation an d prosecu tion o f offend ers. By im p ro v in g the exp erien ces of victim s and w itn esses, th e g o v ern m en t is h o p in g to im prov e public con fid en ce an d satisfaction, to en su re th at ind ividu als an d com m u n ities have access to ju stice. H o w ever, th e research has ind icated th at th e C JS still exp ects a great d eal from victim s an d w itnesses, w hilst o fferin g little in return. To en su re that com m u n ity ju stice is ach iev ed from a v ictim persp ectiv e, an im p rov ed crim inal ju stice resp o n se is requ ired , su p p o rted by su fficient reso u rces and provided by a ran ge o f ag en cies, w ithin the C JS a n d the w id er com m u n ity. T h e D o m estic V io len ce, C rim e an d V ictim s Act (2004) prom ises to provide b etter pro tectio n a n d su p p ort to victim s of crim e, in clu d in g b e tte r access to h ealth services, h o u sin g and financial support. H o w ever, to su cceed it is essential th a t th e process n o t only con sid ers the rights of the o ffen d er and organ ization al n eed s, bu t also respects the rights of the victim s and w itn esses an d strives to en su re th at ju stice can be accessed by all. T h e C od e o f Practice in tro d u ced by th e new Act will provide th e necessary fram ew ork o u tlin in g th e statu tory responsibilities of e ach agency. H ow ever, to be su ccessfu l, a sig n ifican t ch an g e in crim inal ju stice professional cu ltu res is still requ ired , su p p o rted b y the necessary reso u rces to en su re that th eir responsibilities can b e fulfilled. C on tin u al m o n ito rin g and ev alu ation will be requ ired to e n su re that ind ividu als an d com m u n ities are aw are of th eir statu tory e n titlem en ts, th u s en su rin g th at com m u n ity ju stice is ach iev ed - n o t ju st rhetorically, b u t in reality.

References ACPO (2002) TIk Search for the Truth, ACPO Media Initiative, London, 10 January. Adler, Z. (1987) Rape on Trial. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Ashworth, A. (1983) Sentencing and Penal Policy. London: W eidenfeld and Nicholson. Ashworth, A. (1998) The Criminal Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Audit Commission (2003) Victims and Witnesses: Providing Better Support. London: Audit Commission. Auld, Lord Justice. (2001) Review o f the Criminal Courts. Available online: www.criminal-courts-review.orK.uk. Bellamy, R. and Greenaw ay, J. (1995) 'T he New Right Conception of Citizenship and the Citizen's Charter', Government and Opposition, 30, Autumn: 469-91. Bottoms, A.E. (1977) 'Reflections on the Renaissance of Dangerousness', Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 16: 7 0 -% . 253

C o m m u n it y Justice

Brody, S.R. (1976) The Effectiveness o f Sentencing: A Review o f the Literature. Home Office Research Study 35. London: HMSO. Cayley, D. (1998) The Expanding Prison: The Crisis in Crime and Punishment and the Search fo r Alternatives. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press. Christie, N. (1977) 'Conflicts as Property”, British journal o f Criminology, 17: 1-15. Council of Europe (1985) Recommendation No. R (85)11 o f the Committee o f Ministers to M ember States on the Position o f the Victim in the Framework o f Criminal Law and Procedure. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. Crawford, A. and Enterkin, J. (1999) Victim Contact Work and the Probation Service: A Study o f Service Delivery and Impact. Leeds: Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, University of Leeds. Criminal Justice System (2004) No Witness, No justice, CPS/ACPO/OPSR Victim and Witness Care Project. London: Criminal Justice System. Crown Prosecution Service (2001a) Strategic Plan 2001 -04: Business Plan 2001-02, London: Crown Prosecution Service. Crown Prosecution Service (2001b) CPS Gets Closer to tlie Community. Available online: http://tap.ccta.KOv.uk/cpa/infoup, accessed 2 October 2001. Dodd, T., Nicholas, S., Povey, D. and Walker, A. (2004) Crime in England and Wales 2003/2004, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 10/04. London: Home Office. Driver, S. and Martell, L. (1997) 'N ew Labour's Communitarianisms', Critical Social Policy, 17: 27-16. Elias, R. (1993) Victims Still: The Political Manipulation o f Crime Victims. Newbury Park: Sage. Fattah, E.A. (ed.) (1986) From Crime Policy to Victim Policy. London: Macmillan. Fattah, E.A. (1992) Towards a Critical Victimology. London: Macmillan. Fattah, E.A. (1997) 'Toward a Victim Policy Aimed at Healing, Not Suffering', in R.C. Davis, A.J. Lurigio and W.G. Skogan (eds), Victims o f Crime, London: Sage Publications. Fattah, E.A. (2000) 'Victimology: Past, Present and Future', Criminologie, 33: 17-46. Fenwick, H. (1995) 'Rights of Victims in the Criminal Justice System: Rhetoric or Reality?' Criminal Law Reviezu: 843-853. Fenwick, H. (1997) 'Procedural "R ights" of Victims of Crime: Public or Private O rdering of the Criminal Justice Process?' The Modern Laiv Review, 60: 317-333. Glidewell, I. (1998) The Review o f the Crown Prosecution Service: A Report, Cmnd. 3960. London: HMSO. Goldsmith, P. (2004) ljocal Criminal justice Boards Continue to Make Progress Against Key Government Targets. Available online: cjsonline.gov.uk/the_cjs/w hats_new / news_3044.html, accessed 27 October 2004. Grimshaw, R. (1989) 'Booktalk: Policing', Network (BSA Newsletter), January: 13-14. Halliday (2001) Revieiv o f Sentencing. Available online: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/cpft/ halliday.htm. Heater, D. (1990) Citizenship: The Civic Ideal in World History. Politics and Education. London: Longman. Henderson, L.N. (1992) 'The Wrongs of Victims' Rights', in E.A. Fattah (ed.) Towards a Critical Victimology. London: Macmillan. Home Office (1990) Victim's Charter: A Statement o f the Rights o f Victims. London: HMSO. Home Office (1994) Victims o f Crime. London: HMSO. Home Office (1996) Victim's Charter: A Statement o f Service Standards fo r Victims of Crime. London: HMSO. 254

Im p ro v in g co n fid e n ce in crim inal justice: achieving c o m m u n it y justice fo r victim s and w itn e sse s

Home Office (1998) Speaking Up fo r Justice. London: HMSO. Home Office (1999) Criminal Justice System Strategic Plan 1999-2002. London: Home Office. Home Office (2001) The Victim Personal Statement Scheme: Guidance Note fo r Practitioners or Those Operating the Scheme. London: HMSO. H ome Office (2002) justice for All, W hite I’aper. London: Home Office. H ome Office (2003a) A New Deal for Victims and Witnesses: National Strategy to Deliver Improved Services. London: Home Office. Home Office (2003b) Improving Public Satisfaction and Confidence in the Criminal justice System. London: Home Office. H ome Office, Lord Chancellor's Department and the Attorney-General (2001) A Review o f the Victim's Charter. London: Home Office. Hood, C. (1991) 'A Public M anagem ent for All Seasons?' Public Administration, 69: 3 19. Hough, J.M and Mayhew, P. (1983) The British Crime Survey: First Report, Home Office Research Study 76. London: Home Office. Institute of Public Policy Research (2001) Reluctant Witness. London: Institute of Public Policy Research. Janoff-Bulman, R. (1985) 'The Aftermath of Victimization: Rebuilding Shattered Assumptions', in C. Figley (ed.), Trauma and its Wake: The Study and Treatment o f Post-traumatic Stress Disorder. New York: Bruner/Mazel. Jefferson, T. and Shapland, J. (1994) 'Criminal Justice and the Production of Order and Control: Criminological Research in the UK in the 1980s', British Jounml o f Criminology, 34: 265-290. Kelly, D.P. (1990) 'Victim Participation in the Criminal Justice Systems', in R.C. Davis, A.J. Lurigio and W.G. Skogan (eds), Victims o f Crime: Problems, Policies and Programs. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kelly, D.P. and Erez, E. (1997) 'Victim Participation in the Criminal Justice System', in R.C. Davis, A.J. Lurigio and W.G. Skogan (eds), Victims o f Crime, 2nd edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lister, R. (1997) Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives. London: Macmillan. Lurigio, A.J. (1987) 'Are all Victims Alike? The Adverse, Generalised, and Differential Impact of Crime', Crime and Delinquency, 33: 452-467. Maguire, M. and Bennett, T. (1982) Burglary in a Dwelling. London: Heinemann. Maguire, M. and Corbett, C. (1987) The Effects o f Crime and the Work o f Victim Support Schemes. Aldershot: Gower. M awby, R.I. and Gill, M. (1987) Crime Victims: Needs, Services and the Voluntary Sector. London: Tavistock. M awby, R.I. and Walklate, S. (1994) Critical Victimology. London: Sage. Mirrlees-Black, C. (2001) Confidence in the Criminal Justice System: Findings from the 2000 British Crime Survey, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Research Findings 137. London: Home Office. Narey (1997) Review o f Delay in Crim inal Justice System. Available online: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/cpd/pvu/crimerev.htm. N ewburn, T. and Merry, S. (1990) Keeping in Touch - Police-Victim Communication in Areas, Home Office Research Study 116. London: HMSO. N orris, F.H ., Kaniasty, K. and Thom pson, M.P. (1997) 'The Psychological Consequences of Crime: Findings From a Longitudinal Population-Based S tu d /, in R.C. Davis, A.J. Lurigio and W.G. Skogan (eds), Victims o f Crime. London: Sage. Office of Criminal Justice Reform (2004) Cutting Crime, Delivering justice: A Strategic 255

C o m m u n it y Justice

Plan fo r Criminal Justice 2004-08. London: Home Office. Phipps, A. (1988) 'Ideologies, Political Parties and Victims of Crime', in M. Maguire and J. Pointing (eds), Victims o f Crime: A New Deal? M ilton Keynes: Open University Press. Priestly, P. and McGuire, J. (1995) 'Review ing "W hat W orks": Past, Present and Future', in J. M cGuire (ed.), What Works: Reducing Re-offending: Guidelines from Research and Practice. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd. Rock, P. (1990) Helping Victims o f Crime: The Home Office and the Rise o f Victim Support in England and Wales. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rock, P. (1999) 'Acknowledging Victims' Needs and Rights', Criminal Justice Matters, 35: 4-5. Rose, N. (2000) 'Governm ent and Control', in D. Garland and R. Sparks (eds), Criminology and Social Theory. New York: Oxford University Press. Shapland, J. and Cohen, D. (1987) 'Facilities for Victims: The Role of the Police and the Courts', Criminal Law Review: 28-38. Shapland, J., Willmore, J. and Duff, P. (1985) Victims in the Criminal Justice System. Aldershot: Gower. Stanko, E. (1985) Intimate Intrusions: Women's Experience o f Male Violence. London: Virago. Stanko, E. (1988) 'Fear of Crime and the Myth of the Safe Home: A Feminist Critique of Criminology', in K. Yllo and M. Bograd (eds), Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse. London: Sage. Stewart, J. and Walsh, K. (1992) 'Change in the M anagem ent of Public Services', Public Administration, 70: 499-518. Tapley, J. (2003) From 'Good Citizen’ to 'Deserving Client': The Relationship Between Victims o f Violent Crime and the State Llsing Citizenship as the Conceptualising Tool. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Southampton. Tapley, J. (2005a) 'Political Rhetoric and the Reality of Victims' Experiences Findings from a Witness Satisfaction Survey', The Prison Journal, 158: 45-52. Tapley, J. (2005b) 'Public Confidence Costs - Criminal Justice from a Victim's Perspective', British Journal o f Community Justice, 3.2. pp. 25-37. United Nations (1985) Declaration o f Basic Principles o f justice for Victims o f Crime and Abuse o f Power. New York: UN Department of Public Information. Van Dijk, J. (1988) 'Ideological Trends W ithin the Victims M ovem ent: An International Perspective', in M. Maguire and J. Pointing (eds), Victims o f Crime: A Nrw Deal? M ilton Keynes: O pen University Press. Victim Support (1995) The Rights o f Victims o f Crime. London: Victim Support. Williams, B. (1999a) Working with Victims o f Crime: Policies, Politics and Practice. London: Jessica Kingsley. Williams, B. (1999b) 'The Victim's Charter: Citizens as Consumers of Criminal Justice Services', The Howard Journal o f Criminal Justice, 38: 384-396. Zedner, L. (1994) 'Victims', in M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner (eds), The Oxford Handbook o f Criminology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Zehr, H. (1990) Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.

256

C h a p te r 15

Is research working? Revisiting the research and effective practice agenda James McGuire

M any academ ics and researchers hope that their findings will be of practical value and will inform the w ork of practitioners and policy­ makers. Conversely, m any of the latter look to the research com m unity for inform ation that will answ er their questions or help to guide their decisions. But the process goes further than that; the traffic in ideas is not all one-way. Practice also guides research. N ot only do its outcom es yield findings of interest to everyone involved, the resultant activity generates new questions. This happens in general terms, by placing certain them es or issues on the agenda. It also happens more specifically through the com m issioning of particular projects. Such a reciprocal or symbiotic pattern typifies a large num ber of the advances m ade in m any fields of inquiry. This system of apparent shared benefit betw een w hat used to be called the 'p u re' and 'applied' sectors of a field has been know n by different nam es at different tim es. In recent years it has gone under the collective rubric of 'evidence-based practice'. It has attained high status in m edicine and healthcare, and m ore recently in m any sectors of social science, public policy and service provision. In my own profession of clinical psychology, a variant of th e m odel know n as the scientist practitioner has been regarded as a core value since the tim e of a landm ark conference held in Boulder, Colorado in 1949 (Barker, Pistrang and Elliott 2002, Barlow , Hayes and N elson 1984). W hilst it is not w ithout its critics (Pilgrim and Treacher 1992) the m odel, sim ilar to that of the researcher practitioner prom oted for probation officers by the H om e O ffice, rem ains central to the activities of m any professionals, m ost of w hom are not directly engaged in research.

257

C om m u n ity Justice

So far so good: it looks like researchers and practitioners often enjoy a m utually beneficial relationship. H ow ever, attem pting to discern the pathw ays of interaction betw een research findings and policy changes is a far from easy task. Close inspection show s that there is a plethora of interw oven com plexities and crossover strands, and (to con tin ue the w eavin g m etaph or) untid y tangles, occasional knots, and broken threads. And then, of course (to do the m etaphor to death), there are those w ho never w anted the carpet in the first place. This chapter is focused on the question of how research evidence is used, with particular reference to the 'w h at w orks debate' as it has com e to be fam iliarly know n in th e field of crim inal justice. Perhaps now it is less of a debate than an 'ag en d a', as surely very few rem ain w ho doubt th at th ere is con v in cin g ev id en ce of th e possibility of red ucin g recidivism am ong persistent offenders. N evertheless, several possibilities con tin ue to raise questions and cause concern: that it has becom e a new orthodoxy w ith a restrictive focus (Rex 2001), that it represents an insidious form of social control (Kem shall 2002), that it is intrinsically oppressive (B oone 2004), and that m aybe it does not w ork anyw ay (M errington and Stanley 2004). O th er chapters of this book have dissected various aspects of these criticism s. T h e objective of the present one is to consider gaps and obstacles in transferring research findings into practice, and w here feasible, consider ways of overcom ing them . It is possible to approach this in several ways, and in w hat follows, we will begin by asking how w e got w here w e are now. This entails a brief resum e of th e background to the current usage of research findings in com m unity ju stice, referring m ost closely to the U nited Kingdom . H ow ever, m any of the considerations also apply to other countries w here sim ilar questions have arisen. O f necessity w ithin th e confines of a book chapter w ritten by one individual, this account is highly con den sed and subjective. T h e second m ain section of the chapter will exam ine som e specific dim ensions of th e research -p ractice relationship that m ay help to furnish an answ er to the question of w hether research is 'w orking' as b est it might.

A p p lyin g research in co m m u n ity justice Leading review ers of the history of p enology in w estern societies have noted that for a period of 150 years or m ore - from approxim ately the early n in eteen th century to the last quarter of the tw entieth - it was thou ght possible to 'reform the offend er' (Gaes 1998). This is in contrast to the prevalent ethos of the preceding era, during w hich the concept of 258

Is research w orking? Revisiting the research and effective practice agenda

retribution predom inated (W alker 1991). T hen, the social order was m ain tain ed th ro u gh the ritu alized , pu blic infliction of pain and hum iliation. At the beginn ing of th e nineteenth century, in conjunction w ith m any other social changes, a new epoch arrived, focused on restricting the freedom and controlling the activities and daily routines of those w ho had broken the law - usually by incarcerating them in large institutions (Foucault 1977). Tow ards the beginn ing of the tw entieth century, a further evolution took place, to rescue offenders from the hardships of im prisonm ent, and help them w ith the problem s that were thou ght to have driven them to crim e, a m ovem ent that has been called 'p en al w elfarism ' (Bottom s, Rex and Robinson 2004). Research reviews a n d p e n a l policies

D uring the tw entieth century a grow ing nu m ber of studies appeared, reporting on evaluations of th e im pact of various interventions designed to reduce crim inal recidivism. That w ork was extensively review ed for the first tim e on any sizeable scale d uring th e third quarter of the century. In the U nited States, the governm ent o f N ew York State com m issioned a report on the effectiveness of rehabilitation with offenders. A lthough w ork tow ards this began in 1968, its final version incorporating the findings of 231 outcom e studies was not published in book form until the m id-1970s (Lipton, M artinson and W ilks 1975). At approxim ately the sam e tim e, the H om e O ffice in the U nited Kingdom u n d ertook a similar project to review the outcom e of 100 studies on the effectiveness of sen ten cin g (Brody 1976). The authors of both review s found the research to be plagued with problem s, with poor-quality designs and insufficient inform ation on the nature of interventions. T hey felt com pelled to conclude that little or nothing had been show n to w ork to achieve the intend ed objectives of rehabilitation or reducing crim inal recidivism. T h e absence of clear, easily interpretable findings notw ithstanding, these review s w ere massively influential. M any com m entators attribute th e farthest-reaching influence to a journal paper by M artinson (1974). A lthough som e researchers challenged its negative conclusions, and drew attention to positive findings that had been neglected (G endreau and Ross 1980), n either their objections nor M artinson's (1979) later w ithdraw al of those conclusions had any im pact on the direction of public policy, w hich appeared w holeheartedly to absorb the 'n oth in g w orks' dictum . Gaes has described the publication of the M artinson (1974) paper as 'a w atershed ev en t' (Gaes 1998: 713). O n the basis of the bleak claims m ade within it, the idea of rehabilitation was, if not entirely banished, at least relegated in the scale of priorities in the m inds of m any practitioners and 259

C om m u n ity Justice

academ ics (Bottom s and M cW illiam s 1979, Raynor and V an stone 1994, V anstone 2000). The ensuing period was m arked by a p ronou nced trend tow ards m ore punitive sentencing, resulting in a dram atic rise in the usage o f im p riso n m e n t, m ost m eteo rically in th e U nited S tates (W acquant 2005, Zim ring and H aw kins 1994). A m ong m any liberal thinkers, it has becom e custom ary to place the blam e for the escalating harshness and 'penal nihilism ' o f the subsequent era on these research reviews. But the dynam ics of that process and the pattern of influences at w ork m ay not be quite so sim ple. First, contem poraneou sly w ith the above review s, another significant book also appeared in the mid-1970s. This reported on the w ork of the United States Com m ittee on the Study o f Incarceration (von H irsch 1976). A pproaching th e field from a different perspective, its authors too con clu d ed th at o ffen d er re h ab ilitatio n or 'tre a tm e n t' w ere failed endeavours. T h e Com m ittee advocated a ju stice policy based on desert and deterrence, and forw arded a series o f argum ents for the application of proportionality in sentencing. T h e key m essage w idely perceived to be em anating from it, how ever, w as that positive efforts to reduce crim inal recidivism w ere fruitless. But second, and in contrast to th e standard view that the grow th of punitive sanctions and a general 'get-tou gh' ethos was the result of the con clu sio n that n o th in g w orks, A nd rew s and B o n ta (2003) have contended that the real culprit o f the tim e was the then pervasive 'theoreticism ' of sociological crim inology. By this they m ean the intensely intellectualized focus on linguistic and cultural analysis of deviance, coupled with a relentless re-exam ination and rejection of conventional definitions of crim e, and exploration o f how such constructions and categories are a product o f w ider social processes. For several decades from the 1970s onw ards, th e m ainstream sociological study of deviance had at best a distant relationship w ith everyday events, w hether outside on the streets or inside the crim inal ju stice system . This profound disconnection and that vacuum , argue A ndrew s and Bonta, had as m uch to do with th e authoritarian direction o f penal policy as th e evidence that was assum ed to show that 'n o th in g w orks'. There is another paradox in th e supposed im pact of these reviews. Both M artinson (197 4,1979) and von H irsch (1976) m ade it quite clear in their w ritings that im prisonm ent did not work. N eith er saw any advantage in increased use of it. The form er concluded firm ly that there was no evidence of an association betw een recidivism and the length of prison sentences. The latter strongly recom m ended 'stringent lim itations' on the usage of im prisonm ent. It is salutary to note that this conclusion has been repeated with alm ost unrem itting m onotony since the very arrival of the m o d em prison. Foucault (1976: 264) has described how , 260

Is research w orking? Revisiting the research and effective practice agenda

after its introduction in France, 'th e prison, in its reality and visible effects, was d enounced at once as the great failure of penal ju stice'. Critiques of its m ethods and its effects appeared very early on, during the period 1820-1845. Given that reports on this m atter have now been conveying the same essential m essage for over 180 years, the pow ersthat-be in society seem chronically prone to highly selective listening. The re-em ergence o f ‘rehabilitation‘

Follow ing the gloom y conclusions of the 1970s outlined above, the 'official' rediscovery of the possibility that offend ing behaviour could be reduced was a gradual, halting process. From the m id-1980s onw ards, how ever, the balance of evid ence slowly began to shift m ore strongly towards the view that beliefs in the failure of rehabilitation had been m isplaced. Today, recurrent critiques and som e disappointing results notw ithstand ing, w e can be m ore con fid ent than ever about the basic thesis that 'offend er rehabilitation has been, can be and will be achieved. The principles underlying effective rehabilitation generalize across far too m any intervention strategies and offend er sam ples to be dism issed as trivial' (G endreau and Ross 1987: 395). This evidence has been surveyed and consolidated in a num ber of places as it has continued to accum ulate (e.g. A ndrews and Bonta 2003, M acK enzie 2002, M cG uire 1995a, 2002, 2004, M otiuk and Serin 2001) and will be discussed only briefly here as a con text for other points to follow. As m ust by now be well know n, an im portant factor in bringing about change was the application of m eta-analytic review to the relevant research literature from 1985 onw ards. Findings are now available from no few er than 52 m eta-analyses, and num erous prim ary studies and several new integrative reviews are published every year. W ith the advent of the C am pbell Collaboration, concerted efforts are under w ay to synthesize findings from th e m ost rigorously designed studies in m ore precisely delineated areas (Farrington and Petrosino 2001). N evertheless som e authors have continued to regard th e em pirical base with disbelief and derision (Mair 2004) and dism issal of it has b een enshrined in resolutions at the annual conferences of the N ational Association of Probation O fficers. A ccording to m ore detached assessm ents, how ever, 'th e extrem e scepticism still show n by som e com m en tato rs. . . can no longer be regarded as realistic' (Raynor 2004a: 199). Im p a ct o n co m m u n ity sentencing

These disputes supply a broad fram ew ork w ithin w hich the m ovem ent of probation services tow ards the use of research evidence has taken place. But w e need also to locate them w ithin a political context, with 261

C om m u n ity Justice

particular reference to England and W ales. From approxim ately 1990 onw ards, the probation service there found itself in a gradually m ore threatened position. The Conservative governm ent had com e to pow er in 1979 w ith a m andate to reduce taxation and cut public expenditure. Its m onetarist econom ic policies resulted in detailed scrutiny of all elem ents of governm ent spend ing and a radicalized em phasis on achieving 'value for m oney'. O n e by one, m ajor services w ere either sold to the private sector or required to m ake 'efficiency savings'. The turn of the probation service cam e w ith the publication in 1989 of a report by the Audit C om m ission, a sem i-autonom ous agency that m onitors the spend ing of local governm ent departm ents. This was in m any respects a decisive m om ent in the service's history. T h e report concluded that: W hile there is a striking variety of probation schem es in operation involving m u ch vision, creativity and im agination, these schem es m ust be evaluated and their im pact on offend in g behaviour assessed. It is unsatisfactory that at present considerable sum s are spent w ith relatively little u n derstand ing of the effects achieved. (Audit Com m ission 1989: 2) During M ichael H ow ard's tenure as H om e Secretary betw een 1993 and 1997, the probation service reputedly cam e close to extinction. It was w idely rum oured that he thou ght private security com panies could perform its key tasks both m ore effectively and m ore econom ically. T h e core issue was the lack of any evidence that probation provided a good public service, and H ow ard believed that w hereas prison 'w orked', probation did not. It is easy to say that such argum ents should have been resisted: m any attem pts w ere m ade to do so. But the strong ideological drive was not to b e diverted. If the th en C h ief Insp ector of Probation, Sir Graham Sm ith, had not d efended probation by draw ing on the 'w hat w orks' research, the service m ight well have been abolished. Findings from the latter research w ere highlighted through a series of conferences know n by the title 'W h at W orks' w hich began in 1990 w ith a regional event in the north -w est of England. This w as follow ed by national conferences, w ith speakers from both the UK and overseas, in 1991, 1992, 1994, 1996 and 1998. All w ere held in M anchester though an additional con ference on a slightly different them e, entitled 'D oes P u nishm ent W ork?' was held in London in 1995. These events w ere not, as som e believe, sponsored by the H om e O ffice as part of a 'topdow n' process of persuading probation officers to change their practices. Q uite th e reverse: the entire initiative was practitioner-led. M em bership of the con ference planning group evolved over successive years but consisted alm ost entirely o f probation or social w ork staff. 262

Is research w orking? Revisiting the research and effective practice agenda

O ne objective of th e conferences was to try to integrate research and practice, usually com bining keynote speeches by leading researchers w ith practice w orkshops exem plifying activities that had been or w ere being evaluated. A nother objective was to influence the crim inal justice establish m ent tow ards applying the available evid ence: h en ce the publication of various conference proceedings in book form (M cG uire 1995a, M cG uire and Row son 1996, Row son and M cG uire 1991,1996). For the 1996 con ference, possibly a high-w ater mark, keynote speakers included the then C hief Insp ector of Probation (Sir G raham Sm ith), the D irector-G eneral of the Prison Service (Richard Tilt), and the Shadow H om e Secretary (Jack Straw) w ho w as w idely expected, as it turned out correctly, to take up the substantive post w ere Labour to w in the 1997 general election. D uring the later 1990s a considerable am ou nt of energy was expended w ithin the H om e O ffice to w eigh up the m ou nting research and distil its m essages into im plications for policy. This m ay also have been influenced by an earlier, penetrating analysis o f reconviction data show ing no evidence of differential effectiveness o f different types of sen tences for adults (Lloyd, M air and H ough 1994). Review s of the 'red u cing re­ o ffend in g' research literature and o f specific forms of intervention w ere carried out. O ne focused on direct w ork with offenders (V ennard, Sugg and H edd erm an 1997). A nother spanned a w ider range of crim inal justice activities, including police w ork, using a series of presentations at a specially con ven ed sem inar held, for the con ven ience of international contributors, in a hotel at H eathrow airport (G oldblatt and Lewis 1998). Subsequently, the em bryonic N ational Probation Service com m is­ sioned literature and 'best practice' review s o f its ow n (U nderdow n 1998) and also sought to discern im plications for practice (C hapm an and H ough 1998). T he net result o f these and other deliberations was the com m encem ent of the Effective Practice Initiative, the incep tion of the Crim e R ed uction Program m e and, at an operational level, th e advent of the 'P athfind er' program m es (form ally ann ou nced at the 1998 W hat W orks conference, th e last run by the original planning group). There w ere subsequ ent consultations o f a m ore organizational nature, on the possible (as of 2004, actual) con vergence of the prison and probation services, together with review s o f sen tencing, w hich are the concern of o ther chapters in this volum e (see Lew is this volum e, G ough, this volum e). The above is an over-sim plified, perhaps even crude rend ering of the events through w hich research findings w ere absorbed into policy form ation, and it departs from other versions o f w hat occurred at that time. For exam ple, the sequence can be portrayed as a process of 'appropriation by the cen tre' o f the outcom e evidence, 'to legitim ise and 263

C om m unity Justice

operationalise a risk-m anagem ent ap proach' (Robinson 2001: 244). That m ay have b een partly, m aybe ev en solely, driven by a quest for m ore efficient resource m anagem ent. In turn it had deeper im plications for the balance of 'technicality' versus 'discretion' in the professional role of the probation officer and the possibility that this w as to be reduced to that of a 'co m p eten t functionary'. But like any other large-scale d evelopm ents in governm ent policy, the m ore sw eep ing changes in organizational structures and in sen tencing policy and practice w ere influenced by m any factors. G iven their scope, it seem s unlikely that the research evid ence on reducing recidivism played a particularly significant part in them . It is far m ore likely that they were driven by broader considerations, inclu ding perceived public opinion, and pressures from the m edia. From approxim ately the year 2000 onw ards, com m unity sentences for offend ers w ere subject to probably the largest experim ent of its kind ev er undertaken: as Raynor aptly depicts it, 'recen t history's m ost spectacular exam ple of a w holesale conversion to evidence-based practice' (2004b: 161). A longside m any other innovations, four novel types of intervention w ere im plem ented on a hitherto u n p reced ented scale, and research com m issioned to evaluate them (Hollin et al 2002, Hollin et al 2004, Lew is et al 2003, M cM ahon et al 2004, Rex et al 2004). At the tim e o f writing, portions of that w ork are still in progress.

D im e n sion s of the research-practice relationship The foregoing narrative illustrates som e of the vagaries of translating a body of research findings into usable 'm essages' for practice and policy. Let us consider the central them e of this chapter from a different standpoint. W hat factors influence the w ay research is used, w ith special reference to the above background? There are of course m any possible answ ers to that question. The second half of this chapter will focus on ju st four principal dim ensions of them . They com prise first, lim itations in the evidence base un derp in ning 'w h at w orks'; second, the problem of im plem entation; third, a m ixture of m yths and m isunderstandings over the nature of the basic ideas; and fourth, a cluster of m ore diffuse problem s that I will place u n d er the collective head in g of cultural and ideological resistance. Lim itations o f the evidence base

A first obstacle to applying research to practice is that, at any given point in tim e, any field of research and the 'body of know ledge' associated with 264

Is research w orking? Revisiting the research and effective practice agenda

it are likely to have helped answ er som e questions but not others. T h e accu m ulation of system atized kn ow led ge and un d erstan d in g is a tentative, painstaking process. This applies even m ore in the social than in the physical, biological or environm ental sciences. To begin w ith, the resources available for social research are paltry by com parison w ith the sum s spent in th e so-called 'h ard ' sciences. It is inconceivable in social science that hund reds of m illions of pou nds could b e w ritten off at a single stroke as has happ en ed m ore than once with the explosion of Ariane satellite-bearing rockets. From a context in w hich the officially and w idely held view was that 'n o th in g works' to reduce re-offending, the initial priority was to com m unicate the finding that it is possible to support and eng en d er change in individuals who have repeatedly broken th e law. T h e dismissal of th at p o ssib ility has p ro fo u nd im p lication s for h o w ju stice is adm inistered. W hen the findings of m eta-analytic review s first began to be dissem inated therefore, researchers them selves pointed out that conclusions gained from the tech nique w ere typically 'general and broadbrush, as is appropriate from a m eta-analytic base w hich aggregates over a wide range of studies' (Lipsey 1995: 78). The clearest and m ost con sisten t trends to em erge from the earlier m eta-analytic review s established first, that rehabilitative efforts generally 'w orked' as a m eans of reducing offend er recidivism , and second, that certain m ethods w ere m ore reliable for achieving this than others. D raw ing these results to the attention of the probation com m unity, som e crucial assum ptions w ere made. T he m ost im portant w as that, having been (up to that point) prim arily trained in social w ork, and thereby in th e process of engaging with individuals and building w orking alliances w ith them , probation officers w ould use the m ore effective approaches as an ad junct to their existing skills. T h e m ethod s w ould, in other words, constitute an extension of or an addition to their repertoire. N o one anticipated that the delivery of program m es could som ehow replace professional skills and expertise. C om peten ce in relating to others was view ed as vital to th e application o f effective interventions (G endreau 1996). U nderstandably, once having taken th e broad findings seriously, m any m anagers and practitioners w ished to interrogate the research for m ore finely tuned indicators. From a very early stage research was som etim es criticized as inadequate, as it could not specify 'w h at works w ith w hom under w hat conditions', or other details, in all the requisite perm utations. If a given m ethod had never been tested in a particular setting, as was often the case, there was no inform ation with a direct bearing on th e question of w h eth er it would 'w ork'. It m ight b e possible to extrapolate to som e extent from available studies, bu t that had to be 265

C om m u n ity Justice

d one with caution. In the absence o f firm guidance from research, an alternative direction w ould have been for practitioners to carry out their ow n evaluative w ork (M clvor 1995) but the extent to w hich that option w as taken up rem ained limited. In the intervening period, how ever, m any m ore studies have been published and m eta-analysed, and this has led to further refinem ents in the evidence base. Review s are now available covering a w ide range of types of offences separately or in com bination (generic offending, drinkdriving, violence, dom estic violence, sexual assault, substance abuse), the effects of variations am ong participants (with respect to age, gen der and ethnicity; see below ), and on different m ethod s o f intervention (cognitive skills training, interpersonal skills training, anger m anagem ent, relapse prevention, fam ily-based w ork, therapeutic com m unities, educational and v ocational program m es, school-based program m es, restorative ju stice, and deterrence). Im plem entation

In another respect, how ever, the findings of th e large-scale review s and th e process of trying to apply them to practice revealed a sizeable gap. M ost of the prim ary studies that supported conclusions regarding 'w h at w orks' w ere essentially tests o f various m ethods of intervention. They o ften con tain ed o th er typ es o f in fo rm atio n , for exam ple on the characteristics of the participants, on interm ediate variables such as attitudes or skills, or on duration or intensity o f services. O ften, though, their m ain focus rem ained the 'treatm en t m odality7 (Lipsey 1995). Thus the second obstacle to applying research findings was that by com parison, there w as a relative dearth o f evid ence on the process of im plem entation. H ow do w e transfer lessons learnt from research into practical settings, taking into account th e influence of the local context on how w ork progresses, and on its likely outcom es? The im portance of this issue was realized by M artinson: 'T h e critical fact seem s to be the conditions under w hich the program is delivered' (1979: 254, italics in original). A lthough G endreau, Goggin and Sm ith (1999) acknow ledged that this issue was neglected, it had not been entirely ignored, and progressively m ore attention has been paid to aspects o f it. Roberts (1995) proposed a fram ew o rk for lo catin g the m ore in te n siv e o ffe n d in g beh av io u r program m es alongside other types of service provided to offenders on probation. Palm er (1996) forw arded evidence-based proposals con cern­ ing the need to attend to offend er characteristics, staff-clien t interactions, and agency settings w hen delivering program m es, and advocated a stepw ise approach to the process o f d oing so. Harris and Sm ith described 266

Is research working? Revisiting the research and effective practice agenda

a series of 'conditions conducive to effective im plem entation' (1996: 191) that distinguished success from failure w hen absorbing and applying m essages from research and engendering change in agencies. Gendreau, et al (2002) have reviewed a wide range of literature relevant to this and strengthened and augm ented these sets of advice. The series of specifications or recom m endations m ade by Andrews (1995, 2001) has also evolved and expanded over time. Some authors have presented models of the connections that need to be made betw een programmes and other aspects of an agency's work if research-based knowledge is to be deployed appropriately and effec­ tively. Bernfeld, Blase and Fixsen (1990) outlined a 'behavioural systems perspective' that entails considering four aspects of innovation and evaluation of effectiveness: client, programm e, organization, and society. Further, it is imperative to view these system com ponents as engaged in dynam ic interaction over time. In im plem enting 'w hat works' findings in the UK, it may be that the second elem ent has been highlighted at the expense of the other three. Harris and Sm ith (1996) developed a model of the 'm utual adaptation' process that needs to occur as a programme interacts with its organizational environm ent. More recently, Bem feld, Farrington and Leschied (2001) have published an edited volume containing several illustrations of the difficulties likely to arise during im plem entation. Drawing on the benefits of practical experience, this also yields guidance regarding how to address such problems and where possible to surm ount them. H owever, these aspects of the outcom e research played little or no part in the major departures that were m ade in probation in England and Wales at the turn of the century, the sheer m agnitude of which took virtually everyone by surprise. For exam ple, it is reported that the Home O ffice's then Director of Research and Statistics, who convened the 'Reducing O ffending' review groups m entioned above, was 'stunned' (Cavadino, Crow and Dignan 1999, cited in Robinson 2001); and certainly mem bers of the W hat Works conferences planning group were taken aback at the proposed scale of things to come. Seasoned observers such as M errington and Stanley (2000) forewarned of likely difficulties, and more recently Raynor (2004b) has com m ented that the pace of im plem entation ran far ahead of the research. Overall, 'T he evidence suggests that im plem entation problems are likely to have affected the success of offending behaviour programmes in reducing re-offending', most likely due to three factors, 'the rapid expansion of programmes; targeting programmes ineffectively; higher than expected attrition rates' (Debidin and Lovbakke 2005: 48, 49). O n that basis, the enorm ous and rapid expansion in Pathfinder programmes was clearly very adventurous. It would have been more 267

C om m u n ity Justice

judicious to proceed on the grounds o f lim ited but better controlled studies, taking note of local and contextual variations. Leschied, B em feld and Farrington (2001: 8) have proposed an inventory of 'critical elem ents in dissem ination' for agencies contem plating innovations such as the im plem entation of structured program m es. T hey recom m end a sequence of activities flow ing from the decision at senior level that sustained effort is needed. It is crucial first to foster m ulti-level ow nership of innovation, and it will be preferable to 'seed ' the service system w ith pilot projects rather than pursue full-scale 'roll-out' from the outset. A longside this, senior staff should ensure that d em onstration projects have long-term financial support, and try as far as possible to retain stable leadership, and to neutralize internal resistance and w hat M cC arthy (1989, cited in Leschied et al 2001: 8) called the 'forces o f counter-control'. M ore w idely, efforts should be m ade to build com m unity investm en t in the innovation, and there should be 'top to bottom ' training of staff. It m ight be added that if practitioners and m anagers are given new tasks to em bark upon, there should be com m ensu rate relief from previous ones. W here w orkloads becom e too onerous, the quality of im plem entation of any new agenda is likely to suffer. As O gloff and Davis (2004) have observed, there is a great deal at stake in the current investm ent in rehabilitative activities; and the outcom es of the enterprise are not yet clear. It m ay be that if readily visible effects are not achieved from the present period o f experim entation, the m etaph o­ rical law -and -ord er pend u lu m will once again sw ing back to an exclusively punitive ethos. H aving apparently been tried and found w anting, 'rehabilitation' could lose all credibility and be perm anently rejected as a goal. D em on stration a n d p ractical p rogram m es

There is another facet of everyday delivery o f research-based interv en­ tions that often gives rise to difficulty. In healthcare services, there is a w ell-established difference betw een outcom es obtained in specially designed experim ents and those obtained in the 'real world' of service provision. T hese different estim ates are respectively know n as efficacy and effectiveness. Efficacy refers to the outcom e of an intervention evaluated in a specially designed research trial. Investigation of it often involves the use o f 'm anualized' interventions, careful selection of participants, random assignm ent to treatm ent and com parison groups, special training for staff, and close m onitoring by researchers. Effectiveness by contrast refers to the outcom e o f an intervention in a practical service setting. G enerally, the process of achieving this has to be m uch m ore responsive to the ongoing d em and o f referrals or allocations. There is 268

Is research w orking? Revisiting the research and effective practice agenda

typically less control over the pattern of delivery, and resources are usually m ore lim ited. It is scarcely surprising, therefore, that on average these types of evaluations yield low er effect sizes than for efficacy studies. Lipsey (1999) has analysed the im portance o f this d ifference in crim inal ju stice evalu ations, using the term s 'd e m o n stratio n ' and 'practical' projects to d enote the efficacy/effectiveness distinction. H e collated data from 196 practical program m es from his larger database of over 400 outcom e studies. The m ean effect size was only half of that for dem onstration program m es. Yet this still represented significant m ean reductions in recidivism am ong program m e participants, despite the finding that few er than o n e in five o f th e projects he exam ined had characteristics generally associated w ith high er effect sizes in the 'w hat w orks' literature. Thus in everyday, practical application, w e m ay well expect outcom es to be less im pressive than those found in elegantly designed research. Larger effects w ere associated with attend ance being 'court-m and ated ' (i.e. subject to legal com pulsion); with use of a delivery site that was not a law enforcem ent facility, b u t w here the program m e was coordinated by a crim inal ju stice agency, such as probation or other com m unity-based services for offenders.

M yths and m isunderstandings A third category of obstacles to m ore w idespread acceptance of the 'w hat w orks' findings and associated practice and policy initiatives is that, regrettably, there are several w ays in w hich the research inform ing the ad vent of these departures in crim inal ju stice has b een m isunderstood. Som e of them are so pervasive as virtually to have th e status of myths. Since its incep tion, the idea that it could b e helpful to work with offenders in specific ways guided by research has been exposed to a steady stream of disparagem ent. It is difficult to identify a segm ent of it that has not given rise to som e com plaint. It has b een alleged that the existing research was all N orth A m erican, therefore not applicable elsew here, particularly the U K (as w e nev er follow A m erican trends?). It was all a technical quick fix, based on the error-prone, if not actually sm oke-and-m irrors, exercise of m eta-analysis. N o account was taken of th e diversity of client populations; it was a case of 'o n e size fits all'. The w hole thing was an iniquitous schem e devised by cognitive-behavioural psychologists, w ho alongside psychiatrists have a key role in disciplining the population (Foucault said it, so it m ust be right). It was foun ded on a denial of the influence, m aybe even the existence, of social environm ents.

269

C om m u n ity Justice

The nature o f p rogram m es

Som e of the reservations m ay b e rooted in the use of the word 'program m e'. M any practitioners autom atically recoil from it, assum ing it im plies an activity that is highly prescriptive, allow ing little room for m anoeu vre on the part of eith er probationers or practitioners. But program m es can be conceptualized in various ways, and the core concept is sim p ly th at th e re be so m eth in g th at provides a seq u en ce of opportunities for learning, planned in advance so that certain parts of it can be replicable (M cG uire 2001). Program m e m anuals can take a variety of form s, and w hile som e are very prescriptive as to contents, others are m uch m ore open and flexible (M cM urran and D uggan 2005). Fu rtherm o re, it is im p ortan t to bear in m ind th at all structured program m es in current use w ere intend ed to be 'integrated into the overall objectives of supervision' (Rex 2001: 69). For exam ple, the individual sessions that follow th e group program m e in 'T h in k First' are designed as a vehicle through w hich the case m anager becom es fam iliar w ith the issues raised by a participant during th e group sessions, and w hich will becom e the foci of the rem aining period of supervision. The alleged a b sen ce o f theory

A nother objection to 'w hat w orks' research and a barrier to acceptance of its findings is the notion that it is based on a sim ple-m inded inpu t-ou tput ('black box') m odel, so that even w here interventions are effective it is im possible to answ er the question 'w h y?' (Rex 2001). It is difficult to identify th e original source o f this supposition but it m ay be that any corpus of em pirical findings is likely to be represented w ithin certain standpoints as unavoidably positivist and atheoretical. From self-styled 'critical' and 'd econstructionist' perspectives, for exam ple, any attem pt to com p rehen d the variations in inv olv em ent in crim inality betw een individuals is inheren tly and d eeply suspect (see M cG uire 2004 for fuller discussion). O n the contrary, the types o f interventions that (to date) have been m ost con sisten tly effective are an ch ored in theories of persisten t o ffend ing as an acquired pattern of behaviour. Jud ging by the data obtained from longitudinal studies, such a pattern is often linked to other difficulties in individuals' lives. T h e m ost prom inent explanatory m odel is cognitive social learning theory and its variants, w hich are integrated in a broader account that also identifies the role of environm ental and societal variables (M cG uire 2004). The theoretical concepts un derp in ning this are w holly distinct from those o f rational choice theory, w hich Kem shall (2002: 48) m istakenly describes as the 'cornerstone' of cognitivebehavioural program m es. 270

Is research w orking? Revisiting the research and effective practice agenda

For structured offend ing behaviour program m es to be accepted for dissem ination by the Correctional Services A ccreditation Panel, they had to be accom panied by a 'theory m anual' specifying the ways in w hich the m ethods em ployed in a program m e w ere hypothesized to engen der change in participants. This stipulation is not congru ent with a view that such initiatives are ju dged solely by their capacity to produce results, in th e absence of any understand ing of how that will occur, and 'w h y' an intervention 'w orks'. A further oddity w ithin this is that am idst the objections that are often raised against structured program m es, m any authors unquestioningly endorse the use of pro-social m odelling (Trotter 2000), w hich is the subject of alm ost ubiquitous approval. B u t th e con cept of pro-social m odelling also derives from social learning theory, ju st like the m uch less w holesom e program m es, and has been consistently recom m ended as an essential elem ent of interactions both in program m e delivery and other encounters betw een practitioners and their clients.

T h e ‘denial’ of diversity A nother prevailing m isconception is that structured program m es are only suitable for w hite adult m ale populations, and it has been widely presum ed that they w ere designed m ainly with that group in mind. C ertainly, as m ost program m es stand they are not available in a m ultiplicity of form s tailored for different sections of the com m unity. O n the other hand, program m es are generally designed to incorporate th e principle of responsivihj, w hereby the detailed w ays in w hich sessions are run should be adapted to the need s o f those participating (Andrews 1995, 2001). Kem shall, C anton and Bailey (2004) protest that this sim ply displaces the onus to take action onto the individual practitioner's skill and com petence. But m any of the research studies on w hich 'w h at works' recom m en­ dations are based w ere carried ou t w ith sam ples that included m em bers of different ethnic groups. T h at is scarcely surprising as th e m ajority of the studies w ere done in the USA w here A frican A m ericans and other m inorities are disproportionately represented in the crim inal justice system (M iller 1996). Several m eta-analyses have been reported on the differential effects of key dem ographic variables on the outcom es o f structured interventions. W ith regard to age, Cleland et al (1997) found that there w ere larger effect sizes for adolescent than adult offenders, w ith w eaker effects for you ng adults. B u t cum ulatively, the evidence to date indicates that sim ilar basic approaches w ork across diverse populations. O n gender, D ow den and 271

C om m u n ity Justice

A ndrew s (1999) discovered that the 'h u m an service principles' advocated as yielding the strongest effects fo r m ale o ffend ers w ere equally applicable to fem ales. For ethnicity, W ilson, Lipsey and Soydan (2003) analysed outcom es from 305 studies divided according to the proportions of offenders from different ethnic groups. 'M ainstream ' interventions show ed positive effects w ith ethnic m inority participants (on both o ffend ing behaviou r and a range of oth er outcom es) and program m es w ere equally effective regardless of the ethnic group with w hom they w ere used. U ndoubtedly these are aspects of responsivity that require fuller research. B u t there is a difference betw een not having developed exact specifications to ensure that program m es m eet the need s of different sections of th e com m unity, and b ein g 'insensitive' to those needs as alleged by Rex (2001: 70), or attem pting to render diversity 'invisible' as averred by K em shall, C anton and Bailey (2004: 349). As the latter authors adm it, there is virtually no evidence con cern in g differences in needs that could inform such developm ents. For all the furore that has b een raised in con jun ction w ith this issue, it is clear that n eith er research nor practice in either crim inal ju stice or social w ork had previously done m uch that w as m eaningful to address it, b u t it has b een a v eiy useful stick with w hich to beat the installation o f program m es. Even w ere that not the case, if in England and W ales m ost 'volum e crim e' is com m itted by you ng w hite m ales, w ho thereby form the m ajority of the repeat offend er population, w ould it not be at least defensible to have begu n w ith activities that w ere ju d g ed usable with that group? M ore recently, specific recom m endations have been m ade con cern in g adaptations that m ay be required for w ork with black offenders and w om en offenders. For the form er it is im portant to acknow ledge the com plex links that m ay exist betw een experiences of discrim ination and offending (D urrance and W illiam s 2003, Kem shall, C anton and Bailey 2004). For the latter it is proposed that there m ay be aspects of b oth dynam ic risk factors and responsivity that previous interventions have failed to encom pass (H arper et al 2004). W ith reference to the separate issue o f th e literacy d em ands of the offend ing behaviou r program m es in m ost w idespread current use, Davies et al (2004) have exam ined the m aterials in som e depth, and the N ational P robation Service's C h an ge C ontrol Panel has stipulated am endm ents that need to be m ade to address the points so raised. These initiatives have proceeded at different rates, w hich w ith reference to som e projects could have been faster, but the processes involved have often entailed w ide consultation. The con tention that the underlying m ission that propels the use of structured program m es is one of social exclusion (Kem shall 2002) is hard to reconcile with the considerable 272

Is research w orking? Revisiting the research and effective practice agenda

efforts that have been m ade to adapt program m es for a variety of client needs.

C ultural and ideological resistance As previous sections have show n, there m ay be several legitim ate and w ell-founded criticism s to m ake of the dissem ination of research-based practice in probation, m ost forcefully w ith respect to the speed, scale and m an ner of im plem entation, and range of applicability of w hat was know n. B u t beyond th e kinds of objections ju st listed, there are others that stem from a deeper opposition th at m ight best be called cultural or ideological resistance. T hey revolve around the notion that the back­ ground research has been seized up on and has becom e a tool in the hands of the state in its efforts to control th e population, and variations on that them e. T here are several separate but intercon nected features of this. Individual ‘versus ’ socia l factors

O n e m u ch-rehearsed starting point for dismissal of interventions that focus on helping offenders to chang e is that they address internal, intra­ individual processes and actions. T hat is often taken to im ply th at they locate th e causes of crim e entirely w ithin persons. Such a stance is in turn equated w ith ignoring the environm ental, structural and political forces that contribute to crim e, a fatal flaw that from the standp oint of those w ho understand crim e purely as a socially d eterm ined phen om enon, autom atically discredits the w hole enterprise. H ow ever, the insistence that attem pting to w ork w ith individuals m eans that their backgrounds have no relevance is sim ply invalid. In the explanatory m odels on w hich effective interventions are based , crim e is conceptualized as a net product o f m any factors: not only w ithin individuals, b u t also in their im m ediate circum stances, life histories, and w ider social environm ents (A ndrew s and Bonta 2003, iMcGuire 2004). Yet it is individuals w ho are found guilty of crim es; and historically, the function of the probation service has b een to supervise those w ho have com m unity sentences im posed on them as a result. Its capacity to reach m uch beyond this is very lim ited. G iven convincing evidence that re­ o ffend ing is associated with the experience o f other kinds of difficulties and w ith unsuccessful efforts to deal w ith them (see, for exam ple, Z am ble and Q uinsey 1997), there is am ple justification for offering, even m andating, the m ost appropriate and best validated form s of help. O ther kinds of preventive w ork are invaluable, w ithin schools, fam ilies and 273

C om m u n ity Justice

com m unities (Farrington and Coid 2003, M cG uire 2002, Sherm an et al 2002), but those tasks are d one by o ther agencies. Because a particular kind of w o rk is focused on a sp ecific o b jectiv e th at is a given organization's rem it does not m ean that o ther facets of the total picture are considered im m aterial. In other words, as Raynor (2004b) aptly notes, it is a false dichotom y to suggest th at researching how better to w ork w ith individuals or engaging in practice inform ed by that research ipso facto constitutes a rejection of the im portance of social change. Pursuing one is not incom patible with advocating the other. To the extent that social factors play a part in crim e, there is unquestionable justification for taking action to address them . W heth er that can be accom plished from w ithin the probation service m ight be a different m atter, and raises fundam ental questions regarding its role as crim inal ju stice agency. Technicality

Som e critics have expressed fears that the ad vent of 'program m ing' m eans that there has been a significant shift in the role of the probation officer, w hose interpersonal and social w ork skills are devalued as a result. For Robinson (2001: 243) this is m anifested in a gradual trend aw ay from the 'ind eterm inacy' of the practice of the autonom ous professional to a situation w here m any m ore tasks are m arked by the 'technicality' of fixed routines. This term inology is adapted from Jam ous and Peloille (1970, cited in Robinson 2001), w ho hypothesize that there is an inverse relationship betw een these two features of occupations. In a position w here all tasks are prescribed, and 'treatm en t integrity' is m onitored, practitioner ind ep en d en ce is thereby underm ined. T hat in turn is a com ponent of a general m ovem ent tow ards m anagerialism and the furtive w idening of state power. But it is difficult to see w hy increased technicality should be thou ght to d em ean professionalism or reduce status. T h e m ost prestigious (and on average, m ost highly paid) profession th ere is, m ed icin e, is associated w ith a h ig h level of technicality, som e exceedingly routinized tasks alongside a sizeable am ou nt of indeterm inacy. T h e history o f professions show s that they establish them selves by dem arcating areas o f specialized know ledge and skill (Johnson 1972). It m ay be a m ore pow erful argum ent to suggest that probation should inv ent a novel and potentially m ore advantageous balance betw een autonom y, discretion and technicality. A sim ilar approach has b een well rehearsed by G endreau and his colleagues (2002), w ho have urged that crim inal ju stice agencies should em ploy 'cred entialled people', by w hich they m ean individuals w ith appropriate qualifications in relevant social 274

Is research w orking? Revisiting the research and effective practice agenda

sciences. In a recent m eta-analytic review , D ow den and Andrews (2004) have exam ined the im portance of core staff skills and the quality of staffclient relation ships, w hich am o n g o ther factors w ere significantly correlated with outcom e effects. T hese associations em erged m ost clearly am ong interventions that ad hered to the other 'h u m an service principles' proposed by Andrews (1995, 2001) and his co-w orkers. This provides a firm em pirical basis for the claim that staff skills are a crucial ingred ient of effective practice, and am plifies suggestions m ade som e tim e ago by (am ong others) Priestley and M cG uire (1983). C o m m u n ity justice a n d social control

R ecently Kem shall (2002) has argued th at there is a 'h id den agen da' in the drive tow ards effective practice. This is to inculcate a sense of personal accountability w ithin individuals and thereby induce them to be controlled from inside them selves, d oing society's job for it, so to speak. The argum ent draws on the con cept o f the 'responsibilization agenda' borrow ed from Rose (1996, cited in Kem shall 2002). The n et effect of this is to institute a process by w hich the w ork of the state can be done, as it were at arm 's length. H ence structured program m es like 'T h in k First' are intend ed primarily as a form of 'm oral engin eering' (Kem shall 2002: 51), through w hich individuals becom e practised in a process of 'self­ surveillance', m onitoring them selves on a frequent basis to certify they are com plying w ith the law. W hilst there are m any valuable points made in these and other critical papers, this seem s a curious argum ent. First, that it is one objective of structured program m es to secure self-m otivated avoidance of crim e is scarcely 'h id d en '. It is explicitly stated in num erous training m anuals, policy docum ents, and publicity leaflets. Second, has som ething sim ilar not been a key aim of probation for a very long tim e? W ere probation officers of a bygone era sublim ely u n con cern ed w hen those w hom they sought to 'advise, assist and befriend' felt better, but kept turning up in court? A ccom panying the traditional social w elfare objectives of proba­ tion there was an assum ption that helping to im prove an individual's circum stances w ould facilitate personal change, including a greater likelihood of staying out of trouble w ith th e law. A ccording to the studies of Rex (1999), based on fieldw ork carried out in 1994 (well before the Effective Practice Initiative), supervisory activity was replete with discourse con cern in g m aturity, individual autonom y, or appealing to a sense of responsibility. It is sim ilarly esp ou sed in the projected new paradigm of 'd esistan ce-focused ' probation. Is entertaining such thoughts not a form of self-surveillance? Third, it is through a protracted process partak in g of som e featu res of self-su rv eillance th at citizens pass 275

C om m unity Justice

exam inations, secure university degrees, stick at jobs and, am ong other possible options, becom e professors of crim inal ju stice. If this helps people to succeed in life, is it not w orth im parting to others? The discovery that societies seek to instil self-control in their citizens is usually attributed to Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), so it is hardly new ; nor is it especially well hidden. Expanding on this con cept, Kem shall (2002) depicts the probation service as a key agency of social control. A ccording to the British Crim e Survey, in 2003 there w ere 11.7 m illion crim es com m itted in England and W ales, 5.9 million of them officially recorded (H om e O ffice 2005a). Just over tw o m illion people w ere prosecuted, of w hom 107,000 were sen tenced to custody, and 191,000 given com m unity sentences. A m ong the latter, 35,270 w ere placed on offend in g behaviour program m es, with only 13,136 com pleting them (N ational Probation Service 2004; note that these figures relate to the fiscal year 2003-2004). But w hereas those im prisoned served an average of 12.6 m onths fully deprived of their liberty, attendance at even the m ost d em and in g probation program m e entails a total of three days (72 hours) of contact time. Finally, taking the financial year 2000-2001 as an exam ple, probation services accounted for ju st 4.5 per cen t of expenditure on the crim inal ju stice system (Home O ffice 2005b). It is difficult to see how these figures correspond to KemshaU's (2002) O rw ellian vision. A lthough a character in The Archers radio series was given a com m unity sen tence with a requirem ent to attend an offend ing behaviou r program m e, there is a long way to go before such happenings attain the potency of D artm oor Prison in the collective im agination. H a rsh e r p e n a l environm ent

For other writers, the sequelae of applying conclusions based on 'w hat works' literature is a net increase in repressiveness. Boone (2004) has argued that the research findings have been readily taken up because they converge w ith a utilitarian approach to penology that conveniently serves the interests of the m odern state. Proponents of rehabilitation were assim ilated into this, inadvertently providing governm ents w ith a new apparatus for social control. In countries such as the UK and the N eth erlan d s this w as acco m p an ied by increases in the nu m bers sen tenced to prison. Boone argues that that was no coincidence, and through a subtle conflation of argum ent casts not only usage of the research, but the research itself as sinister. Yet review ers of it (Andrews 1995, A ndrew s and Bonta 2003, G endreau 1996, M cG uire 1995b, 2004, M cG uire and Priestley 1985) have often also adduced evidence that punitive sanctions are valueless, attem pting to do so on scientific grounds 276

Is research w orking? Revisiting the research and effective practice agenda

becau se of a (possibly naive) belief that this would be m uch harder to dispose of than an ideological challenge. W ith reference to increasing punitiveness, m any factors influence the rate of im prisonm ent in a society. M ost observers ascribe the upturn in its use in England and W ales to the im pact of the horrific m urder of Jam ie Bulger in 1993. The prison population was certainly rising steadily for som e tim e before the advent of effective practice and allied initiatives. Across those countries w here outcom e research has had som e prom i­ n ence there are large variations in rates of im prisonm ent. In England and W ales, the new Crim inal Justice Act (2003) incorporates m any changes th at if p rop erly im p lem en ted should h elp to red u ce the prison population (Taylor, W asik and L en g 2004).

Conclusion All of these challenges notw ithstanding, evidence-based crim inal ju stice has becom e influential in a n u m ber o f countries. It is no longer restricted to those places in w hich the original research to evaluate interventions was carried out. To date, its propagation could be said to have had a prim arily 'N orth A tlantic' em phasis, reflecting developm ents m ainly in the U nited K ingdom and Canada. D espite the fact that the bulk of the research findings em anated from the U nited States, for various reasons take-up there has been m ore sporadic. Is this w ork culture-bound to these locations, and unsuitable for application elsew here? Certainly in the research published to date, English is the dom inant language and m ost studies and changes in practice have been situated in the ju stice system s of A nglophone nations. But in the largest m eta­ analysis so far conducted, the CDATE project, am ong nearly 10,000 docum ents collected, 14 languages oth er than English w ere represented (Lipton et al 2002). The research base, thou gh predom inantly N orth A m erican, is by no m eans exclusively so (Redondo, Sanchez-M eca and G arrido 2002). Projects based on the findings, som etim es at local and som etim es at governm ental level, have been instigated in a nu m ber of countries including Ireland, Sw eden, N orw ay, Finland, N etherlands, G erm any, Spain, Israel, H ong Kong, Australia and N ew Zealand. All of those are of course industrial, high technology, w esternized countries. G iven global diversity in language, culture, beliefs, and com m unity, not to m ention crim inal justice system s, there are limits to how far any findings in social science are likely to be dissem inated and applied.

277

C o m m u n it y Justice

R e fe re n c e s Andrews, D.A. (1995) 'T h e Psychology of Crim inal Conduct and Effective Treatm ent', in J. McGuire (ed.), What Works: Reducing Re-offending: Guidelines from Research and Practice. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 35-62. Andrews, D.A. (2001) 'Principles of Effective Correctional Programs', in L.L. Motiuk and R.C. Serin (eds), Compendium 2000 on Effective Correctional Programming. Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada, pp. 9-17. Andrews, D.A. and Bonta, J. (2003) The Psychology o f Criminal Conduct, 3rd edition. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co. Audit Commission (1989) The Probation Service: Promoting Value fo r Money. Abingdon: Audit Commission Publications. Barker, C„ Pistrang, N. and Elliott, R. (2002) Research Methods in Clinical Psychology: An Introduction fo r Students and Practitioners. Chichester: John W iley and Sons. Barlow, D.H., Hayes, S.C. and Nelson, R.O. (1984) The Scientist Practitioner: Research and Accountability in Clinical and Educational Settings. New York: Pergamon. Bernfeld, G.A., Blase, K.A. and Fixsen, D.L. (1990) 'Towards a Unified Perspective on Human Service Delivery Systems: Application of the Teaching-family Model', in R.J. M cM ahon and R. DeV. Peters (eds), Behavioral Disorders o f Adolescence. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 191-205. Bem feld, G.A., Farrington, D.P. and Leschied, A.W. (eds) (2001) Offender Rehabilitation in Practice: Implementing and Evaluating Effective Programs. Chichester: John W iley and Sons. Boone, M. (2004) Does What Works Lead to Less Repression? The Justification o f Punishment According to What Works. Paper given at the Societies of Criminology 1st Key Issues Conference, Paris. Bottoms, A. and McWilliams, W. (1979) 'A Non-treatment Paradigm for Probation Practice', British journal o f Social Work, 9: 159-202. Bottoms, A„ Rex, S. and Robinson, G. (2004) 'How Did We Get Here?', in A. Bottoms, S. Rex and G. Robinson (eds), Alternatives to Prison: Options for an Insecure Society. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, pp. 1-27. Brody, S. (1976) The Effectiveness o f Sentencing, Home Office Research Study 35. London: HMSO. Chapman, T. and Hough, M. (1998) Evidence Based Practice: A Guide to Effective Practice. London: Home Office. Cleland, C.M., Pearson, F.S., Lipton, D.S. and Yee, D. (1997) 'D oes Age M ake a Difference? A Meta-analytic Approach to Reductions in Criminal O ffending for Juveniles and Adults'. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, San Diego, California. Davies, K , Lewis, J., Byatt, J., Purvis, E. and Cole, B. (2004) An Evaluation o f the Literacy Demands o f General Offending Belwviour Programmes, Findings 233. London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. Debidin, M. and Lovbakke, J. (2005) 'O ffending Behaviour Programmes in Prison and Probation', in G. Harper and C. Chitty (eds), The Impact o f Corrections on Re­ offending: A Review o f 'What Works', Home Office Research Study 291. 2nd edition London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, pp. 3 1 54. Dowden, C. and Andrews, D.A. (1999) 'W hat Works for Female Offenders: A Metaanalytic Review', Crime and Delinquency, 45: 438^152. Dowden, C. and Andrews, D.A. (2004) 'The Importance of Staff Practice in 278

Is re se a rc h w o r k in g ? R e v isitin g t h e re s e a rc h a n d effective p ra ctice a g e n d a

D elivering Effective Correctional Treatm ent: A M eta-analytic Review of Core Correctional Practice', International Journal o f Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48: 203-214. D urrance, P. and Williams, P. (2003) 'B road ening the Agenda Around W hat Works for Black and Asian O ffenders', Probation Journal, 50: 211-224. Farrington, D.P. and Coid, J.W . (eds) (2003) Early Prevention o f Adult Antisocial Behaviour. Cam bridge: Cam bridge University Press. Farrington, D.P. and Petrosino, A. (2001) 'T h e Cam pbell Collaboration Crim e and Justice C rou p ', Annals o f the American Academ y o f Political and Social Science, 578: 35-49. Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth o f the Prison. H arm ondsw orth: Peregrine Books. Gaes, G.G. (1998) 'C orrectional Treatm ent', in M. Tonry (ed.), The Handbook o f Crim e and Punishment. Oxford: Oxford U niversity Press, pp. 712-738. G endreau, P. (1996) 'T h e Principles of Effective Intervention w ith O ffenders', in A.T. Harland (ed.), Choosing Correctional Options That Work: D efining the D em and and Evaluating the Supply. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 117-130. G endreau, P., Goggin, C., Cullen, F.T. and Paparazzi, M. (2002) 'T h e Com m on-sense Revolution and Correctional Policy7, in J. M cG uire (ed.) Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment: Effective Programmes and Policies to Reduce Re-Offending. Chichester: Jo h n W iley and Sons, pp. 359-386. G endreau, P., Goggin, C. and Sm ith, P. (1999) 'T h e Forgotten Issue in Effective C orrectional T reatm en t: Program Im p lem en tation ', International Journal o f O ffender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43: 180-187. G endreau, P. and Ross, R.R. (1980) 'Effective Correctional Treatm ent: Bibliotherapy for Cynics', in R.R. Ross and P. G endreau (eds), Effective Correctional Treatment Toronto: Butterw orths, pp. 3-36. G endreau, P. and Ross, R.R. (1987) 'Revivification of Rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s', Justice Quarterly, 4: 349^107. Goldblatt, P. and Lewis, C. (1998) Reducing Offending: An Assessm ent o f Research Evidence on Ways o f D ealing with Offending Behaviour, Home O ffice Research Study 187. London: H om e Office. H arper, G., Taylor, S., M an, L-H. and N iven, S. (2004) 'Factors Associated w ith O ffending', in G. H arper and C. Chitty (eds), The Impact o f Corrections on Re­ offending: A Reviezv o f 'What Works', H om e O ffice Research Study 291. London: H om e O ffice Research, D evelopm ent and Statistics Directorate, pp. 17-30. H arris, P. and Sm ith , S. (1996) 'D e v e lo p in g C om m u n ity C orrectio n s: An Im plem entation Perspective', in A.T. Harland (ed.), Choosing Correctional Options That Work: D efining the Demand and Evaluating the Supply. Thousand O aks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 183-222. H ollin, C.R., M cG uire, J., Palm er, E., Bilby, C., Hatcher, R. and H olm es, A. (2002) Introducing Pathfinder Programmes to the Probation Service, H om e O ffice Research Study 247. London: Hom e Office. H ollin, C.R., Palm er, E.J., M cG uire, J., H ounsom e, J., H atcher, R., Bilby, C. and Clark, C. (2004) Pathfinder Programmes in the Probation Service: A Retrospective Analysis, H om e O ffice O n-L ine Report 66/04. London: H om e O ffice Research, Develop­ m ent and Statistics Directorate. H om e O ffice (2005a) Sentencing Statistics 2003, England and Wales. London: Home O ffice Research, D evelopm ent and Statistics Directorate. H om e O ffice (2005b) A Guide to the Criminal lustice System in England and Wales. 279

C o m m u n it y Justice

London: Home Office Research, Developm ent and Statistics Directorate. Johnson, T.J. (1972) Professions and Power. London: Macmillan. Kemshall, H. (2002) 'Effective Practice in Probation: An Example of "Advanced Liberal" Responsibilisation?', Howard Journal o f Criminal Justice, 41: 41-58. Kemshall, H., Canton, R. and Bailey, R. (2004) 'Dimensions of Difference', in A. Bottoms, S. Rex and G. Robinson (eds), Alternatives to Prison: Options for an Insecure Society. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, pp. 341-365. Leschied, A.W., Bem feld, G.A. and Farrington, D.P. (2001) 'Im plem entation Issues', in G.A. Bem feld, D.P. Farrington and A.W. Leschied (eds), Offender Rehabilitation in Practice: Implementing and Evaluating Effective Programs. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 3-19. Lewis, S., Maguire, M., Raynor, P., Vanstone, M. and Vennard, J. (2003) The Resettlement o f Short-term Prisoners: An Evaluation o f Seven Pathfinder Programmes, Findings 200. London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. Lipsey, M.W. (1995) 'W hat do we Leam from 400 Studies on the Effectiveness of Treatm ent with Juvenile Delinquents?7, in J. McGuire (ed.), What Works: Reducing Re-offending: Guidelines from Research and Practice. Chichester: John W iley and Sons, pp. 63-78. Lipsey, M.W. (1999) 'C an Rehabilitative Programs Reduce the Recidivism of Juvenile Offenders? An Inquiry into the Effectiveness of Practical Programs', Virginia Journal o f Social Policy and the Law, 6: 611-641. Lipton, D.S., Martinson, R. and Wilks, J. (1975) The Effectiveness o f Correctional Treatment: A Survey o f Treatment Evaluation Studies. New York: Praeger. Lipton, D.S., Pearson, F.S., Cleland, C.M. and Yee, D. (2002) 'The Effects of Therapeutic Communities and Milieu Therapy on Recidivism', in J. McGuire (ed.), Offender Reliabilitation and Treatment: Effective Programmes and Policies to Reduce Re-Offending. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, p. 39-77. Lloyd, C., Mair, G. and Hough, M. (1994) Explaining Reconviction Rates: A Critical Analysis, Home Office Research Study 136. London: HMSO. MacKenzie, D.L. (2002) 'Reducing the Criminal Activities of Known Offenders and Delinquents: Crime Prevention in the Courts and Corrections', in L.W. Sherman, D.P. Farrington, B.C. Welsh, and D.L. M acKenzie (eds), Evidence-Based Crime Prevention. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 330-404. Mair, G. (ed.) (2004) 'The Origins of What Works in England and Wales: A House Built on Sand?', in G. M air (ed.), What Matters in Probation. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, pp. 12-33. M artinson, R. (1974) 'W hat Works? Questions and Answers about Prison Reform7, The Public Interest, 10: 22-54. M artinson, R. (1979) 'N ew Findings, N ew Views: A Note of Caution Regarding Sentencing Reform', Hofstra Law Revirw, 7: 243-258. McGuire, J. (ed.) (1995a) What Works: Reducing Re-offending: Guidelines from Research and Practice. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. McGuire, J. (1995b) 'The Failure of Punishm ent', Science and Public Affairs, Winter: 37-40. McGuire, J. (2001) 'D efining Correctional Programs', in L.L. M otiuk and R.C. Serin (eds), Compendium 2000 on Effective Correctional Programming. Ottawa: Correc­ tional Service Canada, pp. 1-8. McGuire, J. (ed.) (2002) Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment: Effective Practice and Policies to Reduce Re-offending. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. 280

Is research w o rk in g ? R evisiting th e re se a rch and effective practice agend a

McGuire, J. (2004) Understanding Psychology and Crime: Perspectives on Theory arid Action. M aidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education. McGuire, J. and Priestley, P. (1985) Offending Behaviour: Skills and Stratagems for Going Straight. London: Batsford. M cGuire, J. and Rowson, B. (cds) (1996) Does Punishment Work? London: Institute for the Study and Treatment of Delinquency. M dvor, G. (1995) 'Practitioner Evaluation in Probation', in J. McGuire (ed.), What Works: Reducing Re-offending: Guidelines from Research and Practice. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 209-219. M cM ahon, G., Hall, A., Hayward, G., Hudson, C. and Roberts, C. (2004) Basic Skills Programmes in the Probation Service: An Evaluation o f the Basic Skills Pathfinder, Findings 203. London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. McMurran, M. and Duggan, C., (2005) 'The Manualisation of O ffender Treatment7, Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 15, pp. 17-27. M errington, S. and Stanley, S. (2000) 'Doubts About the W hat Works Initiative7, Probation Journal, 47: 272-275. M errington, S. and Stanley, S. (2004) 'W hat Works? Revisiting the Evidence in England and Wales', Probation Journal, 51: 7-20. Miller, J.G. (1996) Search and Destroy: African-American Males in the Criminal Justice System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. M otiuk, L.L. and Serin, R.C. (eds) (2001) Compendium 2000 on Effective Correctional Programming. Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada. National Probation Service (2004) Annual Report for Accredited Programmes 2003-2004. London: National Probation Service for England and Wales. Ogloff, J.R.P. and Davis, M.R. (2004) 'Advances in Offender Assessment and Rehabilitation: Contributions of the Risk-needs-responsivity Approach', Psychol­ ogy, Crime and Law, 10: 229-242. Palmer, T. (1996) 'Programmatic and Nonprogrammatic Aspects of Successful Intervention7, in A.T. Harland (ed.), Choosing Correctional Options That Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating the Supply. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 131-182. Pilgrim, D. and Treacher, A. (1992) Clinical Psychology Obseri’ed. London: Routledge. Priestley, P. and M cGuire, J. (1983) Learning to Help: Basic Skills Exercises. London: Tavistock. Raynor, P. (2004a) 'Rehabilitative and Reintegrative Approaches', in A. Bottoms, S. Rex and G. Robinson (eds), Alternatives to Prison: Options fo r an Insecure Society. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, pp. 195-223. Raynor, P. (2004b) 'Seven Ways to Misunderstand Evidence-based Probation', in D. Smith (ed.), Social Work and Evidence-Based Practice. London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, pp. 161-178. Raynor, P. and Vanstone, M. (1994) 'Probation Practice, Effectiveness and the N on­ treatment Paradigm7, British Journal o f Social Work, 24: 387-404. Redondo, S., Sanchez-M eca, J. and Garrido, V. (2002) 'Crim e Treatment in Europe: A Review of Outcom e Studies', in J. M cGuire (ed.), Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment: Effective Programmes and Policies to Reduce Re-offending. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 113-141. Rex, S. (1999) 'Desistance from Offending: Experiences of Probation7, Howard Journal o f Criminal Justice, 38: 366-383. Rex, S. (2001) 'Beyond Cognitive-behaviouralism? Reflections on the Effectiveness 281

C o m m u n it y Justice

Literature', in A. Bottoms, L. Gelsthorpe, and S. Rex (eds), Community Penalties: Change and Challenges. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, pp. 67-86. Rex, S., Gelsthorpe, L., Roberts, C. and Jordan, P. (2004) What's Promising in Community Service: Implementation o f Seven Pathfinder Projects, Findings 231. London: Home Office Research, Developm ent and Statistics Directorate. Roberts, C. (1995) 'Effective Practice and Service Delivery', in J. M cGuire (ed.), What Works: Reducing Re-offending: Guidelines from Research and Practice. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 221-236. Robinson, G. (2001) 'Power, Knowledge, and "W hat W orks" in Probation', Howard Journal o f Criminal Justice, 40: 235-254. Rowson, B. and McGuire, J. (eds) (1991) What Works: Effective Methods to Reduce Re­ offending. M anchester: What Works Planning Group. Rowson, B. and McGuire, J. (eds) (1996) What Works: Making it Happen. M anchester: W hat Works Planning Group. Sherm an, L.W., Farrington, D.P., Welsh, B.C. and MacKenzie, D.L. (eds) (2002) Evidence-Based Crime Prevention. London and New York: Routledge. Taylor, R., Wasik, M. and Leng, R. (2004) Blackstone's Guide to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Trotter, C. (2000) 'Social Work Education, Pro-social Orientation and Effective Probation Practice', Probation Journal, 47: 256-261. Underdown, A. (1998) Strategies fo r Effective Offender Supervision: Report o f the HMIP What Works Project. London: Home Office. Vanstone, M. (2000) 'Cognitive-behavioural Work with Offenders in the UK: A History of Influential Endeavour', Howard Journal o f Criminal Justice, 39: 171-183. Vennard, J., Sugg, D. and Hedderman, C. (1997) Changing Offenders' Attitudes and Behaviour: What Works? Home Office Research Study 171. London: HMSO. Von Hirsch, A. (1976) Doing Justice: The Choice o f Punishments. Report o f the Committee for the Study o f Incarceration. New York: Hill and Wang. Wacquant, L. (2005) 'The Great Penal Leap Backward: Incarceration in America from Nixon to Clinton', in J. Pratt, D. Brown, M. Brown, S. Hallsworth and W. Morrison (eds), The New Punitiveness: Trends, Theories, Perspectives. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, pp. 3-26. Walker, N. (1991) Why Punish? Theories o f Punishment Reassessed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilson, S.J., Lipsey, M.W. and Soydan, H. (2003) 'Are Mainstream Programs for Juvenile Delinquency Less Effective with Minority Youth than Majority Youth? A Meta-analysis of Outcomes Research', Research on Social Work Practice, 13: 3-26. Zamble, E. and Quinsey, V. (1997) The Criminal Recidivism Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zimring, F.E. and Hawkins, G. (1994) 'The Growth of Imprisonment in California', British Journal o f Criminology, 34 (Special Issue): pp. 83-96.

282

C h ap ter 16

Com m unity justice in a safety culture: probation service and community justice in the Netherlands Miranda Boone

It seems rather ironic to be asked for 'the Dutch perspective' in a predom inantly British book on com m unity justice. After all, most of the D utch developm ents in this field were inspired by the British (and Canadian) model. O ne could even argue that this already started with the foundation in 1823 of the Dutch Fellowship for Moral Reform ation of Prisoners (Het Nederlands Genootschap tot Zedelijke Verbetering der Gevangenen), an event that was undeniably influenced by the establishm ent of the British Society for the Reformation of Prison Discipline and the Reform ation of Juvenile O ffenders' in 1816. The British reader therefore will have a feeling of déjà vu som etim es, although some of the developm ents I describe are typical for the pragmatic Dutch law culture that so easily leads to indifference (Van de Bunt and Leuw 1995, Van Koppen 2003). On the other hand, some of the developm ents in the field of com m unity justice that are already fully im plem ented in the United Kingdom, for example W hat W orks, have only ju st started in the Netherlands. In this contribution I will describe recent history of both com munity sentences and the probation service in the N etherlands. Although these developm ents could also be analysed apart from each other, the interesting aspect they have in com m on is their em phasis on quantity instead of quality. Above all, com m unity sentences have becom e - at least on a macro level - the cheapest way to express and expand the culture of safety that has also infected the N etherlands. The probation service has been pushed to becom e part of the criminal justice system 283

C om m u n ity Justice

and in that position it is expected in particular to 'p rod u ce' as m any social enquiry reports on offenders and to carry out as m any com m unity service orders as possible. In this contribution I will d efend the point of view that the em phasis on quantitative grow th has had the consequence that serious rehabilitation efforts are reserved for a m otivated category of offenders that already have good perspectives to succeed. I will illustrate this w ith the outcom es of a research project on the probation service and ethnic m inorities. C om m unity sanctions are defined as those sanctions or part of sanctions that are carried out in the com m unity and contain a restriction of liberty because certain obligations or restrictions are im posed on the offender. A lthough probation in the N etherlands is com prised of different organizations and has had different nam es, I will sim ply refer to it as the probation service.

C o m m u n ity sentences: expansion in a punitive society The renew ed topic was intensiv ely discussed at the end of the nineteenth century on the initiative of the Internationale Krim inalistische Vereinigung debate on com m unity sentences as an alternative to prison sen tences started in the m id-1960s. T he term s in w hich the topic was discussed w ere typical for that era. Retribution as an aim of pu nishm ent was heavily rejected and there was w idespread belief th at both society and the d elinqu ent profited from the rehabilitation of the offender. Behavioural changes and conflict solution were seen as the m ost im portant goals of crim inal justice intervention, goals to w hich a prison sentence did not contribute at all. O n the contrary, exclusion and stigm atization were seen as harm ful side-effects of the prison sentence, that qualified it as an inhu m ane reaction that should only be used very selectively. Besides financial penalties and increased use of suspended sentences, unpaid labour for the sake of the com m unity was proposed as an alternative for im prisonm ent (Com m issie V erm ogensstraffen, 1969, 1972, M ulder and Schootstra 1974). Its alternative character was taken very seriously. The im position of unpaid labour was allow ed only u n d er the condition that it was 'alm ost certainly applied as an alternative for a short prison sen tence' (Com m issie A lternatieve Strafrechtelijke Sancties 1979). This condition can be characterized as rather naive since the first evaluation of the British com m unity service order show ed that this sentence replaced prison in only 4 0 -5 0 p er cent of the cases (Pease, Billingham and Earnshaw 1977), a fact that the com m ittee that prepared 284

C om m u n ity justice in a safety culture

the introduction of the D utch com m unity service order was inform ed about (Com m issie A lternatieve Strafrechtelijke Sancties 1979). Tim es had changed as the first experim ents w ith unpaid labour finally started in the begin n in g of the 1980s. Prison rates had started to rise and for the first tim e the D utch governm ent was confronted with a lack of prison capacity. From that tim e onw ards o th er argum en ts in favour of com m u nity sen ten cin g w ere also brou ght into the discussion, the shortage of cells in particular. Soon after its official introd uction in the sanction system , the im plem entation of unpaid labour increased dram atically. In the first year of its existence (1981) only 213 unpaid labour penalties were enforced; by 1985 this had increased to alm ost 3,000, and now adays alm ost 31,000 w ork sentences p er year are applied on adults alone. Very rapidly, it also becam e clear that the sen tence was not solely applied as an alternative for prison. Research indicated that offenders on w hom unpaid labour was im posed show ed m ore sim ilarities w ith offenders on suspend ed sentences than w ith offenders on w hom an unconditional prison sen tence was im posed (Spaans 1995). From the political corner, h o w ev er, n o one seem ed to be p articu larly w orried ab o u t this d evelopm ent, on the contrary, the spectacular grow th of unpaid labour w as seen as a sign of its success. This particularly becam e clear from the influential policy d o cu m ent Society and C rim inality (Sam enleving en Criminaliteit, M inisterie van Justitie 1985), w hich states that the aim is to expand unpaid labour up to 4,000 cases p er year. Sim ilar aims are expressed in the subsequent policy d ocum ent, justice on the M ove (Recht in Beweging, M inisterie van Justitie 1990) and in successive explanatory m em oranda on ju stice budgets. W hile net-w iden in g effects w ere initially rejected , com m unity sen­ tences soon becam e an im portant instrum ent to reinforce the credibility of the crim inal ju stice system . In cases w here a crim inal ju stice response had failed to occur or was considered too w eak, com m unity sentences w ere seen as a cheap and appropriate tool to 'fill up the lack of the crim inal ju stice enforcem ent' (Com m issie H eroverw eging Instrum entarium Rechtshand having 1995). As a result of the quantitative grow th of com m unity sen tences, the original goal, rehabilitation, seem s to have becom e less im portant. Research show s that results from com m unity service orders are not m uch better com pared to prison sen tences (Spaans 1995) in term s of red ucing offending. For a further expansion of com m unity sentences, how ever, it is sufficient that the results are not any w orse eith er (Substitutie van Vrijheidsstraffen, M inisterie van Justitie 1997). After the introduction of unpaid labour as a third form al sen tence (beside prison and financial penalties) in the Penal Code for adults in 1989, public 285

C om m u n ity Justice

dissatisfaction focused on the supposed lack o f a punitive elem ent w ithin com m unity sentences. C om m unity sen tences w ere seen to be too lenient to be im posed, for exam ple, on a d runk driving offender. As a solution for both the quantitative grow th and the dem and for harsher sen tencing in th e com m unity, group projects em erged in w hich offenders had to w ork in the w oods to cut dow n trees, for exam ple. Rehabilitation as an aim of sen ten cin g has since shifted again, this tim e o n to th e u p com ing educational sentences. T he changes that alternative sen tences have undergone are perfectly expressed in the term inology that is used in new legislation: task sentences. This jargon w as already in use in 1996 to note the fact that the alternative period of the sen tence had com e to an end, according to the M inister o f Justice at that tim e (Beleidsnota Taakstraffen 1996: 4). In 2001 the legal fram ew ork o f com m unity sentences changed again, prim arily to enable grow th. Besides the com m u nity service order, educational sentences also obtained a legal basis in the Penal Code. C om binations of com m unity service orders, educational sen tences and prison sentences w ere m ade possible and the m axim um nu m ber of hours that can be im posed was doubled to 480. O n e of the m ost im portant ch an g es u n d er th e new law , how ever, is th e possibility for th e prosecution service to im pose a com m unity sen tence as a condition of a transactie (out-of-court settlem ent by the Public Prosecutor) w ith the offender, a possibility that was still unthinkable under the 1989 Act because of 'th e supposed punitive character of com m unity sentence o rd ers'.1 N ow adays 31,000 com m unity sen tences a year are im posed on adult offenders and another 17,000 on ju ven ile offenders. O nly a small num ber of those are educational sentences: 1,331 for adults in 2003. R ecen t data for youngsters are not available, but the share of educational sentences on the total am ount of com m unity sen tences certainly exceeds that of adults (L eertou w er et al 2004). To accom m odate these large num bers, com m unity service orders are m ainly im plem ented in group projects. Besides, educational program m es are developed by the probation service, w hich can be im plem ented in different judicial m odalities and in different stages of th e crim inal law process. Som e can be im posed as a form al educational sen tence b y the ju dge, others as a special condition o f a suspend ed sentence. For the benefit of the introduction o f W hat W orks in the D utch sanction system (see below ), all existing program m es w ere recently screened in light of a list o f quality criteria. O ne o f the problem s w as that none of the program m es could be ju dged by its effectiveness, sim ply because no evaluative research had been pursued. N evertheless, from the over 200 program m es that w ere developed up and dow n th e cou ntry in recent 286

C om m u n ity justice in a safety culture

years, 25 were selected of w hich 11 can be im posed as a form al sentence by the judge. Those 25 program m es are carried out on a national scale according to uniform guidelines (Boone and Poort 2002). This overview of com m unity sen ten cin g in the N etherlands need s to be supplem ented with one more developm ent. From the m iddle of the 1980s onw ards, alternatives w ere sought not only for the im position of prison sentences, but also for the way in w hich they are carried out. This resu lted in the introd u ction of 'p e n ite n tiary program m es' in the P enitentiary Principles Act 1999. These program m es m ay start a year before the anticipated date of early release and participators effectively leave prison and w ork or follow educational activities d uring the day and stay at hom e in the evenings and at night. As w ith com m unity sentences, application of penitentiary program m es should contribute both to the rehabilitation of the offender and to the reduction of the shortage of cells. From a doctrinal point of view it seem s rather strange that programmes that are quite similar with respect to content, m ust som etim es be considered as a com m unity sentence, som etim es as a prison sentence. To stress the punitive character of penitentiary program m es, electronic m onitoring is almost invariably used to control the prisoner in the first phase of the programm e. A nother difference with com m unity sentences is that the prisoner has to participate in the program m e for the full rem ainder of the prison sentence. In that period they are allowed to work or to follow a rehabilitation program m e, whereas other freedom s are assigned in phases. In 2004, 767 offenders participated in a penitentiary program m e, of w hich 629 w ere (partly) supervised by electronic m on itoring according to the autom atic data system of the probation service on 19 N ovem ber 2004. The fact that these num bers are rather disappointing is mainly attributed to the strict selection procedure and the preference of m any detainees for open prison regim es w ithout electronic m onitoring (Reidnied 2001, Laem ers et al 2001).

T h e D u tch probation service: fro m sandals and w oolly socks to a businesslike organization The introduction of com m unity sen tences in the D utch penal law system has had enorm ous consequ ences for the probation service. From the begin n in g it has been clear that the probation service was the intend ed organization to im plem ent and supervise com m unity sentences. It even seem s plausible that the substitute and rehabilitative character of com m unity sen tences was initially em phasized to convince the probation service of the extent to w hich this extension of tasks fitted its core objectives. That the organization has been under pressure to accept this 287

C om m u n ity Justice

new task becom es clear from the explanatory m em oranda on th e justice budgets in that period. In the B ud get of 1982, threatening phrases w ere uttered: 'in the light of the curren t econom ic situation it has to be considered if certain probation activities can be intensified w hile other, less im portant tasks can be decreased or brought to an en d '.2 A year later th e M inister of Justice concluded with relief: 'A lthough there has been som e hesitations w ithin probation w ith respect to unpaid labour, it seem s to have becom e convinced that this sanction is a good alternative for unconditional im prisonm ent.' Actually, the probation service w as bitterly divided on the issue. In an early letter to the Secretary o f Justice, the organization agreed on preparing and accom p anying unpaid labour, but refused to control and report failures to th e prosecution service.3 Persisting in this refusal, how ever, would have been the starting point o f the d ism antling of the organization (H einrich 1995: 255). So in 1986 th e preparing, im p lem ent­ ing and controlling of unpaid labour was added to the Probation Bill as a n ew task. In a latter stage, th e im p lem en tatio n of p en ite n tiary program m es and the controlling of electronic m onitoring w ere also added to the probation tasks. To understand the prim ary resistance and current situation of the probation service, it m ay be significant to go one step back in history and exam ine the period preceding the introduction o f com m unity sentences, the 1960s and 1970s. Probation w ork had undergone a professional developm ent by that time. Professional schooling of probation w orkers even becam e a condition for governm ent subsidy, a m easure that resulted in a disappearance o f voluntary workers and the education of probation w orkers as social w orkers in so-called 'social academ ies', institutions for the training o f social workers. These academ ies fostered the typical anti-authority m entality o f this era. In addition, they w ere taught that a professional relationship w ith the client need ed a basis of trust, a condition that was difficult to com bine w ith the judicial tasks that require enforcem ent. The changin g attitude towards crim e and the crim inal com plicated the already difficult relationship w ith central governm ent and the position of th e probation service in the crim inal ju stice system even m ore - a relationship that had always b een difficult, given the particular character o f th e probation service (Janse de Jonge 1991, H einrich 1995). C auses for crim e w ere no longer sought in the ind ividu al-psychological circu m stances o f the offend er, but in the structure of society and social circum stances, an analysis that asked for m uch broader action than could be justified by the m uch m ore lim ited goals of the M inistry of Justice (H einrich 1995). N evertheless, the M inistry did accept the m ore autonom ous position of the probation service, resulting in a decrease of supervision tasks and an increase of m eans 288

C o m m u n ity justice in a safety culture

available for care and assistance. To give an exam ple: in ord er to give probation officers full freedom in the shape of the contact w ith their clients, the range of possible conditions that could be linked to a suspended release was reduced to only one, nam ely probation contact, w hatever form that m ight take. A lthough this era in D utch probation history was rather short, it still has a m ajor influence on the character and (self-)im age of probation. From this period also dates the label 'w oollen goat socks organization', an expression that is difficult to translate into English, but raises the im age of an overly lenien t organization w ith too m uch idealism and a shortage of results. B earing this preceding period in m ind, on e can im agine that the hardhanded involvem ent of th e probation service w ith the carrying out of com m unity sentences cam e as a shock for th e organization and most probation w orkers. Still, the full d ep en d en cy o f governm ental subsidies did not give any counteroffensive m uch o f a chance (H einrich 1995). O ne further circum stance contributed to th e vulnerability of the probation service, on e that unfortunately still exists. T h at is the fact that there has never been a serious investigation into th e results of probation w ork in general. T he involvem ent w ith com m unity sentences can be seen as the starting point of increasing governm ental interference; a developm ent that has gathered a great deal of m om entum since. This increasing interference has had two eye-catching consequences: first, the service has changed from a social w elfare organization into one fully m anaged by p rod u ction n u m bers. S eco n d , closely con n ected to th e first, this d evelopm ent caused divisions w ithin the organization, a serious identity crisis from w hich it has not fully recovered. This second developm ent will be discussed below . T he first developm ent is already illustrated by the em phasis on the quantitative grow th of com m unity sen tences as described above. The production-oriented attitude o f the service becom es particularly visible in the characteristics of the reorganization of 1995. Besides an organizational change, this reorganization intend ed to bring about a new m ethod of w orking and a cultural change in th e service. From bein g a social w elfare organization, the probation service was forcibly transform ed into a businesslike organization. T hese efforts w ere m ostly inspired by the need to econom ize. N ot that the con tent o f th e w ork changed , but it had to be perform ed in a m ore efficient way. For this reason, the probation service started to w ork w ith target groups. In the first instance, these target groups also included m ore problem atic categories of offenders, nam ely drug addicts and hom eless offenders. At a latter stage the service w as put u n d er (political) pressure to prefer clients with high potentials above the m ost problem atic groups (N FR 1991). 289

C om m u n ity Justice

The reorganization also resulted in an alteration to the division of the bud get am ong the three m ain tasks of the probation service. M ost m oney w as reserved for com m unity sanctions. T he second m ain task, social enquiry and advice, had to be carried out in a m ore efficient w ay, a goal that could be achieved by introducing structured questionnaires and by strictly adhering to the target group policy. Early interventions were allow ed only if they could contribute to the diagnosis of a client and in cases of crisis-intervention. C ounselling and aftercare had to bear the biggest loss. N ot only did the bud get for these tasks decrease, from now on they had to be carried out in a m u ch m ore structured and efficient fashion. The m ore businesslike w ay o f w orking has becom e m ost visible in the far-reaching autom atic data processing system s that are im plem ented. O ne of them is a registration system , called the C lient Follow System (Client Volg Systeem , CV S), in w hich all activities that are developed w ith probation clients are recorded on a national scale. Even m ore radical has b een the transform ation of the service into an output-guided organization. For this operation it was necessary to classify all probation activities u n d er a restricted n u m ber o f probation products that the M inistry of Justice was prepared to pay for. This resulted in the definition of 11 products, these excluded a n u m ber o f activities that were also im portant in the view of probation officers, for instan ce, offering assistance inside prison, attend ing cases o f clients in court hearings or visiting a dem oralized client to give them support. Subsidy is totally based on the outpu t system . Each year an agreem ent is m ade betw een probation service and the M inistry o f Justice on the num bers of products to be supplied p er year. Those agreem ents m ay not be exceeded. The probation service is paid by the n u m ber o f products produced in one year, m ultiplied by the cost price. T hose agreem ents influence the w hole organization, of course. P roduction num bers are passed on to the different departm ents and also, on a m ore inform al level, to individual probation officers. Because of its predictable consequ ences, the choice for an organization m anaged by production num bers is still difficult to understand. O ne of the few contem porary academ ic writers, w ho publishes on the D utch probation service, G eert van d er Laan w arned back in 1994 that a more businesslike w ay of w orking w ould not lead to a m ore norm ative orientation on probation w ork, as was suggested in the policy docum ents underlying the reorganization. 'To be able to reject behaviou r not only in judicial term s, but also on moral grounds in front of their clients, probation workers n eed to be prepared to take risks and be willing to confront clients w ith their failures', he stated. Therefore they need m anagem ent support. O ne-sided em phasis on output is likely to lead to 290

C o m m u n ity justice in a safety culture

calculation and avoidance of risk. The unw anted con sequ ence of a m arket-oriented organization can be that probation w orkers choose to play it safe: 'as long as I achieve m y production num bers, nobody can criticise m e' (Van der Laan 1994). Such targets have becom e detached from 'd oin g a good jo b ' from a traditional probation point of view. In a volum e published in 1998 on the occasion of the 175th anniversary of the probation service, the authors reached the conclusion that the reorgani­ zation and new m ethod s of w orking had led to an exclusion of problem atic groups of probation clients (Schuyt and K om m er 1998). In the next section I will illustrate how those m ethods of w orking have sim ilar results for clients from ethnic m inorities.

Selectivity as a result: consequences fo r ethnic m inorities T he con sequ ences of the developm ents described above are illustrated by a research project I carried out in 2002 on probation w ork and ethnic m inorities (Boone 2002). I interview ed probation officers, observed interactions betw een probation officers and clients w ith different cultural backgrounds, attended m eetings and studied over 100 pre-sentence reports. T he tw o m ain results w ere that the organization is both less accessible for ethnic m inority clients and offers poorer quality of service to them . In this chapter I will only look at the problem of accessibility, because it is a clear illustration of the consequences of the current organization of probation service. The theoretical fram ew ork used for this study is th e concept of 'street level bureaucracy', a term coined successfully by M ichael Lipsky in 1980 (Lipsky 1980). Typical of such an organization is the intrinsic tension betw een production dem ands of m an agem en t and the desire of officials to give good quality to their individual clients. Lipsky argues that the various ways in w hich officials cope w ith this situation will disadvantage clients of difficult groups. It is no surprise that the transform ation of the probation service into an organization that is assessed only on its production num bers would encourage these harm ful m echanism s. Also, clients deriving from ethnic m inority groups (clients w ere assigned to an ethnic m inority group in cases w here at least one of the parents w as born in a foreign country) are relatively likely to have characteristics that distinguish them as 'problem atic clients'. I will discuss the m ost im portant. Language and cultural context problem s obviously catch the eye. In m ore than half of the conversations I attended, language problem s affected the conversation a great deal. Probation officers do not often m ake use of interpreters or the interpreter's telephone, because according to them , this only w orsens the problem . Besides, language is 291

C om m u n ity Justice

not only a verbal, but also a cultural or contextual skill. For instance, probation officers have considerable difficulty explaining the nature of their w ork to people w ho never heard o f an organization such as the probation service before. Probation officers also tend to use com plicated nam es for other typical Dutch organizations. Som etim es they check that the client understand s the nature of that organization, b u t often that is forgotten as well. In addition, any inform ation the client gives, how ever, m ust be put into the right context. For exam ple, a D utch probation officer will have an im age of a school for children with educational problem s and the consequ ences the attend ance at such a school can have for the social life of a child. H ow ever, understanding the im pact of having attended a K oran school is a different story. Because m ost regular probation officers will not know m uch about such an institution it is hard for them to offer assistance on a sim ilar professional level, for exam ple by asking appropriate questions to get d eep er into the story of the offender. A second factor that com plicates interaction with clients of ethnic m inority groups is the large n u m ber o f suspects denying that they have com m itted the crime. For probation officers, a confession represents an im portant starting point for assistance: 'H o w can I help som ebody to stop re-offend ing if he or she did not do anything (or so they say)?' Results of earlier research also pointed out that suspects from a M oroccan or A ntillean background deny their crim es m ore frequently (Klooster, Van H oek and V an 't H off 1999), although this result is refuted in another stud y (W artna, B eijers and Essers 1999). A third problem is the accessibility of the clients them selves. Clients of the probation service do not shine in reliability and punctuality in general, b u t those deriving from m inority groups are even less likely to keep their appointm ents. This is a problem , because o f the typical D utch m ethod of m aking appointm ents: probation officers invite their clients in w riting and expect them at the office at a fixed time. Finally, it is m uch m ore difficult to m otivate clients for a behavioural skill program m e if their behaviour derives from or is ju stified by standards that differ from those on w hich th e violated rule is based on. This problem expresses itself in particular in cases of dom estic violence. Bearing the theory of 'street level bureaucracies' in m ind, these characteristics arouse the expectation that the probation service is less accessible for clients deriving from ethnic m inority groups, and this turned out to be the case. Typical of early intervention is that the supply of potential clients is alm ost endless. For that reason, probation officers are forced to make choices. Every m orning, inform ation about suspects in custody is faxed to a probation u n it from the nearest police station. Probation officers have to decide w hom they are going to visit. A lthough officially a target group 292

C o m m u n ity justice in a safety culture

policy exists, probation officers use other criteria in practice. Inability to speak D utch, the lack of a residence perm it and denial of the crim e are im portant indications not to offer early intervention. I do not have to point out that all of these factors disadvantage clients of ethnic m inority groups. Probation officers found justifications for those decisions in high production d em ands and the tim e-consum ing adm inistration system. O n e probation officer told me: 'If you visit a client in the police station and you com e to the conclusion that you have no possibility to o ffer an early intervention, you still have to fill in six pages in the adm inistration system . You are better off calling the police and ask w ho's in. Does he adm it it? Does h e speak D utch? O K , in that case I'll com e and visit him .' Denials also influence th e decision o f probation officers to write a social enquiry report. M any probation officers refuse to w rite an enquiry report about offenders w ho do not confess they have com m itted the crim e. A lternatively they m ay w rite a report about the social circum ­ stances of the offender, but refuse to advise the ju d g e about the m ost appropriate penalty; as a con sequ ence of th e ju d g e not being offered an alternative, it is m ore likely that a prison sen tence will be im posed. These attitudes disadvantage clients deriving from ethnic m inority groups in particular. O ut of a sam ple of 100 social enquiry reports, probation officers gave penalty advice in twice as m any cases of D utch clients as they did in cases concerning ethnic m inority clients. Refusal to confess was the most com m on explanation for the lack of penalty advice given in the enquiry reports. Closer investigation, how ever, show ed that this qualification is very subjective. O n the one hand, the crim e was also (partly) denied in half the cases in th e sam ple w here a penalty advice was given. O n the other hand, in one third of social enquiry reports w hich lacked a penalty advice because of the supposed negation of the client, the client adm itted th e crim e at least partly. Som e training program m es for clients organized by the probation service dem and that participants have control of the D utch language, adm it the offence, are m otivated to chang e their behaviour and are able to keep appointm ents. For som e program m es this is understandable, but for others it seem s m ore logical that participants acquire these very skills during the course. It is obvious that these criteria particularly affect clients of ethnic m inority groups. In th e interview s, probation officers adm itted that they had difficulties in getting this category of offenders accepted for training and treatm ent program m es. If this observation is correct, the conclusion m ust be that 'cream ing' ethnic m inority clients has already becom e institutionalized. The problem s described above are partly com pensated for by the enthusiasm of a group of probation officers w ho are trying to break dow n barriers, despite th e dom ineering production culture. T hey visit clients at 293

C om m u n ity Justice

hom e if they do not appear on their appointm ents, com m u nicate with offenders and their fam ilies in all possible w ays, and try to find ways of helping offenders, even those w ho do not fully adm it th e offence. H ow ever, the organization does not rew ard or facilitate these extra efforts. Instead, they m ay be disciplined for failing to achieve their production target.

Recent developm ents: W h a t W o r k s and m o re econom ics T he state of affairs so far is that com m unity justice in the N etherlands has expanded enorm ously, but m ost of all in a quantitative way. T h e increase in com m unity sentences is closely connected to the recent history of the probation service and in this organization a m ajor em phasis on production num bers has becom e visible in recent years. A lthough on a local level new program m es are continually being invented of w hich the creators are convinced of their rehabilitative potential, on a national level rehabilitation is no longer seen as the m ajor goal o f com m unity sentencing and probation activities. This conclusion can be derived from the fact that proper research on good practices o f probation has hardly been conducted in the N etherlands, and disappointing results on the effects of, for instance, com m unity service orders have never stood in the way of more growth. O f course, the search for effective interventions was encouraged, but even w ithout those effects, com m unity sentencing was seen as a visible and not too expensive governm ental reaction to crim e, particularly in cases w here a visible reaction had been lacking before. Considered in this way, both com m unity sentences and probation activities have contributed particularly to the security doctrine that has becom e dom inant in the N etherlands (Van Sw aaningen 2004, Pakes 2004). As already indicated, the grow ing interference of governm ent w ith probation and its transform ation into an output-guided organization has burdened the probation service w ith b oth a serious im age problem and an identity crisis. Since its establishm ent, bu t m ost particularly in th e era preceding the introduction of com m unity sentences, the probation service profile rested heavily on support for, even solidarity w ith, the offender. Interventions w ere aim ed prim arily at the w ell-being of offenders. As a result of the increasing interference of governm ent, the probation service was confronted w ith the question of priorities: w as it w orking for the offend er or the M inistry of Justice (Van Sw aaningen 1995, B oon e and U it Beijerse 1995)? As can be read in successive annual reports (SRN 2001, 2002), the answ er of probation service has been: for the benefit of society's. Its m ain aim is not the rehabilitation of the offender, but the contribution to the safety of society. A lthough both the 294

Com m unity justice in a safety culture

offender and society can be served by dim inishing recidivism, this is, of course, an important change of perspective, one that not only does not distinguish probation from the other organizations in the criminal justice system, but is not understood very well both inside and outside the organization. O utside the organization, criticism is threefold. First, that the probation service has simply betrayed its roots and its traditional solidarity with the offender by becom ing so closely tied to the M inistry of Justice (Janse de Jonge 1993, Van Sw aaningen 1997, Kelk 2004). A second criticism takes issue with the narrow aims of modern probation (reducing recidivism) and questions if any results can be reached by an organization that offers only superficial program m es to relatively privileged groups of clients (Van der Laan 1994, 2004, Ridder-Padt 2002, 2004, De Jonge 2002, Boone 2002, Boone and Poort 2002). And despite all the organizational changes, the service still has to fight the strong public image of the woollen goat sock, at least according to the manager-director in a recent interview (Boone and Poort 2004). W ithin the organization, different categories of probation workers can be distinguished. A first group were educated as social workers, started their career long before the main organizational changes took place and are in general rather bitter and frustrated by the changes and the way they are im plem ented. A second group of probation workers tries to com bine the production dem ands of the organization with their own ideals, without gaining much credit for these extra efforts. And a third, com pliant group com es disturbingly close to the description Van der Laan gave in 1994: meet your targets, avoid criticism. Tn general, however, probation workers com plain about the lack of possibilities they have to give their clients the support they think is necessary to keep them from re-offending (Boone 2002, Ridder-Padt 2002). These criticisms finally resulted in renewed attention to the quality and content of probation work, a change of perspective that will certainly have been stimulated by the exit of the manager-director responsible for the reorganization. This quality-impulse has expressed itself in, for instance, training programmes for probation officers to improve the quality of work with clients from different cultures. M ost important, however, are the development of a diagnostic instrument and a specific method of working for probation officers, 'assisting in an enforcem ent capacity'. A scientific panel of all kind of disciplines supervises both developments. The method of working has recently been laid down in a handbook that has been issued to all probation workers (M enger and Krechtig 2004). The development of a diagnostic instrum ent is part of the introduction of a Dutch version of W hat Works, termed Push Back Recidivism (Terugdringen Recidive), in the Dutch sanction system. As with its Canadian and English 295

C om m unity Justice

counterparts, it aims to treat offenders on m ore scientific grounds, mainly based on the w ork of the Canadian scholars Andrews and Bonta (e.g. Andrews et al 1990, Andrews, Bonta and H oge 1990, Bonta 2002). Therefore all existing educational program m es of the service are screened (see above), a diagnostic instrum ent is developed for both prison and probation services and a new rehabilitation program m e is developed on the foundation of W hat Works, called enhan ced thinking skills. At this crucial stage of im provem ent, how ever, the M inister of Justice decided to cut back dram atically the organization's funding. In the follow ing year, the organization had to econom ize by 30 million euro no less than a quarter of its total budget. A lthough m em bers of parliam ent and other individuals and various organizations protested against these plans, the probation service holds a very w eak position because of its inability to show that m any o f its efforts actually have an effect. M oreover, the cutbacks w ere highly specific, m ean in g that lo n g­ term counselling (trajectbegeleiding) and assistance on a voluntary basis w ere totally abolished, w ith m ore m oney b ein g reserved for supervision and training program m es. Savings also had to be realized by more efficient m ethods of w orking. Interventions have to be selective and effective, w hich m eans, according to th e M inister, that interventions can only be offered to a selective group o f offenders of w hom good results can be expected.4 In this clim ate and under these circum stances it can be seriously questioned if the im plem entation of W hat W orks will im prove the quality of probation work. The British exam ple show s that too high expectations and a lack of attention to im plem entation problem s can lead to disappointing results (Mair 2004). In an earlier publication I defended the argum ent that W hat W orks could even contribute to more repression due to the scientific expectations it arouses and to the fact that the blessings of W hat W orks are totally form ulated in terms of the risk to society that can easily lead to a loss of proportionality (Boone and Poort 2002). These worries increase as a con sequ ence of the em phasis that is put on selectivity and efficiency o f the project. In m any policy docum ents concerning Push Back Recidivism , em phasis is put on the select use of the available program m es. In a letter accom panying the governm ent paper To a Safer Society (N aar een veiliger sam enleving), the M inister of Justice states this intention. O nly if offenders are w illing and able to change their behaviour, or can be m otivated to do so, will they be offered p articipation in a rehabilitation pro g ram m e.5 The sam e in ten tion becom es visible in the opening note of the p roject Push Back Recidivism. 'R eintegration program m es will only be started if a real expectation exists that it will contribute to a reduction of recidivism ' (M inisterie van Justitie 2002). And in a recent paper, the program m e m anager of the project 296

C o m m u n ity justice in a safety culture

describes the central m essage of the p roject as 'to con centrate interv en­ tions on those convicts that are expected to succeed and to enlarge quality of th e interventions w hat will result in increased effectiveness' (V an der Linden 2004). W hat this selectivity will contain exactly is not very clear yet, but the principal question is, of course, w ho decides on w hich criteria w ho can be m otivated and how m uch efforts (and m oney) is allow ed to be spent. Fear seem s ju stified that only offenders w ho have good opportunities to succeed will be selected for rehabilitation program m es. These offenders, of course, do not validate the success of these program m es: they w ould probably not have re-offended regardless of w hat treatm ent they w ere given. This fear is also connected to a second characteristic of th e D utch version of W hat W orks: th e em phasis on efficiency. Im plem entation of th e p ro ject sh o u ld not on ly co n trib u te to m ore effectiv en ess in sentencing, but should also do so against lesser costs. This aspect is also highly stressed in the U nited K ingdom w here a cost-benefit analysis aim ed at achieving a 5 per cen t reduction in that rate betw een 2001 and 2004 has b een the decisive argum ent for the im plem entation of W hat W orks (Perry 2002). Cost reduction for an offend er w ith a m edium risk of recidivism turned out to be £1.26 for every invested pound and therefore w orth a try. A lthough it becam e clear that the high expectations have led to disappointm ent in the U nited K ingdom (M air 2004) so far, this model is also adopted in the N etherlands and the research centre of the M inistry of Justice is at present developing a cost-benefit analysis for criminal interventions.

Conclusion T he recent history of com m unity sen tences is closely connected to that of the probation service. Both d evelopm ents are characterized by the em phasis on quantitative grow th. Apart from its rehabilitative potential, th e grow th of com m unity sen tences has been stim ulated to reduce the pressure on prison capacity and to contribute to the reinforcem ent of the credibility of the crim inal ju stice system . H eavy-handed involvem ent in the probation service w ith the im plem entation and supervision of com m unity sen tences has been a starting point for grow ing govern­ m ental interference, finally resulting in an organization that is totally guided by production num bers. Successiv e research has show n that on e con seq u en ce of these d evelopm ents is that prom ising rehabilitation program m es are reserved for m otivated and high-potential candidates, w hile problem atic cate­ 297

C o m m u n ity Justice

gories of offen ders are exclu d ed of th ese efforts. W hilst th at helps the p rob ation service m eets its targets, it is h ard ly the best w ay fo rw ard tow ard s a safer society. C learly, w h at is a t stake is n o t just th e probation service; th e very idea of p rob ation has been substantially ero d ed . C o n tin u ou s criticism s from both ou tside an d inside th e p robation service h ave ren ew ed atten tio n on th e quality an d co n ten t of probation w ork. The in trod u ction of W h at W ork s in th e D utch sanction system can rein force th ose d evelop m en ts, b u t can also h ave th e op p osite effect, in p articu lar since the im p lem en tation will be acco m p an ied by drastic cutbacks.

N ote s 1 Kamerstukken II 1978/8720074, nr. 6, p.8. 2 Kamerstukken II 1981/82, 17100, hoofdstuk VI, nr. 2, p. 35. 3 Letter of 31 January 1978. Also: Kamerstukken II 1978/1979, 15300, hoofdstuk VI, nr. 2. p. 34. 4 Letters of the Minister of Justice, Kamerstukken II, vergaderjaar 2003-2004, 28290, nr. 1 and Kamerstukken II, vergaderjaar 2003-2004, 29270, nr. 3. 5 Kamerstukken II, 02/03, 28600 VI, nr. 8, p. 4.

R e fe re n ce s Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J. and Hoge, R.D. (1990) 'Classification for Effective Rehabilitation: Rediscovering Psychology7, Criminal Justice and Behavior: 1719-52. Andrews, D.A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R.D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P. and Cullen, F. (1990) 'Does Correctional Treatment Work? A Clinically-relevant and Psychologically Informed Meta-analysis', Criminology, 28: 369^404. Beteidsnota Taakstraffen (1996) Voor straf werken en leren. The Hague: Ministry of Justice. Bonta, J. (2002) 'Recidivepreventie bij delinquenten; een overzicht van de huidige kennis en een visie op de toekomst', Justitiele Verkenningen'. 2820-36. Boone, M. (2002) Leren Diversifieren: Reclassering en cultúrele diversiteit. Utrecht: Willem Pome Instituut voor Strafrechtswetenschappen. Boone, M. and Poort, R. (2002) 'W at werkt (niet) in Nederland', Justitiele Verkenningen, 28: 48-64. Boone, M. and Poort, R. (2004) 'Schäkel in justitieketen of geketend aan Justitie: Interview with Van Gennip, Director Reclassering Nederland', Proces, 83: 261— 268. Boone, M. and Uit Beijerse, J. (1995) 'Vernieuwing van het werk van de reclassering: trafrechtelijke mogelijkheden en beperkingen', Proces, 74: 43-49. Commissie Altematieve Strafrechtelijke Sancties (1979) Dienstverlening (interimrapport). The Hague: Ministry of Justice. Commissie Heroverweging Instrumentarium Rechtshandhaving (1995) 1let recht ten uitvoer gelegd. Oude en nieuwe instrumenten van rechtshandhaving. The Hague: 298

C o m m u n it y justice in a safety culture

Ministry of Justice. Commissie Vermogensstraffen (1969) Interimrapport. The Hague: SDU. Commissie Vermogensstraffen (1972) Eindrapport. The Hague: SDU. De Jonge, G. (2002) 'De erfenis van de reclassering', Proces, 81: 180-183. Heinrich, J.P. (1995) Particulière Reclassering en overhcid in Nederland sinds 1823. Arnhem: Gouda Quint. Janse de Jonge, J.A. (1991) Om de persoon van de dader, Over straftheorieën en voorlichting door de reclassering. Arnhem: Gouda Quint. Janse de Jonge, J.A.. (1993) 'O m het behoud van de reclasseringsgedachte', in J.A. Janse de Jonge, M. Moerings and A. van Vliet (eds), Rinnen de steen van dit bestaan: Over rechtsbescherming en totale instituties, Utrecht: Willem Pom pe Institute, pp. 5171. Kelk, C. (2004) 'Reclassering nu', Proces, 83: 242-243. Klooster, E.M., Van Hoek, A.J.E. and Van't Hoff, C.A. (1999) Allochtonen en strafbeleving, een onderzoek naar de strafbeleving van Antilliaanse, Surinaamse, Marokkaanse en Turkse jongens. The Hague: Ministry of Justice. Laemers, M„ Vegter, P. and Fiselier, J. (2001) Evaluatie Pénitentiaire Beginselenwet en Penitentiare Maatregel. Nijm egen, ITS. Leertouwer et al (2004) Sanctiecapaciteit 2008. The Hague: W ODC, Onderzoek en Beleid 221. Van der Linden, B. (2004) 'Terugdringen Récidivé', Proces, 83: 94-102. Lipsky, M. (1980) Street Level Bureaucracies: Dilemmas o f the Individual Public Services. N ew York: Russell, Sage Foundation. Mair, G. (2004) 'The Origins of What Works in England and Wales: A House Built on Sand?, in G. Mair (ed.), What Matters in Probation. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, pp. 12-34. M enger, A. and Krechtig, L. (2004) I let delict als maatstaf: Methodiek voor werken in een gedwongen kader. Stich ting Reclassering Nederland: SRN. M inisterie van Justitie (1985) Samenleving en Criminaliteit: E m beleidsplan voor de kennende jaren. The Hague: SDU. M inisterie van Justitie (1990) Recht in Beweging. Een beleidsplan voor justitie in de komende jaren (1990). The Hague: SDU. M inisterie van Justitie (1997) Substitute van Vrijheidsstraffen, Interdepartementaal beleidsonderzoek substitutie van vrijheidsstraffen door taakstrajfen. The Hague: IBOronde 1996, report no. 8. M inisterie van Justitie (2001) Nota Effectieve Reintegratie: Een gemeenschappelijke uitdaging voor de reclassering en het gevangeniswezen. The Hague: DPJS. M inisterie van Justitie (2002) Bouwstenen van het programma Terugdringen Récidivé: Startnotitie. The Hague: Ministry of Justice. M ulder, G.E. and Schootstra, H. (1974) Prae-advies over de voonvaardelijke veroordeling. Handelingen 1974 der Nederlandse Juristen-Vereniging, deel I, tweede stuk. Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink. NFR (N ederlandse Federatie voor Reclasseringsinstellingen) (1991) Taken en Prioriteiten Reclassering. 's Hertogenbosch: NFR. Pakes, F. (2004) 'The Politics of Discontent: The Emergence of a New Criminal Justice Discourse in the N etherlands', Howard Journal o f Criminal Justice, 43: 284298. Pease, K., Billingham, S., and Eam shaw, 1. (1977) Community Service assessed in 1976, Home Office Research Study 39. London: HMSO. Perry, D. (2002) 'Bewijsgerelateerde praktijk en bewijsgerelateerd beleid; moder299

C o m m u n it y Justice

nisering van de reclassering in Engeland en in Wales', Justitiele Verkenningen, 28: 36-48. Reidnied, J. (2001) 'De doelgroep en doelstelling van het penitentiair programma onder de PBW', in M. Boone en G. de Jonge (eds), De Peiiiteiitiaire Begiiiselemuet in werking: Deventer: Gouda Quint, pp. 35-59. Ridder-Padt, M .S.H. (2002) 'Doet de reclassering goede dingen? Over de effecten van de Nota Effectieve Reintegratie en het project Outputsturing', Satieties, 2002: 178-184. Ridder-Padt, M.S.H. (2004) 'N ieuw e perspectieven voor de aan het strafrecht gerelateerde hulpverlening', Proces, 83: 220-226. Schuyt, K. and Kommer, M. (1998) Niet bij straf alleai, de spanning tussen idealisme en realisme in het reclasseringswerk. Amsterdam: University Press Amsterdam. Spaans, E.C. (1995) Werken o f Zitten: De toepassing van werkstraffen en körte vrijheidsstraffen in 1992. Arnhem: Gouda Quint. SRN (Stichting Reclassering N ederland) (2001) Van helder naar transparant, jaarverslag 1999/2000. Utrecht: SRN. SRN (2002) Werken aan de basis, jaarverslag 2001. Utrecht: SRN. Van de Bunt, H .G. and Leuw , E. (1995) 'G ed ogen als zelfkant van de rechtshandhaving?', Justitiele Verkenningen, 21: 65-75. Van Koppen, P.J. (2003) Verankering van rechtspraak: Over de wisselwerking tassen burger, politie, justitie en rechter. Amsterdam: Inaugural lecture at the Free University. Van der Laan, G. (1994) 'De nieuwe normen van de reclassering', Tijdschrift voor de Sociale Sector, 11: 24-29. Van der Laan, G. (2004) 'D e metamorfose van de reclassering als teken des tijds', Proces, 83: 233-242. Van der Linden, B. (2004) 'Terugdringen Recidive', Proces, 83: 94-102. Van Swaaningen, R. (1997) 'D e reclassering als flexibel en marktgericht productiebedrijf', Proces, 76: 193-198. Van Swaaningen, R. (2004) 'Veiligheid in Nederland en Europa, een sociologische beschouwing aan de hand van David Garland', Justitiele Verkenningen, 30: 9-24. Wartna, B.S.J., Beijers, W.M.E.H. and Essers, A.A.M. (1999) Ontkennende en bekennende verdachten: O ver de proceshouding van verdachten van strafzaken tijdens het politieverhoor. The Hague: M inistry of Justice, WODC.

300

Index

Added to a page number ' f denotes a figure and Y denotes a table. abuse, against teachers 151 Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs) 145-6, 176-7 accidental theory, haphazard approach to policing 54 accreditation panel 111-16, 207 active citizenship 238 Active Communities survey 9 actuarial justice 46 actuarialism 22, 26 adiaphorization 46, 47 administrative criminology 60 adolescent predictors, adult offending 172t adolescent-limited anti-sodal behaviour 146, 171 affective goals, schools 148 aftercare, rehabilitative programmes 206 aggression 150, 153, 199-200 anti-criminal discourse 35 anti-custodialism 36 anti-sodal behaviour 165-80 attempts to combat 165 audit, England and Wales 165 Blair on tackling 1 costs to taxpayer 165 defined 166-7 initiatives to address 173-4 measurement 168-70 personality disorder 227 prevention 174-7 risk-needs assessment 172-3 school attendance 149 typology 167 understanding 170-2 use of term 144-5 young people 144-6 see also offending Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003) 2, 80-1, 88, 165,180 Anti-Social Behaviour Orders costs 178 enforcement 177-8 nuisance activities 145 perpetuation of problems 194

police powers 80-1 social exclusion 9 Anti-Social Behaviour Unit 165,168 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001) 198 arrest, police powers 53 arson attacks, schools 156, 1571 Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) 158,198 Association of Chief Probation Officers (ACOP)

100 'at a distance' surveillance 98 attrition rate, racially motivated offending 210 Audit Commission 184, 192-3, 262 Auld Report 249 basic command units delegated responsibility 81-3 local police 76 reorganized and enlarged 84-5 behaviour in schools 150-4,157 serving of ASBOs 145 see also Acceptable Behaviour Contracts; aggression; anti-sodal behaviour; criminal behaviour; delinquency behavioural goals, schools 148 behavioural systems perspective, programme implementation 267 belonging, within communities 6 bias, sentencing, mentally disordered 223, 234 Bichard Inquiry 86 bids, regeneration funding 65 bigotry, crimes motivated by 199 binge-drinking, police targeting of 88 black youths, involvement in crime 57 Blair, Tony 1 ,1 8 , 68, 97, 98, 249 blame culture 17, 2 4 ,1 8 6 Bloom's taxonomy, school goals 148-9 Blunkett, David 3, 7, 29, 97, 98 British Crime Surveys criminal justice statistics 276 data, anti-social behaviour 169-70 government use of 240 perceptions of crime and disorder 145 Bnx>k, Richard 233 Bryan, Peter 221

301

Community Justice

budgets, BCU commanders' control over 82-3 bullying, in schools 150, 1511, 152-3 business cycle, volume crime 87-8 business model, crime prevention 61 C am bridge Study in D elinquent Development

171-2 casework methods 22, 27-8 Catholic teaching, dignity 135 cautioning, restorative element 119 CDATL project 277 CDRPs see Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships central control, offender programmes 124-5 child predictors, adult offending 172t Child and Young Person's Act 178 choice 6 Circular 8/84 62-3 Citizen's Charter 243 Citizenship Survey 7-9 civic participation 7-9 civil rights groups, attack on ASBOs 177-8 CJS see criminal justice system class-based theory, haphazard approach to policing 54 Clear, Todd 37 Client Follow System 290 A Clockwork Orange 35 Code of Practice, for victims 252, 253 cognitive behavioural programmes 9 4 ,1 5 9 , 205 cognitive distortions, mental disorder 227 cognitive goals, schools 148 Combination Orders 95 communicative enterprise, punishment as 103 communitarianism 37-8, 136, 186 "communities of choice' 6 'communities of collective sentiment' 59 community approaches to hate crime 207-10 consultation with 58-9, 76, 251-2 deconstructing 2-6 differing views of anti-social behaviour 166 participants, restorative justice 188-9,190 as prison-esque setting 97 schools in and of the 159-61 term 1, 97, 238 see also custodial-community distinction community courts 6-7 community diversionary projects 214 community engagem ent 80 community incapacitation 95, 97, 100 community justice applying research in 258-64 impact on community sentencing 261-4 re-emergence of rehabilitation 261 research reviews and penal policies 259-61 community spirit 6-10 dimmed prospects for 48-50 initial debate 36-8 key components 183 Netherlands 294-7

302

in official practice 38-40 and police in partnership 72-90 principles 2 social control 275-6 synonymous with restorative justice 183 term 1-2 community justice service 37 community model, crime prevention 61-2 community participation 8-9 community policing 59 community prosecution 7 Community Rehabilitation Orders 101, 102 community safety 36, 60, 183 community sentences additional enforceable conditions 95 hate offenders 204-5 limitations, problems and solutions 210-14 Netherlands 284-7 tougher enforcement and reconviction rates

100-1 community spirit 5, 6-10 community supervision 93, 94, 95-6, 98, 102 community support officers 61 community-oriented activity 8 comprehensive spending review (CSR) 110-11 compulsivity, offending 227 compulsory treatment, mentally disordered offenders 231, 232 condemnation 19 conditions, programme implementation 266-7 Conservatives 185, 238, 239, 262 constables 53 consumerism, criminal justice 240 contestability and the rational consumer 131-3 role of offender managers 99 contextual factors, hate crime 200 contracting 138 cordon sanitaire 9 Cornish Committee 54, 59-60 Correctional Services Accreditation Panel 111, 122 correctionalism 92, 93-6 cost efficiency 45 cost-benefit analysis, programmes 297 coterminosity, lack of, CDRPs 73, 84-5 crime education 143 explanations as to causes 238 management 52, 66 nature and prevalence 79-80 schools as site for 155-7 surveys 240-1 see also British Crime surveys; public surveys young people and antisocial behaviour 144-6 see also fear of crime; hate crime crime audit process 74-6 Crime Concern 65, 185 Crime and Disorder Act (1998) 18, 59, 67-8, 72, 74, 7 7 ,1 8 5 ,1 9 8 , 202-3, 213, 215

Index

Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships accountability 77 Anti-Social Behaviour Act 89 BCUs and delegated responsibility 81-3 composition of 73-4 crime audit process 74-6 government priorities, policing 80-1 local agency boundaries 85-6 local crime reduction strategies 76-80 non-coterminous boundaries 84-5 performance management as challenge to 89-90 reduction of volume crime 87-8 tensions surrounding 89 use of ABCs 176-7 crime and disorder teams 77 crime prevention models 61-2 Morgan Report 66 as multi-agency process 68 partnership 62-3 as police function 53, 54, 59-61 schools role of 143-4,160 as site for 157-9 Crime Prevention Agency 60 Crime Prevention College 60 crime reduction comm unity incapacitation 100 satellite technology 97 tough enforcement action 100-1 see also Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships criminal behaviour definition of 167 lack of parental supervision 178 school attendance 149 see also anti-sodal behaviour; offending criminal justice legislation 13 moral values 33-5 research-based interventions 269 as service industry 240 Strategic Plans 34-5, 249 see also restorative justice; youth justice Criminal Justice Act (1991) 18, 19, 21, 94, 222 Criminal Justice Act (1998) 166 Criminal Justice Act (2003) 43, 93, 9 9 ,1 9 8 , 277 criminal justice agencies consultation with local communities 251-2 risk management 17 see also probation service Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001) 179 criminal justice policy diversity of communities 4 New Labour 46-7 criminal justice system lack of confidence in 247, 248, 249, 251 loss of identifiable probation service 91 offenders as challenge to 199, 219 victim perspective in 237-8

Crim inal Justice System Strategic Plan 1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 2

249 criminality economics of 41-3, 200 humanist-rehabilitative discourse 46 criminalization of parents 179 reliance on increased 35 of young people 194 criminogenic needs 172 cultural divide, prison and probation services 92 cultural issues, mental disorder 222-3 cultural resistance, research-based interventions 273-7 culture, probation service, challenges to 212 custodial sentences, short-term 93-4 custodial-community distinction, blurring of 94, 95 custody, reduction in 183,184 Custody Plus 93, 94 Cutting Crim e, Delivering Ju stice: A Strategic Plan for C rim inal Justice 2 0 0 4 - 0 8 249

dangerous behaviour 22, 27 dangerous offenders 21, 23, 24 dangerousness 18, 29-30 decision-making 132-3, 183 defensive offenders 201, 202t, 204 delinquency, school ethos and organization 147 denial of crime 292, 293 desistance, of anti-sodal behaviour 146 despatialized communities 6 detachment, offending behaviour 227 detention 135, 230, 231, 232 deterrence 99-100, 180 deviance, homelessness and drug abuse 139 dignity, Catholic teaching 135 disability bias, hate crime 198 discourses, western European penality 35, 44-8 disintegrated communities 5 dispersal orders, community exclusion 9 distinctiveness, of community 3 Diversity Awareness Programme (DAP) 208-9 divided community 5 Does Punishment Work? 262 Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004) 252, 253 drop-outs, accredited prison programmes 101-2 drug abuse, deviance 139 drug testing, in schools 158 Drug Treatment and Testing Orders 101 Dutch Fellowship for Moral Reformation of Prisoners 283 economics, of criminality 41-2, 200 education and crime 143 departments, crime audit process 75 Dutch probation workers 288

303

Community Justice

widening social division 159-60 see also schools educational sentences 286 Effective Practice 191-2, 263 effectiveness probation practice 109-10 rehabilitation 239, 240, 259-60 research-based outcomes 268-9 efficacy, research-based outcomes 268 efficiency, offender programmes 297 electronic tagging 9 5 ,1 2 6 emotional release, victim-offender mediation

210 employment volume crime 87-8 see also illegal work empowerment, commitment to 132 enforcement compliance with preventative measures 177-80 reconviction rates 100-1 enhanced comm unity punishment 115 ethics exclusion of, in managerialism 45-6 managem ent of mentally disordered offenders 229 ethnic minorities, probation work, Netherlands 291-4 European Convention on Human Rights 231 evidence-based practice 21-2,191, 257 evolutionary theory, haphazard approach to policing 54 exclusion see school exclusion; scxrial exclusion exclusionaries 134-6 expertise 138-40 faith-based humanism 34 faith-based organizations 134-6 fear of crime 17, 20, 34-5, 248 Financial Management Initiatives 55 'fire brigade' policing 56 Five Towns Initiative 64 fixed penalty notices 179-80 fixed-period school exclusions 153-4 fly-posting, fines 180 formal volunteering 8 From Murder to Murder Manual 208 gated communities 5-6 geographic information systems (GIS) 74 Goldsmith, Lord 252 graffiti, fines 180 Halliday Report 94, 100 Harper, Gemma 107 hate as aggravating factor 202-3 different forms of 215-16 hate crime 198-217 attempts to combat 216-17 bullying viewed as 150

304

community approaches 207-10 community sentences 210-14 as group activity 201 impersonal nature 201-2 interventions 214-16 hate offenders characteristics 199-202 rehabilitation 203-6 see also racially motivated offenders hatred attempts to combat 212-13 offender commitment to 202 punitive approach to 202-6 healthcare, research-based interventions 268-9 Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary 81, 84 Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation 108 hidden crime, identification and targeting 76 high-risk category 25 high-risk offender panels 24 high-risk youths 174-5 Hobbs 40-1 Home Office Citizenship Survey 7-9 definition of anti-sodal behaviour 145 model, crime prevention 61 offender programmes 106-27 1995 perspective 108-9 accreditation panel 111-16 developments after 1997 election 109-11 evaluation of 116-19 failed expectations 119-25 future for 125-6 What Works 106-7 Research Directorate 108 review of ASBOs 178 homelessness, and deviance 139 homophobic motivation, hate crime 198 Hospital Orders 230 hostility 215 hot spots, identification 74, 76 Howard, Michael 87, 262 human rights 46, 135 Human Rights Act (1998) 231 humanism 34, 49 humanist-rehabilitative discourse 46-8 Humberside police, and Soham case 86-7 humiliation, underclass criminality 42 hystrionic personality disorder 227 ideological resistance, research-based interventions 273-7 illegal work, school non-attendance 154 immigrants, black youth crime 57 imprisonment, hate offenders 203-4 Improving Public Satisfaction a n d Confidence in the C rim inal Justice System 251

impulsivity, offending behaviour 227 incident data, anti-sodal behaviour 169 incitement, to religious hatred 198 inclusion see sodal inclusion

Index

individual vs. social factors, dismissal of interventions 273-4 Industrial Relations Act (1971) 57 inequality, and offending 144-6 informal volunteering 8 information, for victims 245-7 information base, crime audit process 75 information sharing, multi-agency 58-9, 213-14 insecurity 6 ,1 6 -1 7 , 42-3 inter-agency working 21 inter-tasking 62 intermediate sentences, hate offenders 206 Intermittent Custodial Sentence 93 Internationale Kriminalistische Vereinigung 284 interventions see offender programmes Joint Accreditation Panel QAP) 111-16 Joint Inspection Report into Persistent a n d Prolific O ffenders 102

'just distribution of risk' 26 justice see community justice; criminal justice Justice f o r All 250 Justice on the Move 285 juvenile offenders community safety issue 183 community sentences 286 constraints on ASBO-ed 10 prison population 184 reconviction rates 118 Knott, Christine 107 language problems, Dutch probation work 291-2, 293 late m odem society 4 -6 ,1 6 , 97 law enforcement 52, 54 'law and order' issues 18 LCJBs see Local Criminal Justice Boards leadership 73, 126 league tables 159 legal culture, failure of victim reform 250 legal definitions, mental disorder 221 legal issues, m anagem ent of mentally disordered offenders 229 legislation anti-sodal behaviour 173 organizational change 13 see also indi vidual acts

Letwin, Oliver 31 Level of Service Inventory (LSI-R) 172-3 Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI) 172 liberalism, sentimental 48-9 Licensing Act (2004) 88 life course persistent anti-social behaviour 146, 171 local agency boundaries 85-6 local crime reduction strategies 76-80 Local Criminal Justice Boards 251, 252 local police commanders survey on commitment to CDRPs 77-9 see also basic command units

local policing plans 76 longitudinal studies, anti-sodal behaviour 171-2 McGuire, James 106-7 Mair, George 107 Management of Offenders Bill (2005) 126 managerial-surveillant discourse 45-6, 47 managerialism 45, 185 market-orientation, Dutch probation service 289-91 markets-creates-criminals argum ent 41-2 mechanical solidarity 3 media 34, 45, 144, 194 medical definitions, mental disorder 221 m ens rea 230 mental disorder definitions 221, 231 offending behaviour 220, 222 Mental Health Act (1983) 219-20, 221, 222, 229, 230 Mental Health Alliance 220, 232 Mental Health Bill (2004) 220, 231-3 mental health reform 228-33 mental illness, diagnosis 221 mentally disordered offenders 219-34 challenge to criminal justice system 219 definitional issues 221-3 diagnosis and risk assessment 223-5 intervention 225-6 marginalisation and disenfranchisement 233-4 personality disorder 226-8 reddivism 221 reconviction rates 220 stigmatization 221 twenty-first century reforms 228-33 mentoring programmes 175 Metropolitan Police (MPS) 53 middle-class iasecurity 6, 42-3 middle-dass values 63 MIND 232, 233 minor crime 79-80 mission offenders 201, 202t, 204, 215 Misspent Y outh... Young People a n d C rim e 184 moral panics, fear of crime 20 moral values, contemporary criminal justice 33-5 morality, and managerialism 45 M ore D em anding than Prison (ACOP) 20 Morgan Report 66, 67, 72, 89 motivational typology, hate offenders 201-2 Moving Police Forward 83 multi-agency conferences 24 multi-agcncy teams 185 multi-agency working complex realities 136-7 with dangerous offenders 21, 24 differing faith groups 134-6 expertise 1 3 8 4 0 with hate offenders 213-14 policing 58-61, 68

305

Community Justice

public service 131-3 review 66 with young people 183 see also partnerships multi-tasking 62 multiple needs, and social exclusion 136-7 'mutual adaptation' process 267 NACRO 65 naming and shaming 178 National Health Service Confederation 231 National Intelligence Model 81 National Offender Management Service 39, 43, 91-103 academic and professional interest in 92 correctionalism 93-6 end of the probation service 102-3 involvement of faith-based organizations 135 new punitiveness 96-8 effectiveness of 99-102 offender programmes official position 118 planning 125-6 roles and responsibilities 98-9 national policing 53-4 National Policing Plan 80-1 National Probation Service 92, 95, 138, 263 National Service Frameworks (NSFs) 131, 132 National Standards 19 National Treatment Agency 139 National Treatment O utcome Research Study 137 National Victims' Advisory Panel 250 needs assessment, anti-sodal behaviour 172-3 Neighbourhood W atch 63-4 neo-restorative justice 187 net-widening 95, 96-7 Netherlands 283-98 comm unity justice 294-7 comm unity sentences 284-7 probation service 287-91 criticisms of 295 government interference 294 probation work, ethnic minorities 2 9 1 4 neutral outsiders, Safer Cities programme 64-5 New Labour communitarianism 38 conflation of crime and terrorism 34-5 criminal justice policy 46-7 implementation of Morgan recommendations 72-3, 89 multi-agency approach, service delivery 131-3 multiple needs and social exclusion 136-7 reliance of criminalization 35 Third W ay 67, 132, 139 vision of wider role for schools 148-9 youth justice 184-6 new penology 19 New Public Management (NPM) 4 5 ,1 8 5 new punitiveness

306

effectiveness 99-102 under NOMS 96-8 understanding 43-8 vindictiveness 43 New Right 19, 186, 242 A New D ea l fo r Victims a n d Witnesses 250 Nichol, Sir Duncan 112 night time economy 88 NIM see National Intelligence Model No Witness, No Justice 251 NOMS see National Offender Management Service North Liverpool Community Justice Centre 38-40 nostalgic indulgence, comm unity as 4-5 nothing works 260 nuisance activities, ASBOs 145 Nuttall, Chris 108

Offender Assessment System (OASys) 25 offender managers, contestability 99 offender programmes continuity of 94 contracted out 138 drop-outs and reconviction rates 101-2 hate crime 205-6, 208-9 Home Office perspective 106-27 1995 perspective 108-9 accreditation 111-16 developments after 1997 election 109-11 evaluation 116-19 failed expectations 119-25 future for 125-6 history of What Works 106-7 mentally disordered offenders 225-6 Netherlands cost-benefit analysis 297 language problems 293 select use of 296-7 see also research-practice relationship offenders assessment see risk assessment community sentences, Netherlands 286 high-risk category 25 justified loss of rights 26-9 technology to manage and exclude 29, 96, 9 7 ,1 2 6 see also hate offenders; mentally disordered offenders; sex offenders offending business cycle 87-8 mental disorder 220, 222, 227 young people 142,143 see also anti-social behaviour; criminal behaviour organic solidarity 4 organizational cultures, crime audit process 75 organized crime, police priority 81 parental responsibility 186 Parenting Orders 178-9

Index

parenting programmes 179 partnership crime prevention 62-3 safer cities 64-5 social engineering 63-4 see also Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships; multi-agency working; Safer Schools Partnerships Pathfinder programmes 263, 267 patrols, police 55-6 PCCGs see Police Community Consultation Groups Peel, Sir Robert 53 penal discourses, western European 44-8 penal policies, and research reviews 259-61 penal welfarism 103, 136, 259 Penitentiary Principles Act (1999) 287 penitentiary programmes 287 penological pessimism 239 performance management, challenge to CDRPs 74, 89-90 perpetrators see offenders persistence, of anti-social behaviour 146 personal responsibility 132, 136,139, 238 personal safety, in schools 151, 152t personality disorders 226-8, 230 physical assault, permanent school exclusions 154 physical contact, unwanted, in schools 1511 physical violence, in schools 1511,152 plea-bargaining 211 police and community justice in partnership 72-90 functions 53-5 marginalisation 57-8 model, crime prevention 61 multi-agency approach 58-61, 68 need for collaboration 24 political and social influences 56-7 priorities 80-1 professionalization 55-6 public confidence 57 safer cities' partnerships 65 in schools 155,158 shift from law enforcement to crime management 52 targeting binge-drinking 88 see also Humberside Police; policing Police Community Consultation Groups (PCCGs) 58-9 Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984) 53 Police Reform Act (2002) 80 Police Research and Planning Branch 55-6 policing see local policing plans; national policing; Unit beat policing political imperative, failure of offender programmes 119-20 political influences, police 56-7 politicians, amplification of fear of crime 34-5 politics, and risk 18-20 populist punitiveness 45, 48

prejudice, and hate crime 199, 202, 215-16 primary crime prevention 143,174 prison population 95, 143, 184 Prisons Probation Joining Forces to Protect the Public 91 Prisons-Probation Review 92, 110 private security 5, 61, 126, 156 probation officers offenders ability to effect change in 27, 95, 96, 97-8 professional relationships with 27-8 reluctance to share information 23 role in surveillance society 29 schooling, Netherlands 288 probation service affirmation of social work identity 36 Audit Commission report 262 as community justice service 37 contracting 138 Dutch see Netherlands humanist-rehabilitative discourse 46 organizational survival 20-1 politics and risk 18-20 risk assessment/management 17, 28, 211 study into effective practice in 109-10 surviving through collaboration 21-6 see also National Offender Management Service probation work with dangerous offenders, future 29-30 Dutch see Netherlands racially motivated offenders 205, 207-9, 212 research 121-3 production-orientation, Dutch probation service 289-91 programmes see offender programmes; penitentiary programmes propriety communities 5-6 prosecutors, police as 54-5 protective factors, role of schools 146-7 pseudo-scientific assessment methods 22 Psych minded 232 psychopathy 227, 231 psychotic remand prisoners, cultural bias 223 public consultation, crime strategies 76 lack of appreciation of youth justice system 193 lack of confidence in CJS 247, 248, 249, 251 in police 57 opinion, young people 193-5 perception, anti-social behaviour 169-70 public protection intolerance of error 25 justified loss of rights 26-9 parallels with insurance industry 25-6 Public Service Agreement targets 250-1 public services multi-agency approach 131-3 see also service standards; service users 307

Community Justice

public surveys, crime audit process 75 punishment change in philosophy of 94-6 as communicative enterprise 103 driven by middle-class insecurity 42-3 mentally disordered offenders 228-9 'punishment in the community' 36 punitive repressive discourse 44-5 punitive rhetoric, New Labour 47 punitiveness hate crime 202-6 research-based interventions 276-7 see also new punitiveness; populist punitiveness pupils fears of victimization 155-6 reporting of offences 155 surveys, bullying 152-3 Pupils with Problems (DfEE) 148 Push Back Recidivism 295-6 'Putting communities first' 3 qualitative studies, victim groups 241 quality of life, crime involving threats to 79-80 quality-impulse, probation work 295-6 race diaries 209 racial aggravation, sentence enhancement 203 racial group, defined 203 racially motivated offenders 199, 200 attrition rate 210, 211 challenge to probation work culture 212 community sentences 210-14 identification of 211-12 probation work 205, 207-10 reconviction data, referral orders 190 reconviction rates mentally disordered offenders 220 offender programmes 101-2, 118 sex offences 220 tougher enforcement 100-1 Red Hook Community Justice Center 6-7 referral orders 188-90 reform see mental health reform; victim reform Reform o f the Mental Health Act 219-20 refusal to confess, Dutch probation work 292, 293 regeneration funding, bids 65 regional offender managers 94 registration system, Dutch probation service 290 rehabilitation effectiveness 239, 240, 259-60 hate offenders 203-6 New I .abour discourse 35 re-emergence of 261 secular ideal 34 relative deprivation, community participation 8 religious aggravation, sentence enhancement 203 religious hatred, incitement to 198

308

Reluctant Witness 248 reoffending community service orders 285 deterrence 99-100 programme implementation problems 267 reparation, in offender programmes 206 report data, anti-social behaviour 168-9 research 257-77 applying in community justice 258-64 probation 121-3 school security 156 victim reform 241-3 see also longitudinal research; qualitative studies research-practice relationship 264-9 cultural and ideological resistance 273-7 demonstration and practical programmes 268-9 denial of diversity 271-3 implementation 266-8 limitations of the evidence base 264-6 myths and misunderstandings 269-71 shared benefit 257-8 resourcing, interventions 225-6, 232 responsibility see parental responsibility; personal responsibility responsibilization agenda 275 restitution, in offender programmes 206 restorative element, cautioning 119 restorative justice 36 citizens' voice in 186-7 community participants' training 190-2 maximalist version 187 potential for punitiveness 187 referral orders 188-90 rehabilitation of hate offenders 209-10 sanctions as alternative to punishment 187 in schools 157-8 synonymous with community justice 183 victim involvement 187-8, 189,192 retaliatory offenders 201, 202t, 204 retribution 259, 284 reviews, police activity 55 rights justified loss of 26-9 service users 134 to refuse treatment 232 of victims 243-5, 250 see also human rights The Rights o f Victims o f Crime 244 riot equipment 57 risk justified loss of rights 26-9 and politics 18-20 risk assessment anti-sodal behaviour 172-3 impact on ordinary offenders 26 mentally disordered 223-5 probation service 28, 211 race offenders 211 sex and dangerous offenders 24

Index

risk assessment tools development and importance 22 refinement of 25 standardized 23 use by probation officers 21 risk factors, role of schools 146-7 risk management 17 risk society 16, 20, 27, 30 risk-based decision-making 183 Royal College of Psychiatrists 232-3 Royal Commission (1962) 54, 55 Safer Cities programme 64-5 Safer Communities 72 Safer Schools Partnerships 155,158 satellite technology 29, 97 saturation tactics 57 scapegoating 133-4 Scarman Report 58, 64 schizophrenia, risk of criminal records 223 school attendance 149,154 school connectedness 147, 149 school exclusion offending 149 permanent 1534 police role 155 targets to reduce 147 school security 155, 156 schools behaviour in 1504 in and of the community 159-61 competing priorities 160t crime audit process 75 crime prevention role in 1434,160 as site for 157-9 goals, Bloom's taxonomy 148-9 risk and protective factors 146-7 as site for crime 155-7 wider role for 148-9 scientist practitioner 257 seamless sentences 43, 94 The Search fo r the Truth 249-50 secondary crime prevention 174, 175 secondary victimization 241, 247 secular-based humanism 34 security see insecurity; private security; school security selectivity, Dutch probation work 2914 self, as expert 13840 self-governance, as criteria for community 3 sensitivity, offending behaviour 227 sentence enhancement, racial/religious aggravation 203 sentencing, cultural bias, mentally disordered 223, 233 sentimental liberalism 48-9 sequential learning programmes, continuity of 94 Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill 198

serious and organized crime, police priority to tackle 81 service standards, Victims Charter 245 service users as experts 13940 participation 132-3 severe personality disorder 230 sex offenders 2 4 ,116f Sex Offenders Act (1997) 18, 24 sexual offences, reconviction rates 220 short-term custodial sentences 93 4 siege mentality 5 signing off, local crime strategy 77 'sink' schools 159 situational crime prevention 59-60 smallness, as criteria for community 3 Smith, Sir Graham 262 social academies 288 social cohesion 4, 8, 9 social constructionism 194 social control 148, 275-6 social crime prevention, partnership 62-3 social division, in schooling 159-60 social engineering 59, 6 3 4 social exclusion 1334 community cohesion 9 multiple needs 136-7 underclass 97 Social Exclusion Unit 148,149 social identity, through hate crime 200 Social Inclusion: Pupil Support (DfES) 148 social inclusion government agenda 132 in relation to schools 147 social influences, police 56-7 social inquiry reports 293 social work values, probation service 36 Society and Criminality 285 Soham murder case 86-7, 222 stakeholder society 67-8 A Statement o f Service Standards fo r Victims o f Crime 244-5 statutory rights, for victims 250 12-step programmes 134 stereotyping, young people 1934 stop and search 58 Strategic Plans, criminal justice 34-5, 249 street level bureaucracy 291, 292 substance misuse addressing 137 offending programmes 116f user as expert 139 see also drug abuse; drug testing 'sufficient mental capacity 232 Superintendents' Association 81, 83, 85 supervision, community-based 93, 94, 95-6, 98, 102 surveillance 29, 45, 98 Suspended Sentence Order 93 'Swamp 81' operation 57 symbolism, associated with 'community' 2-3 309

Community Justice

Tackling D elays in Youth Ju stice 185 Tackling Youth C rim e: Reform ing Youth Justice 184 teachers, abuse and property damage 151 technicality, dismissal of interventions 274-5 technocratic rationality 45 technology, m anagem ent of offenders 29, 95, 96, 97, 126 terrorism 34-5, 80 Terrorism Act (2000) 80 terrorists, utilitarian approach to detention 135 tertiary crime prevention 174 theoretidsm , sociological criminology 260 third party incursions, school sites 156 Third W ay 67, 132, 139 threats, to teachers 1511 thrill offenders 201, 202t To a S afer S ociety 296 Together Tackling A nti-S ocial B ehaviour 3 tracking 29, 97 trade unionists, conflict w ith police 57 transgressive criminality 40-3 treatability 231 treatment se e offender programmes trials, as tactical gam e 249-50 truancy 1 4 8 ,1 4 9 ,1 5 4 truancy sweeps 158 two-tier local governm ent 86 underclass 42, 97 Unit beat policing 55-6, 57-8 U nited States attempts to com bat hate crim e 216-17 Com m ittee on the Study of Incarceration 260 com m unity justice 6-7 report on effectiveness of rehabilitation 259 unpaid labour, Netherlands 284-5, 288 utilitarian approach, hum an rights 135 values criminality 40-1 derogation by managerialism 45-6 see also hum anism ; middle-class values; sodal w ork values vandalism, in schools 156 victim interest groups 239 Victim Personal Statem ents 250 victim reform beyond the rhetoric 247-53 research 241-3 Victim 's Charter 243-7, 250 Victim Support 239, 244 victim-offender mediation 209-10, 212 victimization pupils' fears 155-6 secondary 241, 247

310

young people 142-3 victims interchangeability, in hate crim e 202 involvement, in criminal justice 187-8,189, 192, 210 lack of confidence in CJS 247, 248, 249, 251 re-em ergence in criminal justice 239-41 secondary victimization 241, 247 Victim's Charter 243-7, 250 Victims' Com missioner 250 Victims o f C rim e 246 victims' movement 239 Victims' O m budsm an 250 Victoria Climbie case 86 violence, in schools 1 5 1 ,152t Violent R acism 199 virtual com munities 6 visionaries 134-6 volume crime 87-8 weapons, possession, in schools 1511 W hat Works com m unity justice, Netherlands 294-7 pessimism regarding probation w ork 97 research effectiveness 257-77 treatment of offenders in probation 106-7 W itness Care Units 251 witnesses addressing needs o f 249, 250 apathy towards CJS 248 W orking Together to Safeguard Children 86 working-class com munities 8 yob culture 194 young people criminalization 194 offending 142, 143, 144-6 suspidon of 186 villification o f 193-5 se e a lso black youths; high-risk youths; juvenile offenders; pupils youth courts 7 Youth Inclusion Programmes 174-6 Youth Justice Board 143, 149, 158, 175, 191 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act (1999) 185,250 youth justice system Audit Commission review 192-3 inclusive practice 184 lack of victim involvem ent 192 political context 184-6 see also restorative justice youth offender panels 188-9,190 Youth O ffending Teams 185, 188 zero tolerance policies, schools 147 Zito Trust 231