119.  The Criminal Justice Act 2003 made overarching changes to the framework for community sentences in an attempt to make them more appropriate for a range of offenders. As we discussed in the previous chapter short custodial sentences continue to be used and there is no evidence of a switch away from these to community based alternatives, despite increases in the use of Community Orders and particularly Suspended Sentence Orders (SSO). Community based penalties can work well-with lower re-conviction rates than other types of sentencing-but other evidence, insofar as it is available, suggests they are either underused or inappropriately used. Difficulties have been identified both in the resources available to make appropriate sentences available and in the confidence of sentencers, reflecting the confidence of the public, to use them.

Community Sentences

120.  The Community Order, introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, allows sentencers to attach requirements to the order to match the seriousness of the offence and the risks posed by and needs of the individual. This is done by creating an order with one or more of twelve possible requirements, such as unpaid work or drug rehabilitation, to be completed over a defined period. During 2006, the courts gave 121,690 Community Orders. The most common order contained a single requirement obliging the offender to complete a specified number of unpaid work hours (32% of all orders).[179] The requirements are:

• unpaid work (40-300 hours);
• supervision (up to 36 months (24 months maximum for suspended sentence orders));
• accredited programme (length to be expressed as the number of sessions; must be combined with supervision requirement);
• drug rehabilitation (6-36 months; 24 months maximum for SSO; offender's consent is required);
• alcohol treatment (6-36 months; 24 months maximum for SSO; consent required);
• mental health treatment (up to 36 months; 24 months maximum for SSO; consent required);
• residence (up to 36 months; 24 months maximum for SSO);
• specified activity (up to 60 days);
• prohibited activity (up to 36 months; 24 months maximum for SSO);
• exclusion (up to 24 months);
• curfew (up to six months and for between 2-12 hours in any one day; if a stand alone curfew order is made there is no probation involvement);
• attendance centre (12-36 hours with a maximum of three hours per attendance).

121.  Suspended Sentence Orders (also introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 2003) were designed to allow the court to impose community requirements (as listed above) together with a suspended custodial sentence, to be 'activated' if the community requirements of a Suspended Sentence Order were breached. These sentences intended to contribute to a reduction in short-term prison sentences by providing a robust alternative to custody, thereby addressing the problem of 'uptariffing'.

THE EXPERIENCE OF COMMUNITY SENTENCE AND SUSPENDED SENTENCE ORDERS

122.  The new Community and Suspended Orders (CO and SSO) have been in use since 1 April 2005. In its Report National Probation Service: The Supervision of Community Orders in England and Wales, the National Audit Office identified that between 1995 and 2005, the number of community sentences given by courts increased by more than 50%. They constituted 14% of the 1.5 million sentences given in 2005.[180] However, the increase in community sentences is not, as was intended, reflecting a switch to these sentences from short custodial sentences but rather displacing those individuals who might previously have been fined or discharged. This 'uptariffing' effect is particularly clear with regard to the new Suspended Sentence Order.

123.  The Government accepts that: "the evidence so far is that the courts are not using community orders as fully as they might. The anticipated switch to these new community sentences from short-terms of imprisonment that was envisaged has not happened".[181] They also stated that the number of fines has "decreased significantly in the last ten years" (for indictable offences) and that they would "like to achieve a greater use of fines at the expense of the community order".[182]

124.  The Suspended Sentence Order, introduced at the same time as the Community Order in April 2005, has been more widely used than the Community Order. In a statement to the National Criminal Justice Board in January 2007, ministers indicated that the use of Suspended Sentence Orders continued to rise at around 3,500 commencements per month.

125.  As with Community Orders, the evidence does not indicate that there is enthusiasm for a sentence that provides a robust alternative to custodial sentencing—but rather that a Suspended Sentence Order is imposed on people who previously might have been sentenced to a Community Order. The Sentencing Guidelines Council said that: "the information available to the Council and the Panel appears to indicate that this increase has been accompanied more by a reduction in the number of community orders and fines than in the number of custodial sentences…"[183] Although the total number of offenders starting supervision for all court orders rose by 11%, the number for community sentences fell by 7,790 while the number for Suspended Sentence Orders (SSOs) rose by 26,880. It is therefore likely that some SSOs have been given to offenders who would previously have received community sentences.[184]

126.  Furthermore, in the event of non compliance or re-offending, a Suspended Sentence Order can more readily trigger a term in prison than a community sentence. Suspended Sentence Orders have more requirements attached than Community Orders, and the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies identified that:"as a result there are indications that the breach rate for Suspended Sentence Orders is particularly high".[185] The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies argued that in this sense offenders are being "set up to fail with too many requirements".[186] The number of breaches for SSOs going to prison rose from 37 in 2004 to 1,640 in 2006.[187] There is no evidence to suggest therefore that these new orders are diverting offenders from custody but that, on the contrary, the use of the SSO may be contributing to the 'uptariffing'.[188]

127.  In acknowledgement of the apparent overuse of community sentences where a lesser sentence, such as a fine, would otherwise have been imposed, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 introduces section 148(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which provides that a court is not required to pass a community sentence simply because it is available.[189] The 2008 Act only allows Community Orders to be imposed for offences punishable by imprisonment or for persistent offenders who have previously been fined.[190] Speaking in the House of Lords, Lord Bach, said that previous offences sentenced with a Community Order would not count towards the provision in the new clauses because it would be unfair to have the first punishment by way of Community Order count as a reason for a second.[191] During the passage of the legislation the Lords raised concerns that the changes would restrict the courts' discretion, potentially resulting in further 'uptariffing'.[192]

128.  The Government intended to use the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 to remove entirely the option of Suspended Sentence Orders for summary offences. These provisions were removed from the Bill at a late stage following opposition in the House of Lords, amid concern that the result would be 'uptariffing', with sentencers imposing an immediate custody sentence where suspending the sentence was not an option.[193]

129.  The intended switch from the use of short custodial sentences to community punishments in the form of Community Orders and Suspended Sentence Orders has not occurred. Instead, all evidence points to these sentences displacing fines. The 2003 Act, in common with other legislation, seems only to have added to an inexorable rise in sentences. We believe the aim should be to achieve a consensus as to what is the appropriate sentence in different circumstances.

130.  We welcome the Government's recognition of the 'uptariffing' problems caused by Community Orders and Suspended Sentence Orders and the attempts through the 2008 Act to control them. Nevertheless, the lesson of the 2003 Act is that legislation is not a useful mechanism to prevent 'uptariffing'. We urge the Government to bring forward proposals as to how to tackle the issue of 'uptariffing' through non-legislative mechanisms. We suggest that the Government explore public information, sentencing training and effective evaluation and development of local projects as part of these proposals.

131.  There is, however, more room for optimism when looking at community sentences themselves. Clinks argued that the evidence suggests that community sentences in particular are more effective at reducing re-convictions than prison sentences.[194] The NAO agreed, but explained that re-conviction rates are measured two years after sentence and take a year to produce, so reliable information showing the re-conviction rates for the new community order will not be ready until 2009.[195] NOMS data from 2004 shows that those sentenced to old-style community sentences have a 50.5% chance of re-conviction, compared to a predicted rate of 54.1%. For the same period the actual re-conviction rate for those released from custody is 67 %.[196]

132.  Away from the re-conviction figures the picture of community orders is less encouraging. Centre for Crime and Justice Studies research suggested that the new Community Orders have not been used to full effect but, instead, had been used like the old community sentences. Even though theoretically a package of requirements could be tailor-made for each offender, the research identified that half of the 12 possible requirements have not been used or were used very rarely.[197] The NAO identified that the most common order given (32%) only had the single requirement of unpaid work.[198] Concern was also expressed about the lack of availability of some requirements, and the rise in the use of unpaid work.[199]

133.  At the other end of the scale, mental health requirements were the most rarely used options on the Community Order 'menu', used in only 1% of cases for those over the age of 25. Drug treatment (6%) and alcohol treatment requirements (3%) were also rarely employed for the over 25s, and exclusion and prohibited activities requirements were not used at all.[200] The research team identified several potential reasons for this, for example, not all requirements were available in all areas and the rigorous enforcement required to establish confidence in the new measures was not always pursued. The researchers further noted general complaints about the lack of resources and poor knowledge of available services in some areas.[201]

134.  In addition to reducing re-offending, each of the possible 12 requirements were designed to link to the different purposes of sentencing as set out in the 2003 Act.[202] However, the NAO have identified that there is a lack of research on the effectiveness of some of the Community Order requirements in achieving, for example, effective reparation to the victims of crime. While they identified that current work being undertaken by NOMS would add to the evidence base, there is a need for additional research^.[203]

135.   The delivery of robust community sentences has the potential to reduce re-offending and re-conviction rates. However, we are concerned that the full package of requirements that can be associated with Community Orders is not being used to its full effect and, as a result, Community Orders are not meeting the purposes of sentencing as envisaged in the 2003 Act.

136.  We recommend that the Government undertake an immediate audit of the use of the twelve potential requirements of Community Orders and of the success of specific requirements in delivering the purposes of sentencing.

Towards effective non-custodial sentences?

137.  As we have discussed, the evidence indicates much lower recidivism rates amongst offenders serving community sentences than amongst those serving prison sentences. The Prince's Trust identified that 65% of offenders and ex-offenders they supported in 2005-06 went on to employment, training and education.[204] The Prison Reform Trust found that 67% of people released from prison go on to re-offend within two years.[205]

138.  On 11 March 2008, David Hanson recognised the value of community punishments:

"Re-offending rates for offenders subject to community punishments are lower than those for short-sentenced prisoners. Community punishments can be more cost-effective and can offer more opportunities for rehabilitation than short-term sentences, dealing with the offence and the causes of offending behaviour".[206]

139.  Lord Woolf agreed that there were significant benefits to non-custodial sentencing options and called for a change to the "balance in the way we think about this". He continued: "the only reason that prison should be regarded as an alternative if a community sentence available is because of the seriousness of the offence".[207] However, despite the existence of a broad consensus in favour of the use of alternatives to custody, several problems need to be addressed to achieve the effective and safe operation and delivery of non-custodial sentences. The two most prominent problems are the financing and provision of Probation Services and public confidence in non-custodial options.

RESOURCES AND THE PROVISION OF SERVICES

140.  The Police Federation said that: "in our experience properly financed non-custodial sentences can prove to be a successful means to reduce re-offending rates. Unfortunately, it is also our experience that the Probation Service is severely over-stretched, under-resourced and un-coordinated. The result—at no fault of the Probation Service—is that successes are sporadic and patchy".[208] Lord Woolf agreed: "I think that it [the Probation Service] is stretched so excessively and if there is a need to devote resources in general it is not always appreciated how important it is to make community punishments really effective".[209]

141.  Jack Straw told the Committee that there had been an increase in the level of resources for the Probation Service: "it has gone up over 75% in real terms since 1997 compared with an increase in real terms in prison spending of about 36% or 37%. The Government has shown by that spending that it really has invested in the Probation Service to a very significant degree".[210] On 11 March 2008, the Government announced further funds for the provision of community sentences, including £40 million allocated to Probation in 2008/09, "so that sentencers can be confident that the resources are in place to deliver effective community punishments".[211]

142.  In their report, the NAO identified that between 2001/02 and 2006/07, total Probation spending increased by 54%.[212] However, the report also identified a significant increase in the workload of the National Probation Service: the significant increase in the number of community sentences has contributed to the rising number of offenders being managed by probation: at the end of 2006, 235,000 offenders were being managed, compared to 139,700 in 1995.[213] This rise in workload has been supported by an increase in staff of 35% between 2001 and 2006.[214] However, the NAO concluded that:

"The impact of increased workloads on the capacity of probation to deliver what is expected by the courts and the public has not been clearly assessed. Insufficient work has been undertaken to assess whether increased resources devoted to probation are at the correct level to support the increase in services that has to be provided".[215]

143.  Furthermore, the NAO identified that: "the Probation Service does not know with any certainty how many community orders it has the potential capacity to deliver within its resources, nor has it determined the full cost of delivering Community Orders. Since the potential capacity of the Service and Local Areas is undetermined, the impact of any future changes in, for example, policy or sentencing trends is difficult to estimate and therefore manage".[216]

144.  The recent Cabinet Office Review on Crime and Communities has recommended the introduction of more intensive community punishments with, for example, unpaid work undertaken several nights each week and at weekends.[217] While there may be a case for this, resources will undoubtedly be needed if it is to be successfully implemented.

145.  Effective community sentences require effective resources. There is no evidence base upon which to determine where resources are most needed for effective sentencing options.

146.  An urgent assessment is required to evaluate whether the additional resources devoted to probation are at the correct level to support the increase in services that have to be provided as a result of the greater use of community sentences.

147.   The Probation Service does not know with any certainty how many Community Orders it has the potential capacity to deliver within its resources, nor has it determined the full cost of delivering Community Orders; we recommend that this data be collated as a matter of urgency.

148.  Clinks identified that in order to improve the provision of non-custodial sentences, investment was also required in "services, particularly those provided by the Voluntary and Community sector, to address problems relating to homelessness, substance misuse, unemployment, debt and family relationships," and that these services "need to be readily accessible to all points of the criminal justice system from arrest to sentence and post release".[218] They added that the Voluntary and Community sector should be commissioned to provide a range of welfare services to meet the needs of low-level offenders.[219] The Magistrates' Association agreed, and pointed out the need for an "increase in public confidence in community penalties—which must include better resourcing for probation, good local links and a halt to changes that lower morale in the service".[220]

ADEQUATE PROVISION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

149.  The Local Government Association acknowledged local initiatives had a major role to play "in terms of offering unpaid work schemes as part of communities, and in their role as providers and commissioners of services" (including housing, education and leisure).[221] They called for a clear articulation of what a sentence involves, so that they could encourage local people in the punishment of offenders and their subsequent re-integration into the community, as this was "an important aspect of providing sustainable local solutions to reduce re-offending".[222] The Magistrates' Association also emphasised the importance of local delivery of key services to make requirements work.[223] We received encouraging evidence on the impact of such local schemes, as exemplified below.

Staffordshire Probation Service and Heantun Housing Association's Intensive Floating Support Scheme[224] The scheme works with high-risk and prolific offenders by challenging their behaviour, providing accommodation in an approved premises hostel and providing an enhanced level of support. It is funded by a Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Supporting People Grant. The strength of the scheme is its ability to respond to its client's individual circumstances. Specific support is given with housing advice and intensive housing management support; life and social skills development; employment and education assistance. Forty-one clients have been on the scheme since 2002 and only one has been re-convicted (and then only after moving from the area and the scheme's support). All other cases have maintained accommodation in the community. The direct costs are £70,000 per year plus £2,500 associated costs to the Probation Service. The scheme is currently considering using volunteers to provide additional, out of hours support based on the Circles of Support model. Community programmes should focus on alcohol-related offending. The Howard League for Penal Reform's own research (Out for Good, 2006) showed that much emphasis is placed on providing drug-related programmes yet, when asking young people what directly influenced their offending behaviour, alcohol was often a more prominent factor.

Inclusive Model of Partnership Against Car Crime (IMPACT), Belfast[225] Co-operation at a local level is crucial for effective practice within this scheme. The various agencies involved work together through joint funding, staff secondment and delivering their core practice of intervention, diversionary and preventative work. The project works with young people involved in car crime; undertaking diversionary work with those on the margins and preventative work with those vulnerable to involvement. In practice this means work can be carried out in environments including prisons, juvenile justice centres, youth centres, probation offices, primary and secondary schools, IMPACT's own premises, community based premises and street locations in detached methods of work. The IMPACT Project is based on a partnership model and is built upon two fundamental premises. Firstly, it adopts an inclusive approach. Despite the political sensitivities that exist in West Belfast, IMPACT has resolved this by developing two bodies to direct its work. There is an advisory committee which includes the PSNI and other statutory agencies to advise on the role and scope of the project. The project is also managed by a steering committee made up of equal representatives from the local community sector and the range of statutory partners contributing resources to the project. The second premise guiding the project is that the operational team is drawn from a range of different backgrounds reflecting partner agency interests and remits. This project is a truly multi-agency and partnership scheme, incorporating health, education and the criminal justice systems. The project itself was set up as the community felt there was a need and has been involved with the management and direction of the project.

IMPROVING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE

150.  Lord Woolf argued that, as a result of inadequate funding, the way we look after those who are punished in the community has deteriorated and that: "this has led to a loss of confidence on the part of both the public and the courts in the quality of community punishment".[226] The Criminal Bar Association agreed and added: "a large part of the difficulty in passing effective community sentences rather than short custodial sentences has been because there is such emphasis as how the sentence appears to the public as opposed to whether it is in fact the right sentence".[227] David Faulkner added that Courts and Probation Service and police should try to ensure that the conditions attached to community sentences and licences are "realistic and relevant" to the person's situation and circumstances, and that they are designed to help towards their re-settlement.[228] He added that the need to protect the public should not "result in conditions whose only purpose is to appear 'tough' on the offender, and which increases the likelihood of failure for no positive purpose".[229]

Boosting judicial and public confidence in community sentences: the Thames Valley projects The Thames Valley Partnership established a series of projects in order to test ways of engaging local community groups in decisions about unpaid work, and to enable sentencers to visit community-based alternatives to prison. The latter programme involved Crown Court judges visiting a range of community-based programmes including domestic violence, drug treatment and unpaid work projects. The experience of work with Crown Court judges in the Thames Valley 2005-06 suggested that the judicial visits were extremely worthwhile. Prior to this, probation staff and judges had little contact with each other and judges had limited knowledge of the practical operation of community sentences. They gained a realistic flavour of the work, and expressed a wish for continuing information about the schemes. It appeared that judges had not appreciated the intensity and demanding nature of some programmes, or instead the importance of good assessment and the insistence of programmes on offenders taking responsibility. Capacity and resources were identified as crucial issues: recruitment of staff, for example, was a problem. Nevertheless, drug users were positive about their treatment and highlighted the powerful impact of court review and judicial continuity. Judges were impressed with the flexibility of these orders, and with the tough enforcement regime in place. They learned more about probation assessment and the context from which PSRs (pre-sentence reports) come, producing enhanced respect for the professionalism of probation officers. The most important conclusion was that confidence on all sides increased with knowledge. Similarly, the probation officers benefited from judges' affirmation of their work. They found that judges' views on domestic violence cases had changed and that their confidence in structured day programmes for drug users had much improved. The quality of the exchange between judges, probation officers and offenders was described as "remarkable". His Honour Judge Hall was an integral part of this project and chaired the roundtable discussions that followed the visits.

151.  Much of the written evidence referred to the need for public information and education in this respect. The Magistrates' Association, for example, commented that:

"…the key...is society's understanding both of what it is that constitutes a serious offence, and the fact that punishment in the community can be appropriate for more serious offences...when people understand that community sentences can be much more onerous than a few weeks doing very little in prison they recognize that community sentences can be more appropriate".[230]

The Cabinet Office report also recommended that the local community should receive information about community payback.[231]

152.  Nacro claimed that "community sentences…have not been promoted with the same headline-hitting effect as 'get tough' statements",[232] while the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies research identified that good information can do much to change public attitudes to community sentences.[233] Roger Hill (Director of Probation), was less optimistic as he reflected on the low level of public knowledge of probation work. He indicated that: "public understanding of the detail is not going to keep up and expectations will continue to rise…expectations are high and the difficulties are many".[234]

153.  Smartjustice, an organisation devoted to supporting community sentences and increasing public confidence, has conducted a number of surveys into public (and victim) attitudes to crime. Based on their findings, they argue that the starting point in addressing the public opinion issue is the need to obtain "a realistic picture of public support for alternatives to custody". Their work has led them to conclude that victims' fears have been fuelled by the tabloid media, and the competition to "talk ever tougher on crime". However, surveys have shown that "the public (particularly women) do not necessarily equate 'tough on crime' with more people in prison". They referred to a MORI poll of 2004 showing that better parenting, better discipline in schools, and more constructive activities for young people were perceived to be more effective than prison.[235]

154.  The Smartjustice and Victim Support survey Crime Victims Say Jail Doesn't Work, 2006, shows that almost two-thirds of victims of crime: "do not believe that prison works to reduce non-violent crime and offences such as shoplifting, stealing cars and vandalism. The survey showed overwhelming support for programmes that focus on prevention and in particular, more support for parents, more constructive activities for young people and more drug treatment and mental health provision in the community".[236] In an ICM poll, conducted in March 2006, 67% said prison was not likely to reduce offending amongst women and 73% did not think mothers of young children who commit non-violent crime should be locked up. Instead, 86% supported community alternatives to prison.[237]

155.  Based on these findings, Smartjustice argue that there should be a focus on the promotion of these programmes as a viable alternative to prison.[238] They identify the need to develop a strategic approach: the first hurdle being to change the language used-"the very term, alternatives to custody, places prison as the central concept in the debate around criminal justice". They explained that this was difficult because "prison is a singular, easily understood concept; the alternatives are broad, wider ranging and complex".[239] The provision of information is therefore vital. Repeated mixed messages from Government only serve to inhibit the provision of objective information. They repeatedly supported the efficacy of non-custodial sentences for non-dangerous offenders, particularly in reducing recidivism rates and David Hanson accepted this approach in evidence:

"What we need to do is promote both the application of those non-custodial sentences, the Community Orders, the 12 options in the 2003 Act, we need to encourage their greater use, look at their imaginative use because ultimately what we are concerned about in the Department is protecting the public and the best way to protect the public in those circumstances is to look at reducing re-offending".[240]

156.  Yet there is a challenge to explaining this to the public. Jack Straw said: "I look forward to a political party represented around this table…which goes out and says "if you vote for us we are going to cut the prison population^".[241] Victims' Voice commented that community sentencing was "currently seen as a soft option by both the criminal and society".[242] They argued that: "the key argument is about effectiveness-community sentences are more effective than prison, punishment alone does not change people, in fact most of the time it makes them worse".[243] Smartjustice argued that improving public confidence requires a press strategy, and a proactive, rather than reactive, approach to the media and a "well worked up communication strategy to promote community sentences focusing on best practice examples".[244]

157.  We are encouraged by evidence of successful local projects based upon joined-up provision of services at the local level, such as those in Staffordshire and Thames Valley. The local authority is a key partner in the effective delivery of these services for the criminal justice system but also for important areas such as mental health and drug treatment.

158.  We are convinced of the benefits of magistrates being closely involved in the systems that deliver and monitor community punishments. The Government should encourage magistrates to build on the projects that support their engagement in individual areas. However, the Government should also consider more systematic means in order to involve magistrates with the provision of community punishments.

159.   Local areas and individuals cannot operate in a vacuum. The Government needs to implement a sustained delivery and implementation strategy for increased use of community punishments. This is crucial for boosting public confidence in the robustness and efficacy of non-custodial sentences.

180   National Audit Office, National Probation Service: The Supervision of Community Orders in England and Wales, para 21, p 1529 January 2008, HC 203 Back

181   Ev 55 Back

182   Ev 59 Back

183   The Sentencing Guidelines Council and the Sentencing Advisory Panel, The Sentence, May 2007 Back

184   Ministry of Justice, Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2006,chapter 3  Back

185   Ev 17 Back

186   Ev 17 Back

187   Ev 61 Back

188   Ev 17 Back

189   Section 11 Back

190   Ibid Back

191   HL Deb. 26 February 2008, col. 609 Back

192   HL Deb. 26 February 2008, col.607-608 Back

193   HL Deb, 26 February 2008, col. 602  Back

194   Ev 21 Back

195   In a Written Ministerial Statement on 7 May 2008 the Ministry of Justice announced changes to the way the re-offending is measured to provide a more accurate analysis of the impact of different types of sentences. HC Deb col. 33WS Back

196   National Audit Office, National Probation Service: The Supervision of Community Orders in England and Wales, para. 21, p 1529 January 2008, HC203 Back

197   George Mair, Noel Cross and Stuart Taylor Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, The use and impact of the Community Order and the Suspended Sentence Order 2007 Back

198   See para 120 Back

199   Ev 17 Back

200   See Chapter 7 of this report for more details Back

201   George Mair, Noel Cross and Stuart Taylor Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, The use and impact of the Community Order and the Suspended Sentence Order, 2007 Back

202   Ibid Back

203   National Audit Office, National Probation Service: The Supervision of Community Orders in England and Wales, p. 17 para 2.11 Back

204   Ev 104 Back

205   Prison Reform Trust, Bromley Briefings Prison Fact file, December 2007 Back

206   HC deb,11 March 2008 col 15WS Back

207   Q 35 (HAC) Back

208   Ev 102 Back

209   Q 30 (HAC) Back

210   Q 228 Back

211   HC deb,11 March 2008 col 15WS Back

212   National Audit Office, National Probation Service: The Supervision of Community Orders in England and Wales, p.12, para 1:10 Back

213   Ibid, para 2.1 Back

214   National Audit Office, National Probation Service: The Supervision of Community Orders in England and Wales, NAO para 1.14 Back

215   Ibid Back

216   Ibid, p. 6 Back

217   Available at http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/crime.aspx Back

218   Ev 20 Back

219   Ev 20 For more detail see next chapter Back

220   Ev 82 Back

221   Ev 79 Back

222   Ev 79 Back

223   Ev 83 Back

224   Ev 63 Back

225   Ev 64 Back

226   Q 12 Back

227   Ev 31 Back

228   Ev 43 Back

229   Ev 43 Back

230   Ev 82  Back

231   Cabinet Office, Crime and Communities Review, available at www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/crime.aspx Back

232   Ev 87 Back

233   Ev 16 Back

234   Lecture to National Probation Service Annual Conference, 28 November 2006. Cardiff Back

235   Ev 124 Back

236   Ev 124 Back

237   Ev 124 Back

238   Ev 124 Back

239   Ev 124 Back

240   Q 7 Back

241   Q 406 Back

242   Ev 126 Back

243   Ev 125 Back

244   Ev 125 Back