Managing Persistent and Serious Offenders in the Community

Robin Moore, Emily Gray, Colin Roberts, Emily Taylor, Simon Merrington

• Publisher: Willan
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781134039906
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

Over the last few years intensive community programmes for both young and adult offenders have become established in the UK as an important new component of penal policy ? the ISSP (Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme) for persistent and serious young offenders, and the ICCP (Intensive Control and Change Programme) for adult offenders. Expectations of these programmes have been high, but the evidence relating to their effectiveness is mixed, and a number of critical concerns have emerged.

This book seeks to address these issues, providing a timely review of the current literature, and presents findings of a recent national evaluation of ISSP. Emerging lessons for future penal policy are presented, and set within a wider theoretical context. The book concludes by stressing the need for greater realism and further evidential support if such programmes are to gain long-term credibility, and also to consider the appropriateness of differing forms of targeting as well as the emphasis placed on the various methods of surveillance.

Part I
The development of intensive community programmes

Chapter I

Political and theoretical foundations

This chapter presents a historical overview of the development of intensive community programmes for young and adult offenders, both in the US and in England and Wales. A diverse range of programmes have been introduced in the US, while the numerous attempts at developing intensive programmes in England and Wales have coincided with a general intensification of community penalties. More recently, there has been a proliferation of intensive programmes in many jurisdictions, including England and Wales. While there has been a strong political impetus behind the introduction of these programmes, they have also benefited from their ability to combine elements from differing models of criminal justice and from their multi-faceted theoretical foundations. However, as will be shown, there are a number of tensions between these theoretical rationales and between the rationales and the more political aims.

A diverse range of programmes

The United States

Intensive community programmes are now well established in the US, with the Intensive Supervision Program (ISP) for adult offenders dating back to the 1960s. By 1990 an ISP had been initiated in every US state, and by 1994 it was estimated that over 120,000 offenders were the subject of such a programme. The result of this expansion is that the US has become the world leader in the development of intensive programmes. As Michael Tonry (1998: 691) concludes, ‘although ad hoc intensive supervision in individual cases presumably occurs in every probation system, no other country has adopted widespread programs of intensive probation’. Notably, this expansion forms just one limb of an increasingly punitive approach by US authorities: ‘In recent years, concern about the problem of crime and frustration over the seeming ineffectiveness of efforts to treat offenders has led to a tougher stance towards criminals. Longer prison sentences are being imposed, the death penalty has been resurrected, and more restrictive community-based sentencing has been implemented’ (Hancock and Sharp 2004: 331).

The development of national standards for US intensive programmes has been hindered by the complexity of the US system. The correctional services and related statutory responsibilities vary from state to state and are distinct from federal provision. As Hancock and Sharp (2004: 6) state, ‘There is no single criminal justice system in this country. We have many similar systems that are individually unique.’ The majority of intensive community programmes have been developed and implemented at the local county or state level. Consequently, a diverse range of programmes has been introduced. More specifically, there have been differences in terms of both intake, i.e. the populations, which have been targeted, and process, i.e. the content and intensity of the programmes (see Chapter 2 for examples of individual programmes).

The variability in intake or targeting has had the following three dimensions: (i) age; (ii) stage in process; and (iii) risk of re-offending. With regard to the first of these dimensions, some of the programmes have targeted adult offenders, others have been confined to young adult offenders, and the remainder have targeted young offenders. Turning to the second dimension of ‘stage in process’, the intensive programmes have clearly positioned themselves at different points in the criminal justice process. Some of the programmes have targeted offenders pre-custody, sometimes even pre-sentence at the bail stage, but others have sought referrals at the post-custody stage. This is reflected in the following three-way classification devised by Joan Petersilia and Susan Turner, which also recognises that some pre-custody programmes are more concerned with diversion from custody than others.

Prison-diversion, commonly referred to as ‘front door’ programs because their goal is to keep offenders from entering prison’s front door.

Early-release, commonly referred to as ‘back door’ programs because they hasten the prisoner’s exit through the prison’s back door.

Probation-enhancement or case-management, programs created and controlled by probation managers, in which participants who are deemed high risk are selected from the pool of sentenced felony probationers. (Petersilia and Turner 1990: 12)

While the ‘prison-diversion’ programmes need to target those offenders at risk of custody, the final variation in targeting relates to a differing form of risk. This difference is indicative of the multi faceted nature of risk, with a clear distinction now evident between those risks to which offenders are subject and those risks that can be seen as an attribute of offenders (Robinson 2003; McNeill and Batchelor 2004). The risks of custody and self-harm clearly fall into the former category, while the risks of re-offending and of serious harm to others fall into the latter. Increasing attention has been paid to this second category, and, notably, some intensive community programmes have specifically targeted those offenders deemed to be at low to moderate risk of re-offending, while others have targeted those offenders at high risk of re-offending.

The factors that have been taken into account in assessing the risk of re-offending have varied greatly, with some risk assessments having been more formalised than others. Specific eligibility criteria have included the seriousness of the current offence, the person’s offending history, the person’s sentencing and/or compliance history, the length of the current sentence, and the potential threat to others. A number of schemes have employed further suitability factors, extending to the offender’s specific needs and/or motivation.

As indicated above, the intensive programmes in the US have varied greatly not only in their targeting but also in their programme content and intensity. Petersilia and Turner (1992: 611) have recognised that ‘there is no generic ISP program. So many programs call themselves ISP that the acronym alone reveals little about any program’s particular character. The only common characteristic of ISP programs is that they involve more supervision than routine probation programs.’ For the purposes of this book, intensive community programmes are those that proclaim themselves as such and emphasise the increased levels of contact. Notably, however, there is no standard as to how much more supervision is required before a programme is deemed intensive. In some instances, a doubling of the number of contacts from one to two a month seems to have sufficed, whereas in other instances, an expectancy of several contacts per day has been established. Somewhat clearer is the trend over time, which has been towards continually increasing levels of intensiveness.

Before 1980, ‘intensive supervision’ generally meant no more than two or three contacts per month rather than the standard one; this situation existed in operations other than experimental programs or in other special circumstances. However, by 1983 – 1984 the number of contacts in intensive supervision programs had often become as many as two-to-four per week. As late as 1980, this quantity might have been criticized by various reformers and academicians as ‘overly intrusive social control’. But, by the last half of the 1980s, this level of contact was common, was widely accepted, and was almost unquestioned. (Palmer 1991: 98)

Intensive programmes in the US have also varied in terms of their programme components. Such components, which have been combined in numerous ways, have been listed as follows:

1 Greatly increasing contact between supervisors and offenders.

2 Confining offenders to their homes.

3 Enforcing curfews.

4 Submitting offenders to random drug testing.

5 Requiring offenders to pay restitution to victims.

6 Electronically monitoring offenders.

7 Requiring offenders to pay for the privilege of being supervised. (Gendreau, Goggin and Fulton 2000: 197)

As can be seen, many of these components relate to the surveillance and monitoring of offenders, and, until relatively recently, these components were dominant among the US programmes. This trend was highlighted by Ted Palmer (1991: 98–9): ‘As intensive supervision programs took shape in the early 1980s, the relative priority or emphasis placed on rehabilitation as a goal changed significantly. Specifically, its role was reduced in comparison to strategies focusing on short-term behaviour control ... These intensive supervision programs might be called the control/surveillance-centered programs of the 1980s.’ In other words, in many of the US programmes, supervision has actually meant monitoring, surveillance and control rather than treatment or rehabilitation. However, some of the more recent US models have incorporated, to a lesser or greater extent, a rehabilitative/treatment dimension. These models have been dubbed the second generation of intensive rehabilitation supervision programmes (Gendreau, Cullen and Bonta 1994). Nevertheless, diversity remains prevalent with the balance between control and treatment in these programmes ranging greatly.

England and Wales

Recent decades have also witnessed numerous attempts at developing intensive community interventions in England and Wales. Many of these attempts can be seen as examples of ‘policy transfer’ from the US to the UK (Newburn 2002a). Other such examples include ‘zero tolerance’, curfews, ‘three strikes’, private prisons and electronic monitoring. In contrast to the US, however, the intensive community initiatives in England and Wales have tended to be short-lived. There has, nevertheless, been a proliferation and a more general strengthening and intensification of community sentences for both young offenders and adult offenders. This can be traced back to the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, since described as ‘the high point of “welfarism”’ (Newburn 2002b), which introduced the Supervision Order for young offenders. This was followed three years later by the Criminal Justice Act 1972 which first placed the Community Service Order (CSO) on a statutory footing, and permitted the experimental use of day training centres by probation services. Following a short trial period, the CSO was made available nationally in 1975. Prior to this development, the Probation Order had been the main community sentence for adult offenders, having been introduced formally by the Probation of Offenders Act 1907.

In the following decade, the Criminal Justice Act 1982, which was seen as signifying a move away from welfare towards the concerns of justice, extended the availability of CSOs to 16-year-olds, while enabling courts to add further requirements to Supervision Orders, including night-time restrictions, and to Probation Orders, including attendance at a day centre (the latter probation requirements were commonly referred to as 4A and 4B orders). With regard to Supervision Orders, Rob Allen (1991: 45) noted that the new requirements were ‘designed to bolster the credibility of supervision orders and arrest the decline in their use by magistrates’. Attempts to further promote the use of community sentences for ‘top-end’ cases were made through the Criminal Justice Act 1988 by imposing strict criteria upon the use of custodial sentences.

Moving into the 1990s, the Criminal Justice Act 1991 abandoned the terminology of ‘alternatives to custody’ and established community sentences as punishments in their own right, all within an explicit ‘just deserts’ model of sentencing. The focus was upon ensuring appropriate punishment, and the preceding White Paper (Home Office 1990: para 4.3) stated that, ‘Punishment in the community should be an effective way of dealing with many offenders, particularly those convicted of property crimes and less serious offences of violence.’ The Combination Order was introduced by the 1991 Act, combining probation and ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Figures and tables
• Abbreviations
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Part I: The development of intensive community programmes
• Part II: Case Study: The Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme
• Part III: Looking forward
• References
• Index