british journal of community justice · 2019. 12. 2. · british journal of community justice...

British Journal of Community Justice

Volume 3 Number 3 Summer 2005

Contents

1 EditorialAre You Thinking What I’m ThinkingPaul Senior

5 Community Justice Centres: A US-UK ExchangeGreg Berman and Adam Mansky

15 Throw Out The Bathwater But Keep The Baby! The Role of theSupervisory Relationship in ‘What Works’ Initiatives AmongSwedish Male ProbationersAnne H. Berman

31 The Police and Community Justice: The Lambeth PolicingExperimentChris Crowther–Dowey

45 The Anglo-American Measurement of Police Performance:Compstat and Best ValueMatthew Long and Eli B. Silverman

61 Angry or What? Experiences of Being a Crime VictimBeth Hodgson

75 Community Justice Files 9Jane Dominey

81 Book Reviews

EDITORIAL ARE YOU THINKING WHAT I'MTHINKING?

Paul Senior, Sheffield Hallam University

If you had decided that the Liberal Democrats or the Green Party were not going to formthe next government then you would be hard pressed to find a positive edge to thecampaigns on crime policy by either of the two main parties. Michael Howard did a goodjob in reminding us what he was like in government by reprising policies New Labour hadat least tried to leave behind including the ‘build more prisons’ sound bite redolent of thepopular punitiveness of the Howard period as Home Secretary. We also saw a somewhatironic argument against electronic monitoring by Howard. Vilified in the 1990s as ameasure which would dehumanise and degrade offenders Howard bizarrely objected to it astoo lenient a measure whether gaudy orange coats became standard issue for all offendersor not!! So we were left with New Labour and their vision for crime policy over the nextfour years.

It was reading Hazel Blears’ first ideas post-election that starkly confronted me with therealisation that the New Labour election strategy on crime had been an attempt toconflate policies in a way not dissimilar to the successful tactic employed by Thatcher inthe 1980s who had conflated law and order. You will recall this had given us generationsof political and social protesters re-branded as criminals. New Labour were employed in are-branding exercise all of their own. Clues come in Blears’ words on ASBOs. Firstlyregretting the spread of anti-social behaviour to prosperous areas she commented:

That’s not about poverty, that’s not about deprivation,’ she said. ‘That wasjust terror (Hinsliff, 2005).

And, warming to her theme of naming and shaming, she went on to say:

The minister backed the Bluewater shopping centre’s ban on ‘hoodies’ andbaseball caps: ‘If you think that your child is wearing that kind of clothingin order to be part of a gang that wants to terrorise people, then I think youhave a responsibility to sort it out’ (Hinsliff, 2005).

What we see in these quotes is the conflation of two areas of policy: crime and terrorismand this feels to be the main message from New Labour’s election campaign. The NewLabour manifesto contained measures for anti-terrorism intermingled with proposals in themainstream criminal justice system. The emphasis was clear. It is only a matter of degreewhich distinguishes anti-social behaviour from terrorist activities. Impression managementwas seeking to plant a collective image in the minds of ordinary citizens that alienated,

1

deprived and disenfranchised young people are as big a danger as and compatible with anyterrorist threat. Indeed as Hazel Blears states above they are in fact terrorists of a uniquelydomestic kind. It follows from this conflation that we must then have a punitiveprogramme of legislation to defeat this internal wave of terror. So in this mood its tells thelaw-abiding citizen, let’s name and shame people subject to ASBOs and then get them towear uniforms so we all know who they are, then ID Cards are an obvious next step tocome in as this can then ensure that no employer or public venue need allow access tothese domestic terrorists. The bankruptcy of this approach was illustrated in a response tothese policies penned by criminologist and film maker, Roger Graef, in the LondonEvening Standard. He writes:

The toughest-talking gang of all - Home Office ministers - are at it again...the hardest thing for yobs is not more punishment, but learning to takeresponsibility for their actions. We’ve already got ASBOs and the largestprison population in Europe. It is time to learn from our successes, not ourfailures (Graef, 2005).

So the crucial question for practitioners in the community justice field is where does thatleave us. Crime policy continues to be dominated by this excessive and largelyinappropriately conflated and censorious language. Whilst it seeks to ferment in the mindsof citizens a nervousness and sense of insecurity as we walk the streets (here the terrorismlink works well to endorse this foreboding atmosphere) it also must be read alongside NewLabour’s developing policies on victims which appear to contrast victims to offenders as ifthe two categorises are mutually exclusive.

Re-balancing the system in favour of victims was a dominant pre-election theme of NewLabour. Various long standing due process protections for offenders are being re-engineered under this agenda. This is despite the context of an average of 770 wrongfulconvictions per year in court (Naughton, 2005). It is unclear whether the system is inneed of an overhaul at all. Should it not be about recognizing that victims and offendersare not so distinct categories and that the rights and responsibilities they share as citizensis a better starting point for policy innovation. Thus a more positive balancing would bein the promotion of policies which emphasise the ways in which offenders can bereintegrated into communities rather than further stigmatized and alienated. This agendacould include the following: recognising that prisoners are citizens and considering morepro-actively their right to vote and participate in society; protecting the offender as victimby rejecting the Tory supported ‘Tony Martin Law’ which would allow householders to beable to take more active action against intruders; enhancing and engaging more ex-offenders as workers in the system supporting and mentoring their peers in ways which canhelp their re-integration rather then further stigmatise them; making sure that whateverorganisational arrangements are decided upon for the National Offender ManagementService (and that in itself is a huge policy issue for the next 2 years) ensuring thatindividual offenders remain at the heart of the process and are actually given the end-to-end services, support and treatment they need to move away from crime. A positive

2

3

re-balancing through these and similar measures suggested would protect victims by givingall individuals a stake back in society.

Beyond the ballot box and the soap box of election rhetoric New Labour has initiatedsome challenges to the criminal justice system to meet the demands of reducing re-offending. Much of its pre-election practice - the Drug Intervention Programmes for end-to-end support of drug offenders, the civil renewal agenda in policing and the possibility ofregenerating community involvement; the Resettlement Strategies to ensure transitionfrom custody to community is enhanced; the Reducing Re-Offending Action Plan and itsfocus on key pathways; the Offender Management model; the protection for victims andwitnesses of crime; and the restorative justice agenda in youth crime belie the rather moreworrying sound bites of the past few weeks.

The mind-set of the average citizen remains potentially negative, stigmatizing and afraidof our fledging ‘terrorists’. It is to be hoped that these more positive policies actuallysucceed in persuading people on the ground that the reality of crime reduction is not afiction of criminological research but an everyday fact which can and should be heard andacted upon by people. After all, the youngsters I meet on the street don’t conform to themenace of the Blear’s sound bite. As one teenager said to me about the banning of hoods.

This is so ridiculous. It’s just a fashion statement and tomorrow it will besomething else - get real!!

This edition features articles which offer us a glimpse of key themes for the next few years.The Red Hook Community Justice Centre inspired the development of one such centre inthe UK, in Liverpool and Greg Berman and Adam Mansky’s article talks about some ofthe issues raised by such centres in a round table discussion on the innovation. AnneBerman reviews the What Works approach in Sweden and, using a challengingmethodology, argues that programmes work best where a supervisory relationship ismaintained and this will have relevance for the Offender Management agenda in the UK.

We have two articles on policing in this edition. Chris Crowther-Dowey reviewing theLambeth Policing Experiment seeks to demonstrate that communitarian values haveinfluenced police work in relation to drugs and notes the emphasis on communityconsultation and community engagement. He warns however that escalating violence inthe distribution of hard drugs remains a key and unresolved issue. Matt Long and EliSilverman focus on the impact of new public manageralism in two apparently contrastingpolice cultures in the UK and the US. They demonstrate that, two systems of publicaccountability, that of Compstat and Best Value, offer some interesting parallels indevelopment. This theme is continued in the article by using the notion of censure toassess the difficulties and contradictions presented to middle managers working in thissystem.

4

The final article by Beth Hodgson challenges policy makers to improve their practices insupporting victims through the criminal justice process. Her research highlights poorpractices in supporting victims and suggests that approaches based on restorativeprinciples and including mediation and apology would help victims cope with theemotional distress of victimisation.

It remains to be seen how New Labour’s agenda will impact on the policy areas discussedin this issue. New Labour’s potentially progressive achievements may be undermined bytheir conflation of separate issues which are, in fact, worlds apart: on the one hand, a newand unpredictable conflict over globalised injustice fought on an international stage versusthe ever-present ‘problem’ of young people. Geoff Pearson’s (1983) Hooligan ought tobecome compulsory reading for politicians of all hues!!

ReferencesGraef, R. (2005) ‘War on Yobs’, London Evening Standard Tuesday 17 May.Hinsliff, G. (2005) ‘US-style Uniforms for Yobs in New Disorder Crackdown: Home Office Minister

Launches War on Culture of Disrespect’, The Observer Sunday 15 May.Naughton, M. (2002) ‘The Scales of Injustice’, Guardian Unlimited 28 July 2002 (Accessed 26 May

2005 on http://innocent.org.uk).Pearson, G. (1983) Hooligan: A History of Respectable Fears. London: Macmillan.

5

COMMUNITY JUSTICE CENTRES: AUS-UK EXCHANGE

Greg Berman and Adam Mansky, Center for Court Innovation and GregParston and Jon Harvey, Office for Public Management

AbstractThis article seeks to provide some background information on community justice centresin the US and the pilot North Liverpool Community Justice Centre - the results of aninternational roundtable, convened by the Center for Court Innovation and the Office forPublic Management, that took place in London towards the end of 2004. Along the way,this paper seeks to begin to answer the following three questions: (1) can justice be ‘co-produced’ by citizens and criminal justice officials?; (2) what does community justicemean to both American and British audiences; and (3) what are the implications ofcommunity justice for how we think about the relationship between government andcitizens? The article shows that the concept of community justice has a diversity ofmeanings attached to it, but there are two common themes. First, there is an emphasis onproblem solving approaches, underpinned by a commitment to focusing on widercommunity safety issues rather than the administrative concerns of simply processing casesthrough the criminal justice system. Secondly, community justice works to ensure citizensare fully engaged with the criminal justice system, in particular by identifying localpriorities and creating solutions to local problems. The article is divided into three mainsections. First, the notion of the Community Justice Centre is put into context byconsidering the Red Hook Community Justice Center in the United States. The secondpart examines the adaptation of American thinking and practice in North Liverpool,England. The third part reports on a day long event convening more than twentyacademics, policy makers and practitioners from the US and UK in a discussion on thepractical application of the principles of community justice.

ContextIn the winter of 2004, the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre opened its doors inthe heart of Liverpool, a port city with a reputation for poverty, crime and disorder. TheCommunity Justice Centre, which is designed to bring the criminal justice system andlocal citizens together to solve public safety problems, is England’s first community justicecentre and the culmination of a two-year planning effort.

Community Justice Centres: A US-UK Exchange

6

Greg Berman and Adam Mansky

The British interest in community justice centres began in unlikely fashion with a trip toRed Hook, Brooklyn. In the fall of 2002, while visiting New York State Chief Judge JudithS. Kaye, and Britain’s Lord Chief Justice, Woolf, was given a tour of the Red HookCommunity Justice Center, one of New York’s pioneering community courts.

Red Hook opened its doors for business in April 2000 and celebrated its fifth anniversarylast month. Operating out of a refurbished Catholic school in an isolated Brooklynneighborhood dominated by public housing, the Justice Center is a neighborhood-basedcourt that seeks to solve local problems like drugs, crime, domestic violence and housingdisputes. At Red Hook, a single judge hears cases arising within a discrete geographiccatchment area. Under ordinary circumstances in New York, these cases would be broughtto three separate, centralized courts (Civil, Family and Criminal). By contrast, the goal inRed Hook is to offer a coordinated, rather than piecemeal, approach to people’s problems.Red Hook’s judge - the Hon. Alex Calabrese - has an array of sanctions and services at hisdisposal, including community restitution projects, on-site job training, alternativeeducation for high-school dropouts, drug treatment, mediation and mental healthcounseling - all rigorously monitored to ensure accountability and drive home notions ofindividual responsibility (Carter, 2004).

But Red Hook goes far beyond what happens in the courtroom. The courthouse is the hubfor an array of unconventional programs that engage local residents in ‘doing justice.’ Theidea here is to engage the community in aggressive crime prevention, solving localproblems before they even come to court. These projects include:

• Red Hook Public Safety Corps, which each year puts fifty community residents towork escorting defendants to drug treatment, assisting domestic violence policeofficers at the local precincts, painting over graffiti and fixing broken locks andwindows in Red Hook’s public housing development.

• Red Hook Youth Court, in which local teenagers are trained to act as judge, jury andattorneys, hearing real-life cases involving other teens stopped by police for low-leveloffenses.

• Mediation, facilitated by trained community volunteers, enables neighborhooddisputes to be resolved peacefully before they result in arrests, and provides the judgewith an additional tool in his arsenal.

• Operation Toolkit, a community organizing project that convenes communityresidents, area merchants, local social service providers and government agencies toidentify and resolve complicated community issues - such as illegal garbage dumping, aneglected park, unsafe public housing - that a judge alone cannot solve.

• Operation TEACH, an after-school program that aims to prevent HIV transmissionand drug abuse among teens through peer education training and peer-led workshops.

• On-site services, including job counseling, health screening, adult education,mentoring, and child-care, free-of-charge to anyone who needs them.

The Red Hook experiment has achieved some notable results. Before the Justice Centerbegan operations, a community survey found that 12 percent of Red Hook’s residentsapproved of the performance of courts; since it opened, the Justice Center has received a68 percent approval rating (Center for Court Innovation, 2001). Red Hook’s presidingjudge has mandated more than 1,000 defendants to long-term drug and alcohol treatment.Since the project began in April 2000, low-level offenders have contributed severalhundred thousand dollars worth of labor to the community - cleaning local parks, paintingover graffiti and sweeping the streets. Compliance rates with intermediate sanctionsaverage 75 percent, a rate that compares favorably to traditional courts as well as otheralternative sanction programs (Center for Court Innovation, 2004). Finally, for the firsttime in 35 years, Red Hook completed a calendar year without a homicide - in fact, theneighborhood is now well into its third consecutive year without a killing. While theJustice Center cannot claim sole responsibility for this - or for the economic developmenthappening throughout the neighborhood - it has been an important piece of the puzzle inRed Hook’s rebirth.

The Red Hook Community Justice Center made an impression on Lord Woolf. LordWoolf’s enthusiasm in turn sparked the interest of other British Government leaders. Overthe course of the next year, New York City received visits from three British cabinetministers involved in the administration of criminal justice - the Home Secretary, theAttorney General and the Lord Chancellor. Several members of parliament and numerouscivil service officials have come to New York to witness community justice first-hand, aswell.

The visit by Home Secretary David Blunkett in April 2003 marked an important turningpoint. As he recounted,

What I saw at [the Red Hook Community Justice Center] was aboutengaging the community in finding a way of resolving problems, dealingwith the consequences, engaging the individual in changing their chaoticlifestyle... It was about the community coming together physically as well asintellectually, and practically, to help do something about it, and usingvolunteers (Blunkett, 2003: 4).

North Liverpool Community Justice CentreOn the heels of Blunkett’s visit to Red Hook, three Government agencies - the HomeOffice, the Department for Constitutional Affairs (then known as the Lord Chancellor’sDepartment), and the Crown Prosecution Service - formally announced their intention tostudy the feasibility of creating a model Community Justice Centre in England and Wales.A cross-agency planning team immediately began work on an extensive communityconsultation and engagement strategy. At the same time, government planners designed aprocess for weighing potential locations for the pilot project - criteria included levels oflocal crime, economic deprivation, and community cohesion.


7

8


The site of the first Justice Centre was officially announced in the winter of 2003 - sevencoterminous neighborhoods in northern Liverpool marked by poverty, crime and disorder.The cachment area includes the UK’s poorest area by post code and has a burglary ratenearly double the national average.

Shortly after North Liverpool was selected, a team of twenty local and central planners(and a community resident) traveled to New York to see community justice in action atNew York’s community courts. In October 2004, the government announced theappointment of David Fletcher, a former criminal defense solicitor, as presiding judge ofthe North Liverpool Justice Centre. Six weeks later, on December 9, 2004, the projectofficially opened for business.

Under Fletcher’s leadership, the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre focuses onthe quality-of-life problems prioritized by local residents during the planning process,including vandalism, car theft, and graffiti. As with the American model, NorthLiverpool’s one judge presides over a multi-jurisdictional caseload and can sentenceoffenders to a range of community restitution projects and social services. The judgeassumes an active role in compliance monitoring. To ensure swift and effective servicedelivery, many of the criminal justice agencies and social service providers are located inthe Justice Centre building, including the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and theProbation Service. Services will not only be mandated; many will be available on a walk-in basis, as well.

Like its US counterparts, the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre seeks to re-engineer the relationship between justice agencies and citizens. Where possible, theplanning team has sought to give the area’s normally disenfranchised and alienated publica voice in shaping the program. For example, local residents participated in a tour ofpossible sites for the Justice Centre; in fact, a community resident actually found the sitethat ultimately was selected. Perhaps even more notable, the three-person panel thatselected the judge included two community residents - something unheard of in the UK orthe US. In addition, government planners have aggressively reached out to Liverpoolresidents, hosting community meetings, convening focus groups, and conducting surveys.Preliminary findings from the survey of more than two hundred North Liverpool residentsinclude:

• Respondents held an overall perception that local crime is a problem - especially drugsand youth gangs.

• Three-quarters of respondents thought that the North Liverpool Community JusticeCentre is, or could be, a good idea.

• Three quarters of respondents thought that offenders should be sentenced quickly, andthat sentences should involve community restitution.

• More than half of interviewed respondents thought that the community should have asay in the type and location of such restitution.

9

• Three-quarters of interviewed respondents believed that they should be able to reportcrime without fear of retribution (CJS Online, 2004).

As exciting as the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre is, it represents just the tipof the iceberg in terms of criminal justice reform in the UK. A wide range of initiatives iscurrently underway in England and Wales that seek, in one way or another, to reengineerthe criminal justice system, making it more problem-solving and more open to communityinput. These include reform efforts at the Crown Prosecution Service, youth offendingteams, restorative justice experiments, offender management schemes, and new sentencingand supervisory orders designed to reduce youth crime and substance abuse. All of theseinitiatives touch on issues of community justice in one way or another. Perhaps theclearest indication of the government’s commitment to exploring these ideas comes fromthe Department of Constitutional Affairs, which has created a unit devoted to theimplementation of community justice.

RoundtableIn an effort to frame the debate about community justice in the UK, the Center for CourtInnovation and the Office for Public Management convened a roundtable in London on22 October 2004. In particular, the roundtable sought to bring greater definition to theconcept of community justice, exploring the practical applications of this idea (inparticular the implementation of the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre), andlaying out a future agenda for community justice reformers. The roundtable was conductedunder the conventions of the ‘Chatham House Rule,’ which is used in the UK to promotea free exchange of ideas. This rule by officials and policymakers dictates that noquotations can be directly attributed to any individual speaker. The event was supportedby more than 20 criminal justice practitioners from both sides of the Atlantic. Participantsin the day-long event included:

• Rob Allen, Director, Rethinking Crime and Punishment• Sarah Benioff, Chief Executive, Community Development Foundation• Greg Berman, Director, Center for Court Innovation• Shona Bowers, Community Organizer, Red Hook Community Justice Center• Lesley Campbell, Senior Fellow in Learning & Management Development, OPM• Shami Chakrabarti, Director, Liberty• Brendan Finegan, Director of Policy, Youth Justice Board• David Fletcher, Judge, North Liverpool Community Justice Centre• The Rt. Hon. The Lord Goldsmith QC, Attorney General, England and Wales• Fiona Harrow, Project Manager, Liverpool Community Justice Centre• Jon Harvey, Senior Fellow in Organisation Development, OPM• Adam Mansky, Director of Operations, Center for Court Innovation• Liam McGrath, Chief Superintendent, Devon and Cornwall Police• Olivia McLeod, NOMS Delivery Team, Home Office• Barry Mussenden, Criminal Justice & Young People, Barrow Cadbury Trust• Juanita Newton, Chief Administrative Judge, New York City Criminal Court



10

• Greg Parston, Executive Chairman, OPM• Katharine Raymond, Special Advisor to the Home Secretary, Home Office• Teresa Reynolds, Head of Policy, Victim Support• David Smith, Professor of Criminology, Lancaster University• Simon Smith, Community Justice Division, Department of Constitutional Affairs• Brett Taylor, Defense Attorney, Legal Aid Society• Paul Whittaker, Merseyside Chief Crown Prosecutor, Crown Prosecution Service

The workshop opened with a welcoming speech by the Attorney General for England andWales, Lord Goldsmith QC, the member of the Cabinet responsible for overseeing theprosecution of all cases in the UK. In his address, Lord Goldsmith underlined theimportance of addressing low-level crime and increasing confidence in the criminal justicesystem. He indicated that the government must continue to reform the criminal justicesystem and to communicate these improvements to the public. In addition, in thinkingabout community justice, he challenged the group to examine several questions: Doescommunity justice offer problem-solving approaches that can help change offenders’behaviour? Does it prioritise community-identified problems instead of dictating what theproblems are? Is the community sufficiently involved in identifying and implementingsolutions? And finally, what implications does community justice have for the role ofprosecutors?

With this framing in mind, conversation was devoted to exploring the implications ofcommunity justice to criminal justice practice in the UK. Participants introducedthemselves by answering the basic question, ‘what does community justice mean to you?’Not surprisingly, each participant had a different interpretation of the concept, but certaincommon themes did emerge. There seemed to be a general understanding that communityjustice has at least two core elements: (a) an emphasis on problem-solving - that is,creating a justice system that attempts to address community safety problems, and not justprocesses cases; and (b) an emphasis on engaging citizens in working with criminal justiceactors to identify local priorities and craft new solutions.

With regard to developing a vision of community justice, this event highlighted a numberof contradictory goals:

• to encourage active altruistic citizenship amongst the communities served;• to make a contribution towards improving confidence in the criminal justice system

overall;• to make the criminal justice system more effective at reducing crime;• to improve the satisfaction levels of victims of crime;• to focus the energies of police officers, prosecutors, judges and others on crime

prevention;• to improve diversity within criminal justice agencies (including the court system);• to recognise the deep divisions and conflicting interests in some communities and to

ensure justice for all members of society;


11

• to ensure the fair treatment of all people suspected of committing an offence anduphold fundamental human rights; and

• to create a system that does not accommodate the conviction of an innocent personor a disproportionate punishment for a guilty one in pursuit of a ‘greater good’.

Implicit in the group’s articulation of community justice was a critique of current criminaljustice practice: several participants emphasized that the criminal justice system mustmove away from responding after the fact and towards more creative and effective ways ofbuilding safe and healthy neighbourhoods. One participant defined community justice asremoving the ‘blindfold from Lady Justice,’ allowing the justice system to respondconstructively to crime by considering not only the individual case, but the context andcircumstances of the victim, the community, and the defendant, as well.

The role of the community in community justice generated significant conversation. Oneperson said that community justice must be ‘community-focused’ and ‘community-led.’Building on this, several roundtable participants identified community justice as an ideathat placed responsibility - both ‘individual’ and ‘collective’ - for public safety back in thehands of citizens and their communities. While there was some enthusiasm in the roomfor this idea of radically transforming the role of community residents, there was alsoconsiderable caution. One person expressed the fear that community justice could shiftaway from a ‘cuddly’ concept to something akin to ‘mob rule’ - that is, from justice to‘wrath.’ Several participants stated concerns that offering community input in sentencingcould ultimately erode the traditional British legal protection of due process andencourage community ‘vengeance.’

In response, other participants strongly resisted the effort to define community justice inopposition to due process. ‘Why can’t we have both?’ asked one participant. Anothersuggested that community justice didn’t imply that criminal justice officials were cedingauthority for law enforcement or rights protection to community residents. Anothersuggested that few citizens want to police their own streets or adjudicate cases - what theyare really looking for is a criminal justice system that is more responsive to their needs andpriorities. Others maintained that community justice required community engagementsuch that the citizens were active participants - not merely concerned (and perhapsconsulted) bystanders. It was suggested that getting more engagement would require theuse of imaginative approaches that harnessed the involvement of both geographiccommunities and communities of interest.

Later in the day, several participants questioned the desire of community justice advocatesto create a more ‘consumer-oriented’ criminal justice system. There was no consensusabout who the customer is in this context: Is it the defendant? The community? Thevictim? Despite this debate, there was general agreement in the room that the criminaljustice system shouldn’t exist to serve itself - that the system needs to be oriented nottoward the needs of judges, attorneys, and other professional players but toward servingthe interests of community residents, victims, and defendants.


12

Fears about the dangers of community involvement and the language of communityjustice advocates were hardly the only concerns to be raised during the day. Severalparticipants voiced a deep-seated concern about government’s ability to live up to its bestintentions. For these participants, there was a real fear that community justice could serveas a ‘Trojan horse’ for a litany of anti-progressive initiatives that could result in morepunitive outcomes for offenders. Others raised concerns about the expansion of thecriminal justice system at the expense of other systems (such as health or education),wondering why social problems like addiction and mental illness were being addressedthrough the courts rather than other places. Still others expressed concerns about therelationship between central and local government in the UK and the implications thiscould have for the implementation of community justice. Given the neighbourhood focusof community justice, several people expressed doubt that these efforts could be properlyimplemented from London, but wondered aloud about the willingness of centralgovernment to delegate responsibility to local officials.

Tempering all of these concerns was a general acknowledgement that the current systemisn’t working: high rates of recidivism, the overuse of incarceration, increasing substanceabuse, and declining public confidence in justice were just a few of the problemsarticulated with ‘business as usual.’ Alongside this general assessment of current practicewas a common desire to create safe, vibrant, and healthy communities. Some participantsargued that policy makers’ and practitioners’ interest in community justice is tied to itspotential to engage criminal justice agencies in community-building and becoming morecitizen-focused.

In the afternoon, the roundtable conversation moved from theory towards more practicalmatters, examining how community justice should be applied on the ground. Much of thisconversation was devoted to plans for the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre anda discussion of the Red Hook Community Justice Center in New York. In particular, thejudges and defence attorneys from these projects strongly asserted that justice professionalscould actually balance new community justice responsibilities without abdicating theirtraditional ethical obligations. For example, the case was made that a judge could meetwith residents to learn about community conditions and, at the same time, preside overcriminal cases impartially and safeguard due process. Further, it was argued that defencelawyers could zealously advocate for the interests of their clients while at the same timeadvising them of the benefits of the kinds of alternative sanctions - drug treatment, jobtraining, mental health counselling - typically available in a community justice centre.The voices of these on-the-ground participants in community justice seemed to go a longway towards addressing some of the more conceptual concerns that had been raised duringthe first part of the roundtable.

What is unquestioned is the reality that community justice is on the move to the UK. Inaddition to the well-publicized opening of the North Liverpool Community JusticeCentre, a new court-based community justice initiative is planned for the city of Salford.The Government has already begun to consider possible options for further expansion of


13

the community justice model in England and Wales. These developments will be closelywatched by many of the participants in the roundtable. A key theme will be how best tomeasure the benefits of community justice. What would success look like? Should it bemeasured in increased levels of community support? Reductions in crime? Improved levelsof wealth in local communities? Increased consistency of sentencing? Should Liverpooland Salford achieve enough stories like this one, they will go a long way toward providingat least anecdotal evidence to support the continuation of these experiments.

Concluding CommentsThis article has focused on some of the different usages of the concept of communityjustice in relation to community justice centres. There was a discussion of the origins ofthinking about such centres in the United States and attempts to transfer this philosophyand practice to the UK. The paper focused on the example of a centre in North Liverpoolwhere academics, policy makers and practitioners have been clearly engaged in itsactivities. Although this article demonstrates quite clearly that there is no agreeddefinition about the principle of community justice there are some more enduring featurestypically associated with the idea. For example, many approaches to community justice areinformed by problem solving approaches and an interest in more general issuessurrounding community safety and how to address feelings of uncertainty and anxiety.Rather than treating criminal justice as a method of processing offenders there is widerconcern with responding to the diverse needs of victims and offenders within allcommunities. In addition, the discussion has shown that community justice is aboutcitizens working in partnership with criminal justice agencies. Agencies and citizens arerequired to identify problems at a local level and develop solutions to address their causesand consequences. It has been argued that even though community justice centres presentan opportunity for the development of community justice values the effects may not bealways as intended. To illustrate this it is possible that in enhancing the role of citizens incriminal justice agencies, a risk of more punitive outcomes could arise. Community justicecentres may be seen as a way of arresting some of these tendencies. The general feelingstoward community justice expressed at the roundtable can perhaps best be summarized bya recent online editorial, which argued: ‘Nothing ventured, nothing gained. While there isclearly a long way to go on this community justice journey in the UK there was desire forthe North Liverpool Community Justice Centre - with its promise of a more responsive,human, problem-solving ethos - to have every success over the coming months and years.A lot depends on it - and not just for the people of North Liverpool’ (Stone, 2004).

EndnoteThe Center for Court Innovation, an independent, non-profit think-tank located in New York City,is the agency responsible for developing the United States’ first community court (the MidtownCommunity Court) as well as the Red Hook Community Justice Center, which has served as one ofthe models for the UK’s community justice centres. In addition to community justice centres, theCenter for Court Innovation has developed or provided technical assistance for the development ofnumerous other problem-solving courts, including drug courts, youth (or teen) courts, domesticviolence courts, integrated domestic violence courts and mental health courts.


14

The Office for Public Management (OPM) is an independent, not-for-profit organisation, foundedin 1989 to develop high quality management, professional practice in organisations that aim toimprove social results. In August 2002, OPM became the UK’s first ‘public interest company’ and isdedicated to organisational & management development, public engagement, research and goodpractice exchange in pursuit of ‘managing for social result’. OPM works with criminal justiceagencies and also local government, the health service and other government departments. Furtherinformation can be found at www.opm.co.uk.

ReferencesBlunkett, D. (2003) ‘Criminal Justice and the Community’, in Criminal Justice Serving the

Community. Conference Report, 7th July.Carter, T. (2004) ‘Red Hook Experiment’, ABA Journal 90: 37-42.Center for Court Innovation (2001) Operation Data. New York, New York: Center for Court

Innovation.Center for Court Innovation (2004) Operating Projects Quarterly Reports: Quarter 4, 2003: 18.New York, New York: Centre for Court Innovation.CJS Online (2004) ‘North Liverpool Residents Support New Community Justice Initiative,’ 29th

November (http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/the_cjs/whats_new/news-3087.html).Stone, L. (2004) ‘A New Model for Community Justice,’ NACRO Safer Society Journal, 17th

December (http://www.ippr.org/articles/index.php?article=239).

Throw Out The Bathwater But Keep The Baby!

15

THROW OUT THE BATHWATER BUTKEEP THE BABY! THE ROLE OF THESUPERVISORY RELATIONSHIP IN‘WHAT WORKS’ INITIATIVESAMONG SWEDISH MALEPROBATIONERS

Anne H. Berman, Karolinska Institutet

Abstract‘What Works’ initiatives have led to fears that the role of probation officers will bereduced to that of competent functionaries rather than skilled experts in criminal justicesocial work. A quantitative pattern analysis of four key variables among 3286 maleSwedish probationers showed that worse contact than planned and a prior criminal recordare associated with reconviction more often than expected. Worse contact could be amarker of potential reconviction during probation, indicating a need for immediateresponse. Probation may ‘work’ better when manual-based programmes and the supervisoryrelationship help probationers make lasting decisions to desist from offending.

IntroductionTraditional probation work involves building professional relationships of trust and mutualrespect between probationers and their supervisors (Boswell, 1996; Rex, 1999). The ‘WhatWorks’ initiatives of recent years, involving the introduction of manual-based cognitive-behavioural programmes to target offending behaviour, have made it unclear whether thequality of the supervisory relationship is of importance in the drive to reduce the numberof offences (cf Robinson, 2001). The indeterminacy of the relationship between theprobationer and his supervisor is in sharp contrast with structured, detailed interventionprogrammes that are minutely described in manuals. Hence, traditional relationship-building skills, assessments and interventions have been criticized as insufficient and evenmisguided in helping offenders reduce their criminal behaviour (Andrews and Bonta,1998; Gendreau, Cullen, and Bonta, 1996). Nonetheless, probationers themselves, whenasked, stress the importance of a good relationship with their supervisor as a factor thathas clearly influenced their decision to desist from offending (Rex, 1999).

Anne H. Berman

16

This study analyzed a sample of male probationers in Stockholm, Sweden from 1997 to2000. One purpose was to investigate whether participation in structured, manual-basedprogrammes reduced reconviction during the probation period. A second purpose was toexplore variables that significantly distinguish between success (non-reconviction) andfailure (reconviction) in probation. Thirdly, the study used configural frequency analysis(CFA), a statistical method that indicates typical and atypical patterns of key variables, toidentify variable patterns associated with reconviction during the probation year. Theresults suggest that the role of the supervisor is indeed significant.

Before describing method and results, an overview of treatment programmes within theSwedish prison and probation service is presented, and long-term and intermediatemeasures for evaluating probation outcomes are considered. The article concludes with adiscussion of the role of the supervisory relationship in the context of ‘What Works’.

Treatment ProgrammesTreatment programmes designed to change offenders’ behaviour have been introduced andaccredited on an increasingly wide scale in Canada (CSC, 2002), Great Britain (Blud,2003) and other countries, including Sweden. Programmes currently available in variousSwedish prisons, and to a lesser extent in probation, are Reasoning and Rehabilitation (Rand R), the Canadian Changing Ways programme [Våga välja] for drug abuse treatment;the Canadian Living Without Violence in the Family programme for domestic violenceoffenders, Priestley’s One-to-One, and three DUI programmes offered at a special prison foroffenders sentenced for driving under the influence of alcohol. Additional programmes,available only to probationers, are Priestley and MacMurran’s PRISM for individual drugtreatment, a fourth DUI programme [Rattfylleriprogrammet], ART for young offenders, anda five-session individual programme focusing on offence analysis [Brottsbrytet] (Berman,2004). In the probation service, programmes are run by probation officers who haveuniversity degrees at the B.A. or Master’s level in social work, law, psychology, educationor other relevant areas.

While treatment programmes are widely publicized in the prison and probation service,their actual availability is limited. For example, between 1995 and 2000 R and R was onlyoffered in 21 of 55 Swedish prisons, where about 10% of the prisoners in any one prisonactually participated in the programme and about 77% of a total of 339 male prisonerscompleted it (Berman, in press). In the Swedish probation service, R and R was offeredbetween 1995 and 2000 in just 8 of 43 probation authorities, where 55% of a total of 118participants completed the programme (Berman, 2002). Still, these figures compare wellwith Merrington and Stanley (2004), who report that fewer than 50% of thoseprobationers who began a programme in a prospective Oxford evaluation study of ThinkFirst completed it, while fewer than 60% of probationers sentenced to participationactually started the programme.

In the Swedish probation service, data from the present study indicate that less than 20%of probationers participated in various programmes offered between 1997 and 2000. About


17

75% of the participants are reported as programme completers, meaning that about 15% ofall probationers actually completed programmes.

Probation Outcome MeasuresDefining probation is no easy matter, given the variety of stakeholders in the criminaljustice arena. Petersilia (1996) defines the purpose of probation services:

The mission of community corrections is to assist the court and/or paroleboard in assessing candidates’ suitability for community placement; and onceoffenders are placed in the community, to enforce the court-orderedsanctions, protect the community, assist offenders to change, and supportthe rights of their victims.

There seems to be little argument on most of these points. However, as the momentum of‘What Works’ research has gained ground, considerable debate has arisen over the issue ofwhether it is possible to assist offenders to change their behaviour and, if so, how to do itoptimally (Boswell, 1996; McGuire, 1995; McNeill, 2000; Merrington and Stanley, 2004;Rex, 1999; Robinson, 2001). A second, no less important question, is how to measurewhether or not behavioural change has occurred.

The prevalent outcome measure for change in offenders’ behaviour is the rate ofrecidivism as expressed in technical violations of probation orders, re-arrests or judicialreconviction (Donnelly and Forschner, 1996; Gendreau, Little, and Goggin, 1996;MacKenzie, Browning, Skroban, and Smith, 1999; Morgan, 1995; Sims and Jones, 1997).The percentage of reconvictions reported in the literature during the probation period hasbeen found to vary from 13% to 60% (MacKenzie et al., 1999; Morgan, 1995, 1996; Simsand Jones, 1997).

Factors strongly associated with probation success or failure, according to a 1996 review ofstudies published between 1951 and 1987, include employment status, earlier criminalrecord, age, gender, income and marital status. The reliability of these results isquestionable, however, because of the absence of control groups, the wide range of follow-up periods, and varying definitions of failure (Morgan, 1996). Studies from 1995 onwardsadd educational attainment, level of supervision and length of supervision to thepreviously identified variables associated with successful probation completion (Morgan,1995). Additional variables found to be associated with recidivism have been age at firstconviction, drug abuse (excluding alcohol) (Sims and Jones, 1997), race, financial status,conviction for a drug crime (Johnson and Jones, 1998), and involvement in probationviolation behaviour (MacKenzie et al., 1999). All of these variables are associated withlong-term probation effects.

Intermediate variables associated with short-range probation results are, for example,attendance rates for treatment/work programming, employment rates, the number ofalcohol- and drug-free days and attitude changes. Although measurement of intermediate

Anne H. Berman

18

variables may reflect short-term behavioural change better than more remote changes inoffending behaviour, the outcome measure reported in the literature is invariablyrecidivism (Petersilia, 1996). While future studies may include intermediate measures ofbehavioural change, the present study uses the traditional recidivism measure in order todefine probation outcome and facilitate comparison with prior studies.

MethodMeasureThe Swedish Probation Outcome Form (SPOF) documents probationers’ needs, themeasures introduced during probation, and changes in the offender’s situation at the endof probation. The SPOF is a 42-item one-page questionnaire, launched in 1994 by theMalmö and Stockholm regions of the Swedish Prison and Probation Administration andrevised in 1996 to facilitate yearly outcome comparisons (Chylicki, 2001). The presentanalysis of the SPOF covers the four-year period from 1997 through 2000. Thequestionnaire was discontinued at the end of 2001 due to a central administrative decisionto introduce service-wide interviews using the ASI (McLellan et al., 1992) and MAPS(Oberg, Sallmén, and Haack, 2004), which measures the client’s stage of change in eachof the seven assessment areas of the ASI.

Figure 1: Variables included in the Stockholm Probation Outcome Form (SPOF), filled in by probationofficers during the probation period for each client, 1997-2000

The SPOF is divided into three sections. The first section describes baseline informationfor the probation client, the second describes measures taken during the supervisory

Section 1 - Baselineinfo.

Section 2 - Measurestaken

Section 3 - Situation atend

Age

Gender

Type of supervision

No. of prior convictions

Appt. of lay supervisor bycourt

Housing situation

Employment situation

Substance abuse status

Current treatment, if any

Lay supervisor appt. byprobation service

Supervisor/client contactfrequency

Program participation

Substance abuse treatment

Collaboration with localauthorities regarding• Substance abuse• Welfare needs• Psychiatric and somatic

problems• Housing• Employment• Debts

Housing situation

Employment situation

Evaluation of quality ofcontact

Reconviction duringprobation period


19

period, and the third section describes the client’s situation at the end of the probationperiod. Figure 1 shows a selected list of variables from the SPOF.

SampleProbation officers in the Swedish Prison and Probation Administration supervise twocategories of clients - parolees and probationers. Prisoners sentenced to at least threemonths’ incarceration serve two-thirds of their sentence and are then conditionallyreleased for a year on parole. Probationers are sentenced directly by the courts tosupervision by probation officers. Probation sentences can be combined with court ordersfor community service [Swedish samhällstjänst], or specified programme treatment [Swedishkontraktsvård]. Supervision lasts for a period of 12 months unless extended either by thelocal Probation Board or by a court order following a new criminal sentence. Supervisioncan also be cut short if new, serious crimes are committed during probation, in which caseparolees’ conditional release can be revoked. Probationers can also have their probationsentence revoked in favour of a new prison sentence.

Probation officers completed the SPOF for a population of 6697 Stockholm probationersbetween January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2000. This study analyzes a restricted samplebased on the following inclusion criteria: male gender, probation period of one year, nocourt orders for community service or specified treatment and complete data onreconviction. Women, who comprised 11.5% of the total sample, were excluded to avoidconfounding the results by gender differences. Probationers whose probation period waslonger than one year (12%) or shorter than one year (8%) were excluded in order toequalize the length of the probation intervention. Probationers for whom the probationsentence was combined with a court order for community service (5.2%) or specifiedtreatment (9.7%) were also excluded in order to reduce confounding. Figure 2 shows thisinformation in a diagram.

The dependent variable was reconviction, and complete data were essential for reliableanalysis. Twenty-five individuals with missing data were removed, leaving 3803 men foranalysis of background characteristics. For pattern analyses with four key variables, anadditional 517 cases with missing values were removed (13.6%), leaving a final sample of3286 probationers.

Background CharacteristicsVariables shown in the literature to be significantly associated with success or failure inprobation were selected as background sample characteristics for the larger sample of 3803probationers. The variables were prior criminal record, drug use, quality of contact,housing and employment at the end of the probation period, housing and employment atthe beginning of the probation period, having a lay supervisor appointed (all thesedistinguished significantly between success and failure at p<.001), contact frequency at theend of the probation period (p<.01), age and contact frequency at probation start (p<.05).Table 1 shows the sample values for these variables in order of χ2 coefficients.

Anne H. Berman

20

Figure 2 Sample inclusion diagram for a population of 6697 Stockholm area probationers betweenJanuary 1, 1997 and December 31, 2000.


21

Table 1 Male probationers’ (n=3803) background characteristics significantly differentiating betweenprobation success (no reconviction) and failure (reconviction during the probation period). The total n

without missing values is indicated for each variable, along with chi-square significance tests (***p<.001,**p<.01, *p<.05).

a. The prior criminal record is defined as none (0 prior adjudications), some (1-5 prior adjudications) or heavy (6 or more prioradjudications).

b. Lay supervisors are appointed by the probation administration during the probation year. The goal is to appoint a lay supervisorfor at least 50% of the clients on probation or parole.

c. Clients 18-25 years are defined as young in this sample in view of the higher rate of reconviction for this group. Adults aredefined as those 26 years old or more.

Anne H. Berman

22

Variables that did not differentiate between success and failure (not shown) in the presentsample were year of probation, whether the probationer was on probation order or parole,and whether or not the probationer had completed a programme intervention targetingoffending behaviour.

Pattern AnalysisAfter exploration of the background variables listed above, patterns were analyzed usingConfiguration Frequency Analysis (CFA), in order to identify configurations of variablesthat occur significantly more often than expected (types) and significantly less often thanexpected (antitypes) (Lienert, 1969; von Eye, Spiel, and Wood, 1996). The validity ofCFA analyses depends on careful selection of a small number of significant variables. Thenumber of variables in such analyses is generally limited to about four in order to minimizecomplexity and facilitate interpretation of the results.

In addition to the reconviction variable, the top three variables in Table 1 were chosenfor the pattern analysis because they distinguished most effectively between ‘success’ and‘failure’ during probation. Quality of contact was classified as Worse, OK, or Better. Druguse was classified as Drugs, Alcohol or No Drug Use. Values for the Prior criminal recordvariable and the Reconviction variable were dichotomized as either Yes or No.

This choice of variables for pattern analysis was validated by five separate logisticregression analyses where reconviction was used as the dependent variable. The finalmodel with the best fit resulted from a forward stepwise procedure with prior criminal recordentered at the first step, quality of contact in step 2, age in step 3 and drug use in step 4. Itwas deemed acceptable to eliminate the age variable since it is well-known that agecorrelates negatively with criminality. The drug use variable was prioritized in view of itsimportance as a central criminogenic need (Andrews and Bonta, 1998).

The Sleipner 2.0 programme (Bergman and El-Khouri, 1998) was used for the analysis.The significance level for identifying a type or anti-type was adjusted using theconservative Holm correction.

ResultsIn the pattern analysis sample of 3286 probationers, 87% were not reconvicted during the12-month probation period (n=2867), and 13% were reconvicted (n=419). A comparisonof the reconvicted group with the non-reconvicted group, in terms of quality of contact,drug use and prior criminal record, showed some interesting contrasts. Among recidivists,78% had a prior criminal record, 57% used drugs, and 56% had an unsatisfactory qualityof contact (‘worse’) with their probation officers. Among successful probationers, figureswere considerably lower: 57% had a prior criminal record, 32% used drugs, and 31% hadworse contact with their probation officers.

Each individual in the sample was included in one of 36 configurations in the patternanalysis. Table 2 shows only the three configurations that occurred significantly more


23

frequently than expected (types; T), as well as the three configurations that occurred lessfrequently than expected (antitypes; A).

Table 2: Typical and atypical patterns of quality of contact, drug use, prior criminal record and reconvictionamong male probationers (n=3286)

The first two types suggest that probationers who show a pattern of prior criminal recordand worse quality of contact with their probation officers are more likely to be reconvictedwhether or not they use drugs (excluding alcohol).

The third type suggests that drug users without a criminal record who have an acceptablequality of contact with their probation officers are more likely to be found among thosenot reconvicted during the year of probation. Interestingly, the first antitype confirms thatdrug users without a prior criminal record who have an acceptable quality of contact withtheir probation officers are less likely to be found among the reconvicted.

The second and third antitypes suggest that non-drug users or alcohol users without a priorcriminal record are less likely to be among those not reconvicted if the quality of contactwith their probation officers was classified as worse.

DiscussionIssuesThe gap between the ambitions for evidence-based treatment programmes in theprobation service and what is actually happening raises four basic questions, of which thefirst two were posed at the beginning of this article. One is whether such programmes areeffective in reducing reconviction rates for the probationers who participate in them. Thesecond is what other variables may account for the absence of reconviction during

Qualityof

contact

Druguse

Priorcriminalrecord

Recon-viction

Observed ExpectedAdjustedp-value

Type/Antitype

Worse Drugs Yes Yes 134 87.9 <.001 T

Worse No Yes Yes 40 14.6 <.001 T

OK Drugs No No 127 93.8 <.01 T

OK Drugs No Yes 6 24 <.001 A

Worse No No No 146 188.7 <.01 A

Worse Alcohol No No 44 66 <.05 A

Anne H. Berman

24

1 The finding that fewer probationers were homeless or unemployed at the end of the probation year compared to the beginning (seeTable 1) may well reflect casework interventions on the part of probation officers.

probation (‘success’) as well as for reconviction during this period (‘failure’). A third,significant question is what sort of probation interventions are reaching probationers whodo not participate in programmes. The final, more speculative question is whetherprogramme interventions can be effective on their own or whether these interventions‘work’ when a number of additional factors, including the supervisory relationship, blendtogether to create optimal conditions under which probationers can make lasting decisionsto desist from offending.

The first and second questions are briefly discussed below in relation to the study findings.The supervisory relationship, as the probation intervention, is then discussed at length,followed by an in-depth exploration of this relationship in the ‘What Works’ context. Thearticle concludes with a description of limitations of the present study, followed by somefinal comments.

Programmes and Background CharacteristicsStructured programmes within the Swedish ‘What Works’ initiative in probation do notappear to be effective in reducing reconviction rates for the time being, at least not on aglobal scale. However, relatively few probationers participated in the programmes before2000. It may therefore be too early to assess the effects of programmes for probationers.This conclusion is compatible with Merrington and Stanley’s (2004) recent analysis of‘What Works’ programming initiatives in the UK. Current efforts in Sweden to assessprobationers under structured interview schedules at the beginning and end of theprobation year should provide more data in the future as programme offerings alsoincrease.

Except for housing, employment and age, the variables that significantly differentiatebetween probation success and failure (see Table 1) are contact-related: having a laysupervisor appointed during probation, as well as contact frequency at the beginning andend of the probation year.1 The lay supervisor in Sweden functions as an adjunct to theprobation officer. This supervisor sees the probationer during leisure time and developswhat sometimes becomes a lasting personal relationship and a link to new pro-socialrelationships for the probationer. Contact frequency at the beginning and end of theprobation year also differentiated significantly between success and failure. The onlysupervision-related variables reported as significant in prior quantitative studies ofsuccessful versus unsuccessful probation are supervision level and length (Johnson andJones, 1998; Morgan, 1995; Sims and Jones, 1997). These variables quantify thesupervisory contact with no information on the qualitative aspects of the relationshipbetween the probationer and his supervisor (either probation officer or lay supervisor, orboth).

The Supervisory RelationshipWhile prior quantitative studies and the present study do not provide information on thecharacteristics of the probationer-supervisor relationship, this relationship is the onlyobvious channel through which probationers receive any sort of intervention when they


25

do not participate in structured programmes. Three qualitative studies explore the natureof the supervisory relationship in depth. These are Boswell’s (1996) survey of 62 probationofficers, Rex’s (1999) interview study of 21 probation officers and 60 probationers andRobinson’s (2001) reflective article on aspects of organizational power relations and‘What Works’. Each of these studies contributes to an emerging image of the supervisoryrelationship. Its basic component is communication. The supervisor must focus on‘establishing common human links,’ help probationers to ‘relax sufficiently to own theirfeelings,’ time and adapt responses to clients’ needs, listen on verbal and non-verbal levels,offer honesty, genuineness and warmth and at the same time set clear limits, i.e., ‘knowingwhere to draw the line on the care and control continuum and having the authority to doso.’ The purpose of the relationship is described as being a ‘bridge’ between the offenderand society (Boswell, 1996). Supervisory relationships are an ‘active experience’ whereofficers display ‘expert qualities’ that help convince probationers they are being takenseriously, and that it is worthwhile to disclose sensitive information as well as listen towhat the officer has to say. The supervisors have an ‘engaging style’ and also balanceempathy ‘by a certain amount of professionalism and formality’ (Boswell, 1996).

More specific structural aspects of the relationship involve ‘improving reasoning anddecision-making, strengthening social ties and reinforcing pro-social behavior by means ofencouragement’ (Rex, 1999). Techniques that reinforce pro-social behaviour involvedisplaying respect for the probationer in a variety of ways, being punctual and reliable,being polite and friendly, and being honest and open. Probationers interviewed abouttheir experiences of probation ‘seemed ready to receive…’critical advice’ provided it wasbased on a demonstrated understanding of themselves and their situation.’ A final crucialaspect of supervision involves establishing ‘moral authority and legitimacy’ (Rex, 1999).

Robinson (2001) focuses on the struggle probation officers face in the present decadewhen they grapple with the technical demands placed on them by the ‘What Works’initiatives while struggling to maintain positive values in the supervisory relationship.Traditional relationship-building skills in the social work tradition involve a discretionaryindeterminacy among ‘reflexive practitioner-researchers.’ This indeterminacy contrastsunfavourably with what is perceived as ‘What Works’ technicalities that could just as wellbe administered by less well-educated ‘competent functionaries’ rather than highly trainedcriminal justice social workers.

The quality of contact variable in the present study was defined on the basis of responsesto the statement ‘Kept contact with the lay supervisor/probation service.’ Possibleresponses were ‘better than planned’, ‘according to plan’ and ‘partly’ or ‘no’. Exactly howthe probation officers who filled the SPOF interpreted this question was not investigated.Probation officers vary widely in their own definitions of what makes probation effective(McNeill, 2000). The SPOF variable could be interpreted to reflect motivation to changeon the part of the offender, a generally ‘good relationship,’ punctuality or other outcome-related aspects of the probation officer-offender relationship like changes in attitude,alleviation of the probationer’s needs, or improvement in the probationer’s quality of life.

Anne H. Berman

26

The Supervisory Relationship and ‘What Works’The final, more speculative question in this article is whether programme interventionscan be effective on their own or whether interventions ‘work’ when a number of factors,including the supervisory relationship, combine to create conditions adequate or optimalfor probationers to consider, prepare for, and enact lasting decisions to desist fromoffending. According to Merrington and Stanley (2004) there is still a lack of clearevidence for which methods are effective in helping offenders desist. The value oftraditional probation skills is being seriously questioned and probation officers areincreasingly instructed to control and oversee rather than relate and listen (Boswell, 1996;Robinson, 2001). The data reported in this article suggest that something in thesupervisory relationship is important in helping offenders desist from further offending,since worse contact than planned is very clearly associated with reconviction more oftenthan expected. Perhaps the supervisory relationship needs to ‘work;’ perhaps, indeed, agood supervisory relationship is indispensable if ‘What Works’ interventions are to havethe intended effect. As Merrington and Stanley (2004) point out, ‘to be effectiveprogrammes need to be well targeted and supported, and reinforced by good casemanagement.’ Targeting, support and case management mean contact and relationship-building between probationers and their supervisors. Indeed, some sort of contact needs tohave been established with the probationer prior to engagement in the programme.

What can and should be done if the contact is ‘worse’ than planned? More efficientsanctioning is certainly one option. If no contact is made, early revocation of probationand sentencing to prison should be considered as a serious and real option, since theseprobationers are the ones most likely to land in prison anyway following continuedoffences. A second option is the introduction of motivational interviewing (Miller andRollnick, 2002). Motivational interviewing would involve adapting the contact strategyto the client’s ‘stage of change’ (Prochaska and DiClemente, 1986). Probationers in thepre-contemplation stage can be offered information if they are willing to receive it. If theydo not show up for appointments and make themselves unavailable for contact, theoption of reprisal becomes obvious. (If resources permit, home visits and traditional familywork are also worth testing before judicial actions of reprisal are taken).

Probationers in the contemplation stage of change, with whom it can be difficult to buildcontact because of their ambivalence about desisting from crime, can be helped byexploring this ambivalence and emphasizing discrepancy between any pro-social goalsthey might have and their current life style. One aspect of this work could involvefocusing on empathy with crime victims as discrepant with many probationers’ basichuman need to view themselves as ‘good’ persons. Probationers in the action stage arealready motivated to change their behaviour and can be worked with on an individualbasis or in programmes, depending on the risk level for re-offending. A low risk wouldobviate the need for programme interventions while a medium or high risk would clearlyindicate a need (Andrews and Bonta, 1998).


27

This article argues for the merits of viewing probation officers as well-educated reflexivepractitioner-researchers. Such professionals are capable of taking advantage of the moretechnical tools offered by ‘What Works’ and can optimize their clients’ time in probationby also offering a relationship. The apparent alternative - less educated, competentfunctionaries who routinely administer manualized programmes - would seem to fall shortof fulfilling probationers’ needs for targeting, support and case management. The results ofthis study suggest that those with worse contact should be worked with and if no contactis made, early revocation of probation and sentencing to prison should be consideredwithout delay. Having said this, and keeping the baby in the bathwater, it is important tostress the tremendous contribution made by ‘What Works’ initiatives, and the importanceof following the risk, need and responsivity principles (Andrews and Bonta, 1998).Furthermore, it is crucial to set aside permanent funds for evaluation of developments inprobation. As McNeill (2000) states, ‘an unevaluated service is necessarily vulnerable,fairly or otherwise, to the accusation of ineffectiveness; a fearful epithet in a politicalcontext where proving ‘Best Value’ is critical in competing for scarce resources’ (McNeill,2000).

Probation officers, asked what they would see as a miraculous success in their work,respond in terms of ‘outputs and outcomes,’ mostly related to reduced offences or animprovement in the client’s quality of life. Correspondingly, ‘manifest disasters’ areassociated with ‘failures of engagement.’ Effectiveness in probation involves ‘meeting theprobationers’ needs, empowering them to actualize their potential, improve their quality oflife and achieve personal change,’ with reduction or cessation of offending seen as a‘consequence or correlate of these kinds of achievement. Effectiveness also variesdepending on the probationer’s stage of change, and indicated the ‘relativity of success’(McNeill, 2000).

In sum, the supervisory relationship has an important role to play in ‘What Works’initiatives. The indeterminacy of traditional work may well have meant that some aspectsof this relationship have been unfocused and unclear (hence the bathwater in the title ofthis article). Rex (1999) found that probation officers showed too much tentativenessabout engaging probationers with firmness and authority to explore the issues that underlytheir offending. This is an area where ‘What Works’ initiatives could contribute a greatdeal toward clarifying and specifying issues to work on within the supervisory relationship.More specifically, probationers obviously often have difficulty maintaining a decision toabandon crime; Rex (1999) concludes that ‘for attempts to move people away from crimeto be effective…improving offenders’ reasoning skills must be accompanied by attentionto the social environments in which they are making and acting upon those decisions.’Boswell (1996) also warns that ‘the language of competences and outputs helpfully masksthe fact that high proportions of offenders suffer from desperate economic and socialproblems, the alleviation of which is not within the gift of the probation service but lieswithin broader social structures….there are no instant solutions now, any more than thereever were.’ While it is important to throw out dirty bathwater, the supervisory relationshipis the baby that needs to be kept and allowed to grow up healthy in an environmentsupported by ‘What Works’ initiatives.

Anne H. Berman

28

LimitationsThe SPOF was an experimental outcome measure, developed through collaborationbetween local authorities of the Swedish National Prison and Probation Administration.It was never psychometrically tested and the purpose of its data was to present bothprobation officers and decision-makers in the probation administration with aggregatedescriptions of the ongoing probation work. Nonetheless, the SPOF provided descriptionsof probation clientele that proved recognizable and stimulating for probation officers anddecision-makers in probation. Secondly, the validity of pattern analyses depends on thequality of the variables used. In this case, the variables all dated from the end of theprobation year, when the probation officers filled in the SPOF. The probation officers mayhave answered some of the questions based on memory rather than checking in files, thusintroducing an element of recall bias. However, when the sample was divided byprobation year and re-analyzed no significant differences were apparent per year, thussuggesting that the level of error was more or less consistent from year to year. A thirdlimitation involves the exclusion of individuals with missing values; analyses of missingdata in population studies suggest that these individuals show a higher concentration ofproblems than those with complete values (Fritzell and Lundberg, 2000), and the sameapplies in surveys of drug use among young people (Guttormsson, 2003; Hvitfeldt, 2003).However, typical rates of missing data in population studies are approximately 25%, amuch higher rate than the 13.5% rate in the present study. Fourthly, reconviction data areby nature limited by the efficiency of the police and the courts. Still, present resultscompare well with some prior research studies (see the introduction above) and certainlycan be assumed to be more or less consistent over the years when the data were collected.Finally, the quality of contact variable was subjectively determined in this study, andexactly what probation officers meant by their responses remains unexplored. Nonetheless,the unexpected and striking significance of the variable suggests that it refers in some wayto the ‘quality’ of relationship with the probationer, in the senses referred to earlier in thediscussion.

Final CommentsThe present results suggest that the quality of contact that a probationer has with hisprobation officer may be a crucial variable associated with success or failure in probation,at least for drug users and probationers who did not use drugs (though not necessarily forthose who were alcohol users). Treatment programmes need to be tailored to probationers’criminogenic needs (Andrews and Bonta, 1998; Gendreau, Cullen et al., 1996), and druguse is generally perceived as a crucial target for programmes in probation, especially foracquisitive offenders for whom little specific programming is available (Hough, Clancy,McSweeney, and Turnbull, 2003; McGuire, 2000). From the present findings, it seemsthat drug-using individuals who have a prior criminal record and worse contact thanplanned with their probation officer should be targeted in particular. Alcohol users, on theother hand, seem to have criminogenic needs that differ from both drug users and non-drug users; the prevalence of alcohol users was in fact higher among successfulprobationers than among those reconvicted.


29

Future probation evaluation studies focusing on successful versus non-successfulprogramme participants should include more detailed exploration of the quality of thesupervisory relationship. This could be highly useful in enhancing programme retentionand behaviour change. Women probationers, excluded from the present study, should bethe focus of specific research in light of the differences in ‘What Works’ shown in priorresearch (e.g., Dowden and Andrews, 1999) As shown in the present study, patternanalysis may offer a valuable opportunity to view combinations of variables from aperspective that is new to probation research.

AcknowledgementsThis research was partly financed by the Stockholm office of the Swedish Prison andProbation Administration. I thank my former colleagues at the Center for Health EquityStudies (CHESS, Stockholm University/Karolinska Institutet), Lars R. Bergman, PhD atthe Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Per Lindqvist, MD, PhD atNeurotec, Karolinska Institutet, and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments onearlier versions of this manuscript. A brief Research Note reporting on technical aspects ofthis study is forthcoming in The Probation Journal.

ReferencesAndrews, D. A. and Bonta, J. (1998) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Cincinnati: Anderson

Publishing Co.Bergman, L. R. and El-Khouri, B. (1998) Sleipner 2.0. Stockholm: Department of Psychology,

Stockholm University.Berman, A. H. (2002) Teaching a New Way of Thinking. An Evaluation of the Cognitive Skills

Programme in the Prison and Probation Service, 1995-2000. Stockholm: National Council forCrime Prevention (BRÅ).

Berman, A. H. (2004) Enhancing Health Among Drug Users in Prison. Unpublished PhD disssertation.Stockholm University, Stockholm.

Berman, A. H. (in press) ‘The Reasoning and Rehabilitation Program: Assessing Short- and Long-term Outcomes among Male Swedish Prisoners’, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation.

Blud, L. (2003) ‘Accreditation of Offending Behaviour Programmes and Recent Developments inWhat Works Initiatives in HM Prison Service’, Legal and Criminological Psychology 8: 65-67.

Boswell, G. (1996) ‘The Essential Skills of Probation Work’, in T. May and A. A. Vass (eds.)Working with Offenders: Issues, Contexts and Outcomes. London: Sage Publications: 31-50

Chylicki, P. (2001) ‘Personal Communication about the SPOF’, Report on Plans and Priorities 1999-2000: Correctional Service Canada, http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/.

Donnelly, P. G. and Forschner, B. E. (1996) ‘Predictors of Success in a Co-Correctional HalfwayHouse: A Discriminant Analysis’, in T. Ellsworth (ed.) Contemporary Community Corrections.Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press: 294-311

Dowden, C. and Andrews, D. A. (1999) ‘What Works for Female Offenders: A Meta-AnalyticReview’, Crime and Delinquency 45: 438-452.

Fritzell, J. and Lundberg, O. (2000) Välfärd, ofärd och ojämlikhet - levnadsförhållanden under 1990-talet[Welfare, Disadvantage and Inequality - Living Conditions During the 1990s] (SOU 2000:41).Stockholm: Socialdepartmentet [Ministry of Health and Social Affairs].

Gendreau, P., Cullen, F. T. and Bonta, J. (1996) ‘Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision: The NextGeneration in Community Corrections?’, in T. Ellsworth (ed.) Contemporary CommunityCorrections. Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press: 252-265.

Anne H. Berman

30

Gendreau, P., Little, T. and Goggin, C. (1996) ‘A Meta-Analysis of the Predictors of AdultOffender Recidivism: What Works!’, Criminology 34(4): 575-607.

Guttormsson, U. (2003) Mönstrandes drogvanor 2002 [Military Conscripts’ Drug Habits 2002].Stockholm: CAN - Swedish Council for Information on Alcohol and other Drugs(www.can.se).

Hough, M., Clancy, A., McSweeney, T. and Turnbull, P. J. (2003) The Impact of Drug Treatment andTesting Orders on Offending: Two-year Reconviction Results (184). London: Home OfficeResearch, Development and Statistics Directorate.

Hvitfeldt, T. (2003) Skolelevers drogvanor 2002 [Schoolchildren’s Drug Habits 2002]. Stockholm: CAN- Swedish Council for Information on Alcohol and other Drugs (www.can.se).

Johnson, W. W. and Jones, M. (1998) ‘Probation, Race, and the War on Drugs: An EmpiricalAnalysis of Drug and Non-Drug Felony Probation Outcomes’, Journal of Drug Issues 28(4): 985-1004.

Lienert, G. A. (1969) ‘Die ‘Konfigurationsfrequenzanalyse’ als Klassifikationsmethode in derKlinischen Psychologie’, in M. Irle (ed.)Bericht über den 26 Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaftfür Psychologie in Tübingen 1968. Göttingen: Hogrefe: 244-253.

MacKenzie, D. L., Browning, K., Skroban, S. B. and Smith, D. A. (1999) ‘The Impact of Probationon the Criminal Activities of Offenders’, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 36(4):423-453.

McGuire, J. (1995) What Works: Reducing Offending - Guidelines from Research and Practice.Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

McGuire, J. (2000) ‘Property Offences’, in C. R. Hollin (ed.), Handbook of Offender Assessment andTreatment. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons: 495-508.

McLellan, A. T., Kushner, H., Metzger, D., Rogers, P., Smith, I. and Peters, R. (1992) ‘The FifthEdition of the Addiction Severity Index’, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 9(3): 199-213.

McNeill, F. (2000) ‘Defining Effective Probation: Frontline Perspectives’, The Howard Journal 39(4):382-397.

Merrington, S. and Stanley, S. (2004) ‘’What Works?’: Revisiting the Evidence in England andWales’, Probation Journal 51(1): 7-20.

Miller, W. R. and Rollnick, S. (2002) Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People for Change. 2ndedition. New York: Guilford Press.

Morgan, K. D. (1995) ‘Variables Associated with Successful Probation Completion’, Journal ofOffender Rehabilitation 22(3/4): 141-153.

Morgan, K. D. (1996) ‘Factors Influencing Probation Outcome: A Review of the Literature’, in T.Ellsworth (ed.) Contemporary Community Corrections. Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press:327-340.

Oberg, D., Sallmén, B. and Haack, M.-J. (2004) Training Manual MAPS Intake. Maastricht, theNetherlands: Project MAPS Foundation.

Petersilia, J. (1996) ‘Measuring the Performance of Community Corrections’, in T. Ellsworth (ed.)Contemporary Community Corrections. Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press: 312-326

Prochaska, J. and DiClemente, C. (1986) ‘Toward a Comprehensive Model of Change’, in W. R.Miller and N. Heather (eds.) Treating Addictive Behaviors: Processes of Change New York:Plenum Press: 3-28.

Rex, S. (1999) ‘Desistance from Offending: Experiences of Probation’, The Howard Journal, 38(4):366-383.

Robinson, G. (2001) ‘Power, Knowledge and ‘What Works’ in Probation’, The Howard Journal40(3): 235-254.

Sims, B. and Jones, M. (1997) ‘Predicting Success or Failure on Probation: Factors Associated WithFelony Probation Outcomes’, Crime and Delinquency 43(3): 314-327.

von Eye, A., Spiel, C. and Wood, P. K. (1996) ‘Configural Frequency Analysis in AppliedPsychological Research’, Applied Psychology: An International Review 45(4): 301-327.

The Police and Community Justice: The Lambeth Policing Experiment

31

THE POLICE AND COMMUNITYJUSTICE: THE LAMBETH POLICINGEXPERIMENT

Chris Crowther-Dowey, Sheffield Hallam University

AbstractThis article focuses on the relevance of the idea of community justice for understandingthe policing of drugs in England and Wales. It considers from an historical perspective theregulation of drugs in Lambeth, focusing in particular on the Lambeth policingexperiment conducted in 2001. It is shown that elements of this twenty-first centuryexperiment had been carried out on an informal basis for twenty years previously.Moreover, it is suggested that communitarian values have influenced police work inrelation to drugs and that there is considerable emphasis on community consultation andcommunity engagement. It is argued that schemes such as the Lambeth experiment gosome way towards countering criminalisation processes and satisfying the requirements ofthe ethos of new public management (NPM). However, the organised criminal gangsresponsible for distributing hard drugs will remain relatively unaffected as the safety andsecurity of law abiding citizens continues to be threatened by the escalating violencebetween rival suppliers.

Introduction

The policing of drugs within society has raised many debates within political discourse inrecent years (Bean, 2004; Lee and South, 2003; Crowther, 2005). Central to thesediscussions is the view that the drug laws increase problems caused by drugs. It has beenargued that through the social control of drug users four central problems have arisen.Firstly, the prohibition of, and attempts to regulate drug markets, have sometimes workedagainst the police service’s need to balance its capacity to control and care for populationswho drift in and out of states of dangerousness and vulnerability. Secondly, the blackmarket gives organised criminal gangs considerable power regulating the supply of anddemand for drugs on the streets. Thirdly, there is also no quality control and hence thehealth-related risks for drug users have risen. Illegal drugs are not regulated and amongstother things there is no control over their strength and purity. Fourthly, in the context ofthe new public management (NPM) and the quest for effectiveness, efficiency and

Chris Crowther-Dowey

32

economy the policing of drugs is deemed expensive, mainly because the police service donot have the resource to react to multiple crime problems. Subsequently, the policing ofdrug use and markets are beset with tensions in relation to the values of communityjustice and political economic circumstance.

This article will focus on the significance of the idea of community justice forunderstanding police work. Wright (2002) has examined the concept and its applicationto policing, but he does not consider in detail the policing of drugs. My contributionconsists of two main parts. The first revisits Williams’ (2002) editorial, published in thefirst issue of this journal. The main aim is to extract some significant themes forunderstanding the police’s work regarding drugs. It highlights the main principlesassociated with community justice, noting that whilst there may not be a coherent andoverarching framework there are some persistent themes, particularly the involvement oflocal communities in the delivery of justice, but also the increased influence of politicaland economic priorities set by central government. The second and largest sectionprovides a brief history of the policing of drugs in Brixton through the use of stop andsearch beginning in the 1970s. This geographical area in the Metropolitan Police District(MPD) is important because of the riots taking place there in 1981 and the consequentreappraisal of police policy and practice (Scarman, 1981). At that time the idea of‘communitarian’ policing was developed and since then has gradually embedded in policethinking (Crowther, 2000; Brogden and Nijhar, 2005). Since the 1980s drugs have beenpoliced in more innovative ways in Brixton, culminating with the Lambeth experiment in2001. This was followed by the Home Secretary’s re-classification of cannabis from a classB to a class C substance in early 2004 (Warburton et al, 2005). It is shown that elementsof the twenty-first century experiment had been carried out informally twenty yearspreviously. Whilst this experiment may be interpreted as increased police tolerance, thepolice have not entirely moved away from applying their coercive powers to enforce thelaw. There is considerable emphasis on community consultation, community engagementand inclusivity, but the agenda is still determined by the police reflected by the policesdependence on surveillance and social control (Fussey, 2005). The article concludes withthe argument that the legalisation or decriminalisation of drugs is unlikely in theforeseeable future and that the police will continue to pursue a dual strategy of lawenforcement and harm reduction. There is a problem with this approach because, in thelast analysis, the policing of an unregulated and criminalised drug market cannotrealistically aspire to reduce the harm caused to public health and civil society by drugmisuse. Schemes such as the Lambeth experiment go some way towards counteringcriminalisation processes and enhancing police economy and effectiveness, but theorganised criminal cartels responsible for distributing hard drugs will remain relativelyunscathed adding further to the exploitation and immiseration of drug consumers. Thesafety and security of law abiding citizens will also be under threat as violence escalatesbetween rival suppliers in an increasingly competitive drugs market. Under suchcircumstances, it is suggested that the values of community justice will be jeopardised.


33

The Concept of Community Justice: ItsRelevance for Understanding Police WorkWilliams’ (2002) provided an initial critical commentary on the concept of communityjustice, which above all identified its contested nature. An initial reaction to thisoverview of the literature, particularly the work published in the 1970s when theemphasis was on community involvement through neighbourhood participation and thequestioning of professional interventions is that there are no obvious links with the policeand policing (ibid: 1). More recently, though, there are many potential points ofconvergence relating to the issues of actuarial justice, the ‘responsibilization’ ofcommunities, community consultation and involvement, and the twin themes ofmanagerialism (NPM) and modernisation (ibid: 2). In these areas possible linkages withthe sociology of policing are more evident. For example, it is demonstrated in theremainder of this paper that the policing of drugs has involved the consultation ofcommunities, but at the same time there is the clear imposition of a top-down agenda, inparticular the principles of the NPM and Best Value (i.e. the ethos of ‘continuousimprovement’) on police policy and practice (Newburn, 2002). Any approach based oncommunitarian values and an emphasis on inclusivity is likely to be tempered by theauthoritarian austerity of the managerialists.

The Lambeth Cannabis Pilot SchemeWhat is the background to the Brixton or Lambeth cannabis pilot scheme? There is arelatively long and troubled history of policing in this deprived and socially excludedcommunity based in the southern part of the MPD and it is necessary to remind thereader of the salient points and their continuing relevance. Throughout the 1970s and1980s the police’s over-zealous approach and significant evidence of racist banter andbehaviour amongst the rank and file resulted in the criminalisation, demonisation andultimately alienation, especially of young black men (Hall et al, 1979; Bowling andPhillips, 2002). Whilst there is evidence to show the trading of soft drugs such as ‘ganja’(cannabis) was commonplace, and the presence of hard drugs was an undeniable reality,the police’s efforts to disrupt drug related criminality were typically hard and aggressive.By April 1981 the police’s intensive and mass usage of their powers to stop and searchagainst suspected drug suppliers and users on the streets proved to be counter-productiveand resulted in a major riot.

Brixton: From Policing ‘Against’ TowardsPolicing ‘With’ CommunitiesThe Scarman (1981) inquiry raises some important issues about policing in general, butspecifically the policing of drugs in modern Britain. It is well documented that the police’sdependence on the ‘sus’ laws, introduced in the nineteenth century as part of the 1824Vagrancy Act, underpinned the racialized discrimination informing the police’s decisionto stop and search young African-Caribbean males to search them for drugs. In Brixtonpolice discretion was exercised in a way that was perceived to be illegitimate and unjust,and the police lacked the consent of sections of the policed in that place (Scarman,


34

1981). In short, the riots resulted in part from the efforts the police made to impose crimefighting strategies such as anti-drugs legislation (i.e. the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971)) atthe expense of keeping the peace. Scarman’s recommendations led to the repeal of the‘sus’ laws to avoid any repetition of the Brixton riots and eventually to the reform of thepolice’s powers to stop and search, achieved through the passing into law of the Policeand Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) in 1984.

A change to stop and search was just one component of a broader recommendation. Inthe last analysis peace keeping was judged more important than crime fighting, sometimesmeaning that the police do not apply the letter of the law if in doing so they could createserious disorder and violence (Scarman, 1981). This suggestion was generally accepted bythe then Home Secretary, Lord Whitelaw, and also amongst senior police officers(Crowther, 2000). What were the consequences of Scarman’s inquiry for the police’sattempt to regulate the use and supply of drugs on the streets of Lambeth?

It is important to acknowledge from the outset that Scarman (1981) was not calling forthe abandonment of the rule of law, but rather a different set of approaches to addressdrugs related crime. Rather than tackling criminality through the use of overt force andhard policing styles, there was a reorientation of police policy and practice. This waslargely brought about by John Alderson, former Chief Constable of Devon and CornwallPolice, who formulated the concept of ‘communitarian’ policing. Interestingly thisparticular version of idea was developed back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, wellbefore the articulation of the ideas which later influenced New Labour in the 1990s(Crowther, 2000). Communitarian policing, more usually referred to as communitypolicing, consisted of a three pronged approach to the management of crime and disorder:

1. multi agency approaches to police work;2. the visible presence of uniformed officers;3. Police-community consultation.

Taking the first of the above approaches, there was an emphasis on multi-agency workbased on the assumption that the causes of and solutions to criminality are not just theresponsibility of the police. For example, in the case of drugs the police co-operate withother agencies in the public sector including health and education, signalling the police’sshift away from a job based exclusively on exerting control through the legitimate use offorce to a job which also focuses on the provision of care and support. This was made aformal requirement as part of the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), demonstrated by theYouth Offending Teams (YOTs). Secondly, instead of deploying specialist police unitslike the Special Patrol Group (SPG) Scarman (1981) argued that there should be a highlyvisible police presence but these officers should patrol in a non-confrontational way,acting as deterrents rather than enforcers. Finally, the above would be realised throughpublic consultation, for which the mechanisms were established by PACE (1984)(Wright, 2002).


35

Tougher crime fighting strategies were still there, though. Rather than deploying largenumbers of officers to raid premises in the hope that they would pick up drug dealers thepolice decided targeted surveillance would in all likelihood produced better results. Thesealternative methods were introduced to avoid any of the aforementioned unnecessaryaggravation frequently caused through the face-to-face encounters linked to police officers’use of stop and search (Bowling and Phillips, 2002). By positioning covert cameras inareas where alleged drug dealers are known to operate it enabled the police to gather morereliable intelligence or evidence to identify suspects and offenders (Fussey, 2005).

The approaches mentioned above were key features of the anti-drugs policing strategiesintroduced by the police commander in post-riot Lambeth, Alex Marnoch. This officeraccepted Scarman’s counsel and he developed a policing style which was moreconsultative than confrontational. Historical and contemporary narratives show thatpolice work is best done when the police converse and communicate with the people theypolice (Reiner, 2000a). The logic of this approach is that the police need the consent ofthe community if they are to effectively address crime problems, such as selling andmisusing drugs. In contrast to his predecessors, Marnoch actively discouraged his officersfrom making arrests for the possession of cannabis for personal use, especially on or near tothe ‘Front Line’ (Keith, 1993). If any arrests had to be made he instructed his officers thatthis should be conducted away from this tension ridden area to avoid increasing thepotential for any conflict and full scale riots like Brixton 1981. In Marnoch’s view, theunthinking and uncritical enforcement of the drug laws was likely to be counter-productive and create more social harm than public good. The legalisation ordecriminalisation of cannabis was not on the public policy agenda but there was adifferent understanding of how drug misuse should be resolved (Warburton et al, 2005).

Thus in the early- to mid-1980s the police began using new methods to police drugs butthese were not altogether unproblematic. One unintended but anticipated outcome wasthat the prioritisation of peace keeping, and the residualisation or decreased use of crimefighting tactics allowed the drugs trade to expand, especially the market for hard drugs. Attimes the police were not able to distinguish the anti-social behaviour and inter-personalviolence associated with the use of cannabis and alcohol and the more serious threatsposed by organised drug gangs selling hard drugs (Keith, 1993). When the police did usecoercive methods the outcome was the displacement of drugs crime to other parts of theMPD. In addition the idea of allocating officers to an area to ensure a visible policepresence still left communities feeling exposed to unnecessary surveillance and to feelover-policed (Rowe, 2004).

The Late Twentieth Century LegacyThus far it has been established that the policing of drugs in Lambeth, and many otherareas like it, has been fraught with difficulties. All drugs classified under the Misuse ofDrugs Act (1971) are illegal and the police are required to apply the letter of the law,albeit under the influence of discretion and policy directives. The use of drugs may posean immediate threat to the physical and psychological health of individual users. More


36

than that, drug users may harm the communities in which they live due to users’ anti-social behaviour and involvement in various crimes to fund their respective habits.Suppliers may also cause social harm as rival gangs become embroiled in ‘turf wars’ tomaximise their control and influence over global and local, or ‘glocalized’, drug markets(Waddington, 2003; Winlow, 2002). Such a situation requires the police to respond to thesupply and use of illicit substances in social settings where interpersonal and communalviolence are never far away.

Lambeth Cannabis Warning SchemeContextual FactorsThe story recounted above perhaps explains an event occurring at the end of 2000. In theDecember of that year a police officer in Brixton was arrested and charged because of afailure to deal with cannabis properly. The police officer in question had exercised theirdiscretion, as many officers had done previously, but on this particular occasion a criminalcharge was made. It is not surprising that the colleagues of this criminalised officer reactedin they way they did: to ensure they did not end up being arrested and charged they statedthat they would arrest every individual who they found in possession of cannabis. It ishighly improbable that this is possible nor is it particularly desirable. Shortly after thisincident Commander Paddick was appointed to lead and manage policing in Lambeth.Paddick was concerned by this event and investigated possible methods of responding tocannabis without exposing his officers to any danger of facing an arrest for not doing theirjob by the book and in line with the letter of the law. As well as this legal conundrumPaddick identified a range of political and economic problems with arresting people forcannabis use. Some of his arguments were also found in a report published before hisarrival, entitled Clearing the Decks (Metropolitan Police Service, 2000). He argued thatarresting people for cannabis placed a considerable burden on the police’s limited timeand money. More than that the outcomes in the prosecution process did not justify theinvestment of resources. For example, the results of arrests were frequently cautions, smallfines (i.e. £50) or conditional discharges at court (PSS Consultancy Group, 2002).

The problem of finite resources experienced in Lambeth was part of a more generalproblem faced by the police service throughout the other 42 forces in England and Wales,specifically the influence of the ‘New Public Management’ (NPM) or ‘managerialism’(Long, 2003; Neyroud, 2003). These ideas gained ascendancy throughout the public sectorduring the 1980s and whilst they refer to a set of complex political rationalities it ispossible to identify some broad tendencies for the purposes of this discussion. During the1980s the police upheld the ‘moral authoritarianism’ of the Thatcherite project todiscipline and reform the moral economies of the workless classes. This was continuedalbeit in a different format under the leadership of John Major and currently Tony Blair,but it has been augmented by the ‘authoritarian austerity’ of the NPM. In short, providersof public services must satisfy the government and wider public that their activities are‘cost effective’, provide ‘value for money’ and evaluated according to their effectiveness,efficiency and economy (Faulkner, 2000). The police are now required to adopt morebusiness like styles of service provision, in order that they are able to deliver more


37

economic, effective and efficient services. The significance of the ‘Three Es’ can be seenthrough the emphasis now placed on value-for-money, performance targets and auditing,quality of service and the consumer. The introduction of market and private sector valuesalso constrains professionals through the introduction of national standards andobjectives, systems to measure financial accountability and increased external scrutiny andmonitoring (Crowther, 2000a; Long, 2003).

The NPM has led to a significant reallocation of and increased competition for finiteresources, thus making the regulation of drugs markets and substance misuse increasinglydifficult (Crowther, 2002). It is therefore necessary for a more realistic theoreticalappreciation of the more complex relationship connecting drugs related crime andpolicing, which appreciates that control and care are not always fully achieved (Crowther,2004).

To address the problems posed by finite resources, Paddick explored various possibilities,including an idea called the ‘seize and warn scheme’. This concept was based on theCommander’s appreciation of Lambeth’s riotous history, and an acceptance of Scarman’s(1981) view that arresting everyone they stopped and searched who possessed cannabiswould put already fragile police-community relations under considerable strain, possiblyculminating in yet another major outbreak of public disorder.

There were further continuities with the 1980s inasmuch as Lambeth was affected by theproblems of ill health and violence caused by hard drugs. Police consultation of anddialogue with community leaders indicated that crack cocaine and heroin, along withgun-related violence and street robberies blighted the quality of peoples’ lives in thislocality. There was a view in the community that these harder drugs should become policepriorities rather than cannabis. In addition community representatives argued a shift ofemphasis along these lines would restrict misusage of stop and search against African-Caribbean youth.

The controversial changes suggested by Commander Paddick clearly presented problems.An obvious criticism is that the police may be giving off the impression to the widerpublic, particularly those who do not use drugs, that the police are abnegating theirresponsibility to enforce the law and protect the public from the harm caused by anunregulated drugs market. Moreover, Paddick did not have the authority to implement apilot without the approval of the ACPO team, consisting of Sir John Stevens, now formerCommissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, and his team of senior officers, headedby deputy Commissioner Mike Fuller. In short, it was necessary to broach the subject withthe community and the higher echelons of the police organisation. Paddick announced inThe Evening Standard (29th March, 2001) that the police in Lambeth were consideringtaking a ‘softer’ line and not arresting people for cannabis. Following this the police meton three occasions with the Lambeth Police Community Consultative Group.Throughout these discussions the Group made it absolutely clear that they were opposedto drugs per se, but that they supported the philosophy underpinning Paddick’s plan


38

(Dapp, 2002). Paddick’s bosses adopted a similar position, and despite some scepticism, itwas seen according to the logic of NPM that the court results did not fully justify the costof prosecuting people (Warburton et al, 2005). Indeed the way drugs are currently policedis placing the criminal justice and penal systems into a state of permanent crisis (TDPF,2004: 8).

Implementing the Lambeth Cannabis WarningSchemeBy 4th July 2001 the Lambeth Cannabis Warning Scheme was implemented, initially for6 months (The Evening Standard, 4th July 2001), but it actually ran for just over a yearuntil 31st July 2002. On the 1st of August 2002 the police’s discretion to arrestindividuals in possession of cannabis was returned to them raising questions about theneed for an exit strategy (Metropolitan Police Authority, 2002: 3). The rationale of theinitiative was to reduce the time the police dedicated towards dealing with individualscaught in possession of cannabis, thus freeing up time for the police to respond moreeffectively to serious offences, including Class A drug offences, burglary, gun crime androbbery (PSS Consultancy Group, 2002). What actually happened?

Immediately prior to the initiation of the scheme it was necessary for an officer to devoteconsiderable time filling in forms, which acted as a disincentive and frequently led officersto ‘turning a blind eye’, thus avoiding taking any further action. Any adult who was foundto be in possession of small quantities of cannabis for personal use had the substanceconfiscated off them. There were two outcomes: individuals admitting this offence weregiven a ‘formal warning’; and those who did not admit to committing this offence wereissued with an ‘informal warning’ instead. In both instances, the course of action takenavoided the making of an arrest (Metropolitan Police Authority, 2002).

As part of the pilot police officers were told that if young people were found to be inpossession of the drug that it must be taken off them. Young people were not just left towalk away following the confiscation of the drug, but were automatically referred to theYouth Offender Team (YOT). These teams were set up by the 1998 Crime and DisorderAct (Home Office, 1998) to provide ‘joined-up’ inter-agency solutions to problems withcomplex causes. In the case of cannabis possession the individuals referred to YOTs wouldbe offered counselling, support and advice. More than that the parents of the youngperson concerned were also invited along to receive similar support.

The Impact of the Lambeth SchemeThe response of senior Metropolitan Police officers was positive and the then deputyCommissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Ian Blair declared the scheme ‘undoubtedly asuccess - in statistical terms’. Mike Fuller, the deputy Commissioner in charge of drugsstrategy, was also positive referring to the project as ‘a godsend’ (The Guardian, 2 July2002). To put these perceptions into context it is necessary to scrutinise the impact of thescheme.


39

The PSS Consultancy Group (2002) evaluation focused on the impact of policing activityon drugs in Lambeth and adjoining boroughs. It examined data about offences anddisposals, as well as gleaning police officers’ perceptions through a questionnaire surveyand focus groups.

A key priority of the pilot was to reduce the pressure the policing of cannabis placed onscarce fiscal and human resources. The police achieved this goal and more time wasavailable to enable the police to focus on more serious offences. For example:

During the 6 months of the evaluation, Lambeth officers issued 450warnings. This released at least 1350 hours of officer time (by avoidingcustody procedures and interviewing time), equivalent to 1.8 full timeofficers. A further 1150 hours of CJU staff time was released by avoidingcase file preparation (PSS Consultancy, 2002: 1).

The Warning Scheme was still bureaucratic because officers had to fill in a crime report, astop and search form and possibly a criminal intelligence sheet. They also had to producea written record of what happened to the seized drugs. Despite the considerable workinvolved there was an 110% increase in the number of interventions concerning cannabisand 1,390 warnings were issued in contrast to 661 arrests in the previous year (MPA,2002: 6) The MPA suggested that the PSS calculations above may be an underestimate ofthe total resource saved, but the time saved works out to be the equivalent of 1.8 officersper annum or up to 2.75 more officers if the increased enforcement activity is alsointegrated into the costing methodology (MPA, 2002). The availability of more resourcemay account for the finding that, ‘Lambeth also increased its activity against Class Adrugs relative to adjoining Boroughs (PSS Consultancy Group, 2002: 1)’.

It would appear from the above points that the pilot had been of some success inasmuchas the costs of controlling cannabis supply had been reduced, and also because some policetime had been liberated to direct more resources towards harder drugs, especially inrelation to Class A drug trafficking enforcement. For example:

There was an increase in police activity in relation to class A drugtrafficking enforcement in Lambeth, which increased 19% (89 in 2000, 106in 2001), when compared with a 3% increase on adjoining boroughs. Theincreased performance against class A trafficking continues to be sustained,particularly against crack cocaine. The total number of drug offences, whichdenotes arrests, increased from 1367 to 1733 (26%) during the period fromApril - March 2001-2, when compared with the same period the previousyear. Arrests for drug trafficking have also increased from 288 to 344 (16%)during this period. This would indicate that one objective of the pilotscheme has been achieved, which was to release officers’ time to carry outmore class A drug enforcement (MPA, 2002: 10).


40

Despite the ‘statistical’ success story, Vauxhall MP, Kate Hoey vehemently opposed thescheme and argued that the scheme had caused far more harm than good by giving themessage to children that ‘cannabis is no worse for you than sweets’ (The Guardian, 2ndJuly 2002), thus obfuscating the risks the substance poses to young people, particularlytheir physical and psychological health. This view was backed up by anecdotal evidencefrom other residents living in the areas.

The evaluation also focused on the perceptions of police officers. Amongst the mainfindings was that some officers still felt that the public did not understand the aims andobjectives of the policy. Some of the officers surveyed also voiced concern that the policywas resulting in the restriction of their powers to address drug offences and that a valuablesource of intelligence was being lost. Indeed the majority of officers felt that the policywould lead to an increase in general drug use in Lambeth and for this reason should not berolled out to the rest of the MPD (PSS Consultancy Group, 2002: 2).

The community also had its own views about the scheme gathered by a Police Foundationinstigated survey delivered by MORI (2002). This report highlighted that there was aparticularly high degree of apprehension about the possibility that young people wereincreasingly more likely to come into contact with and misuse drugs. Lambeth police werenaturally worried about these concerns and conducted a survey of local schools, findingthat neither the experiment nor the Home Secretary’s discussion about reclassifyingcannabis had led to any increases in dealing or the confiscation of cannabis at schools.Some critics also argued that the borough had become a site for drug tourists making theuse of a lax enforcement strategy, but this claim was not borne out by the evidence. Therewas also a belief that the experiment signalled the legalisation or decriminalisation ofcannabis, demonstrated by Deputy Assistant Commission Mike Fuller’s comment that:‘The public were very unclear about what was happening and thought drugs were beinglegalised and this wasn’t the case’ (BBC News, 21st March 2002). This suggests thatcommunication about the strategy could have been improved. The MORI (2002) poll hasfound that there was more support amongst white rather than black and Asian residents(BBC News, 21st March 2002). Finally, there was no evidence of formal complaints beingmade by members of the public against the warning scheme pilot.

As indicated above on 1st August 2002 the police were to revert back to the originalpolicy of making arrests for the possession of cannabis. However, during this period publicdebate had been preoccupied with the reclassification of cannabis and it was appreciatedthat simply returning to the ways things had been done before could create tensionsbetween the police and community.

The Reclassification of CannabisThe 10th 2002 July was a significant date in Britain’s history of the policing of drugsbecause the Home Secretary announced that the reclassification of cannabis from a class Bto class C drug was high on the political agenda (Home Office Press Release, 10th July2002). Research had indicated that this reclassification would result in some financial


41

savings and give police officers more time to patrol and respond to calls for publicassistance. There may be slightly fewer serious crimes detected but the savings in policetime elsewhere would compensate for this. There would also be non-economic benefits,specifically fewer adversarial contacts between the police and young people (May,Warburton, Turnbull and Hough, 2002).

After taking advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) theHome Secretary was made aware that cannabis could not be decriminalised and had toremain illegal because it is a harmful drug. It was acknowledged that cannabis carrieshealth risks of an acute and chronic nature and can also lead to dependency. However, itwas agreed that cannabis was not as harmful as either class A (i.e. heroin, crack) or class B(i.e. amphetamines) drugs and for that reason cannabis, including resin, should bereclassified as C. The Government has therefore adopted a clear position: cannabis isillegal and poses risks to the health of users. In practical terms, though, it is not feasible tocriminalise adults possessing cannabis, mainly because resources are finite and class Adrugs should be prioritised. Cannabis was reclassified from a class B to a class C drug on29th January 2004. As a controlled drug, the production, supply and possession remainsillegal but the penalties imposed have been altered. The maximum penalty for producingand dealing all class C substances is now 14 years. The maximum penalty for possessionhas been reduced from 5 years to 2 years imprisonment, but for adults the aim is to avoidmaking an arrest. This is typical for class C drugs. The preferred penalty for possession isconfiscation of the drug (in the case of adults) and a warning unless there are aggravatingfactors: public disorder associated with the use of cannabis; if a person smokes cannabisopenly in a public place; if a young person aged 17 years or under is found in possession ofcannabis; people who are in possession of the drug in close proximity to places such asschools, youth clubs or children’s play areas. Young people (under 18) offending for thefirst time will be arrested where they will be given a formal warning or reprimand. If theperpetrator re-offends they will be given a final warning or be charged.

Concluding PointsThis article has explored some debates, which centre on the policing of drugs in Britishsociety. During the last quarter of the twentieth century the police have sometimes takena relatively tough stance on the supply and possession of drugs, especially by employingthe coercive powers of stop and search. Unfortunately, in applying stop and search rankand file officers have been shown to exercise their discretionary enforcement of the drugslaws in a discriminatory way against some socially excluded ethnic minority groups. Thisculminated in the inner-city riots of 1981 and a reorientation of police policy andpractice, moving away from policing against communities towards more explicitpeacekeeping function and communitarian policing styles. Subsequently the police havebeen required to respond more cautiously to crime by working more closely withcommunities and other agencies to respond to criminogenic conditions. The supply,possession and use of drugs continued to be treated as a crime, although cannabis isdeemed to be less of a priority and rigid enforcement was replaced by a non-discriminatorydiscretion. Following the urban unrest of 1981 the police concentrated their anti-drugs


42

strategies primarily on hard drugs because of the serious damage their supply and usecauses to society, but also to maintain effective policing and to satisfy the authoritarianausterity of the NPM. The police had some success in dealing with the cannabis challengein the first few years following Lord Scarman’s report. However, class A drugs are muchmore difficult to police, especially because of the risks to health and wealth being posed bythe unregulated supply and demand of crack cocaine and heroin. The policing of thesedrugs also failed to fully prevent continued conflict between patrolling constables on thebeat and young black men.

At the turn of the twenty-first century the issues mentioned above still confronted thepolice in Lambeth, but there were additional problems brought about by those changes ingovernment policy embodied in managerialist principles. An already difficult task ofregulating an expanding drugs market was worsened by the state demanding more effectiveservice delivery with fewer resources to do the job. The Lambeth cannabis pilot schemewas used to illustrate how the police could maintain the rule of the law effectively andeconomically by reconfiguring policing priorities. This experiment became intertwinedwith a national, government-led debate about reclassifying cannabis resulting in this drugbecoming a class C substance. The limits to what the police may do in response to drugshave long been recognised and over the last few decades the need for alternativeapproaches to crime control have been developed. Instead of depending solely on punitivemethods the aim has been to also formulate diversionary and harm reducing strategies totackle drug dependency in the case of hard drugs.

In short, there has not been a major shift in government thinking and there is noexpressed commitment towards the legalisation of drugs. The police have proved a greaterwillingness and capacity to perform a wider range of duties beyond crime management andreduction, and harm reduction is a core component of contemporary policing. Despite thepolice service taking on some practices that are novel in the context of traditionalpolicing styles, the organisation must still respond to an unregulated and disorganiseddrugs market run by organised criminal networks. While various statutory agencies struggleto determine their respective roles and responsibilities in relation to drugs, the criminalsproducing and supplying heroin and crack cocaine will continue to devastate the lives ofcommunities of users and non-users alike.

ReferencesBean, P. (2004) Drugs and Crime (2nd edition). Cullompton: Willan.Bowling, B. and Phillips, C. (2002) Racism, Crime and Justice. Harlow: Longman.Brogden, M. and Nijhar, P. (2005) Community Policing: National and International Approaches.

Cullompton: Willan.Crowther, C. (2000) Policing Urban Poverty. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Crowther, C. (2002) ‘The Politics and Economics of Disciplining an Inclusive and Exclusive

Society’ in R. Sykes, C. Bochel and N. Ellison (eds.) Social Policy Review 14, Bristol: PolicyPress: 199-224.


43

Crowther, C. (2004) ‘Over-policing and Under-policing Social Exclusion’, in R. Hopkins-Burke(eds.) ‘Hard Cop/Soft Cop’: Dilemmas and Debates in Contemporary Policing. Cullompton:Willan.

Crowther, C. (2005) ‘The Police and Drugs’, in M. Simpson, T. Shildrick and R. MacDonald (eds)Drugs: Supply, Consumption and Control. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Dapp, R. (2002) ‘Fact About the Lambeth Cannabis Pilot Scheme’, in Urban 75, September.Fionda, J. (2000) ‘New Managerialism, Credibility and the Sanitisation of Criminal Justice’, in P.

Green and A. Rutherford (eds.) Criminal Policy in Transition, Oxford: Hart: 109-27.Fussey, P. (2005) Installing CCTV: A Study of the Networks of Surveillance Policy. Unpublished PhD

Thesis. Brunel University.Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J. and Roberts, B. (1978) Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the

State and Law and Order. London: Macmillan.Home Office (1998) The Crime and Disorder Act: Community Safety and the Reduction and Prevention

of Crime - A Conceptual Framework for Training and the Development of a Professional Discipline.London: Home Office.

Keith, M. (1993) Race, Riots and Policing. London: UCL Press.Lee, M. and South, N. (2003) ‘Drugs Policing’, in T. Newburn (ed) The Handbook of Policing.

Cullompton: Willan.Long, M. (2003) ‘Leadership and Performance Management’, in T. Newburn (ed.) The Handbook of

Policing. Cullompton: Willan.Macpherson, W. (1999) The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. Report of an Inquiry by Sir William

Macpherson of Cluny (Cm 4262-1). London: HMSO.May, T., Warburton, H., Turnbull, P. and Hough, M. (2002) Times They Are-A-Changing: Policing of

Cannabis. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Metropolitan Police Authority (2002) The Lambeth Cannabis Warning Pilot Scheme. Report 17, 26th

September. London: Metropolitan Police Authority.MORI (2002) Policing the Possession of Cannabis: Residents’ Views on the Lambeth Experiment. London:

Police Foundation.Newburn, T. (2002) ‘Community Safety and Policing: Some Implications of the Crime and Disorder

Act 1998’, in G. Hughes, E. McLaughlin and J. Muncie (eds.) Crime Prevention and CommunitySafety, London: Open University Press/Sage: 102-22.

Neyroud, P. (2003) ‘Policing and Ethics’, in T. Newburn (eds.) Handbook of Policing. Cullompton:Willan.

PSS Consultancy Group (2002) Evaluation of Lambeth’s Pilot of Warnings for Possession ofCannabis. London: PSS Consultancy Group.

Reiner, R. (2000a) The Politics of the Police. 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Reiner, R. (2000b) ‘Crime and Control in Britain’, Sociology 34(1): 71-94.Rowe, M. (2004) Policing, Race and Racism. Cullompton: Willan.Scarman, Lord (1981) The Brixton Disorders 10-12 April, Report of an Inquiry by the Rt. Honourable

Lord Scarman, Cmnd 8427. London: HMSO.TDPF (2004) After the War on Drugs: Options for Control (A Report by Transform Drug Policy

Foundation). Bristol: Transform Drug Policy Foundation.Waddington, P. (2003) ‘Keeping Stop and Search in Proportion’, in Police November: 17-18.Warburton, H., May, T. and Hough, M. (2005) ‘Looking the Other Way: The Impact of

Reclassifying Cannabis on Police Warnings, Arrests and Informal Action in England andWales’, British Journal of Criminology 45(2): 113-128.

Williams, B. (2002) ‘The Meanings of Community Justice: Editorial’, British Journal of CommunityJustice 1(1): 1-10.

Winlow, S. (2002) Badfellas. Oxford: Berg.Wright, A. (2002) Policing: An Introduction to Concepts and Practice. Cullompton: Willan.

The Anglo-American Measurement of Police Performance: Compstat and Best Value

45

THE ANGLO-AMERICANMEASUREMENT OF POLICEPERFORMANCE: COMPSTAT ANDBEST VALUE

Matthew Long, Sheffield Hallam University and Eli B. Silverman, JohnJay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York

AbstractThe argument is put forward that by comparing policing in the UK to policing across theAtlantic in New York, one can gain significant insight into the underlying processeswhich drive the managerial regimes of Best Value in the UK and Compstat in the USA.The paper begins by setting the introduction of the ‘new’ public managerialism into itssocio-economic and political contexts in both countries. A brief articulation of bothCompstat and Best Value are offered before the discussion draws upon some of the moststriking parallels between the two. The respective underlying conditions which promoteda sense of ‘crime crisis’ in both countries are explored, together with the philosophy thatcontemporary police management must be about attempting to secure ‘continuousimprovements’ in service delivery. Despite appearing to be ‘new’, the principles whichunderpin both Compstat and Best Value have a long history and they are both oftenpresented as being politically progressive compared to previous modes of policing andpublic sector governance. Both regimes appear to empower middle police managers interms of autonomy and decision making to a greater degree than ever before whilst at thesame time increasing responsibility at this middle managerial level. The paper culminatesby considering the potential for censure to be exerted under both Compstat and BestValue, together with some of the negative unintended consequences, including theundermining of attempts to make genuine improvements in community justice, whichmay result because of the threat of naming, shaming and blaming of police managers.

IntroductionMawby (1999) took an optimistic view about the benefits of international comparisons inpolicing. He argued, firstly, that comparisons extend our knowledge of the possibilities forreform; secondly, that we are able to develop more insights into human behaviour; thirdlythat the chances for successful reform are increased and finally, that comparison enables us

Matthew Long and Eli B. Silverman

46

to gain a different perspective on ourselves. This is an article which likewise takes anoptimistic view with regard to the benefits of international comparison. The US structureof policing can be characterised as localized, fragmented and dispersed, whilst the UKsystem can be depicted as more centralized and uniform. Indeed much of the comparativeliterature has rightly been devoted to highlighting the differences in policing betweenthese two countries (Mawby, 1999). Whilst these significant cultural and politicaldifferences should not be overlooked, this paper takes an alternative view by choosing tofocus on certain similarities. Police forces in both countries, for example, have undergonesimilar managerial transformations in recent decades to the extent that the parallels arequite extraordinary. The origins, nature and positive and negative consequences of thesechanges are remarkably comparable. These commonalities are perhaps even morenoteworthy in the context of the divergent UK and US histories and their relation topolicing. By comparing policing in the UK with the specific case of the New York PoliceDepartment, many insights can be gained in terms of generating a deeper level ofunderstanding of the drivers of change. According to Jones and Newburn (2004: 123),

A number of writers have commented on what appears to be a growingconvergence between criminal justice and penal policies in different nation-states. In particular, attention has been drawn to the emergence of ‘US-style’ criminal justice policies in other industrial democracies.

This work aims to make a contribution to the wider project of assessing thepossible convergence of US and UK crime control policy more generally.

The paper also attempts to assess whether both Compstat and Best Value as managerialsystems of governance are likely to contribute to improvements in community justice.According to Williams (2002), this notion of ‘community justice’ has been a pivotal ideafor criminal justice reformers since the late 1970’s, after its advocation across NorthAmerica by Saul Alinsky (1972). Whether the practice of this concept is compatible withthe ‘new’ public sector managerialism in the UK and USA, will be considered.

The ‘New’ Public Sector Managerialism in TheUK And the USAThis new managerial culture first arose in the context of the dissatisfaction with publicorganizations’ ineffective and inadequate service provision and results (Clarke andNewman, 1997). In the 1980’s, parties of the political ‘right’, namely Republicans in theUS and Conservatives in the UK favoured this approach rather than a Keynesianemphasis on demand-side economics. This predominantly monetarist approach was lateradopted in the 90’s by parties of the centre-left, namely Democrats in the US and ‘New’Labour in the UK. According to McLaughlin et al. (2001: 302), a key part of the ‘newpublic managerialism’ was an increased emphasis on achieving results rather thanadministering processes. This effectively meant a shift away from throwing money or‘inputs’ at social problems, in favour of measuring what public sector organisations actuallyproduced in terms of ‘outputs’. Linked in with a focus on ‘outputs’, was the setting of


47

explicit targets and performance indicators to enable the auditing of efficiency andeffectiveness. This meant that what public sector organisations produced in terms of‘outputs’, was to be measured according to quantifiable, numerical criteria. (Smith, 1995).These policies were fuelled by the rejection of Keynesian economic principles in favour ofthe adoption of laissez-faire monetarist free market economic principles. Public sectorgrowth, it was argued, resulted in non-productive and inefficient public bureaucracieswhich bred waste, nepotism, patronage and corruption (Minogue, 1988).

By the 1990’s, the full force of the new managerialism was applied to policing in bothnations. Business-based managerial solutions were offered to combat what were perceivedas troubling crime rates in the UK and US. As well as performance indicators, there werepolicies around ‘downsizing’, ‘delayering’ and ‘de-tiering’. What was significant inideological terms about the ‘new’ managerialism, (Clarke and Newman, 1997) was thatsocio-economic phenomena were no longer sufficient explanations for crime rates - policemanagers were now to be held responsible for crime statistics. One of the ways in which‘new’ managerial philosophies have been embraced in policing both in the US and theUK, are by means of ‘Compstat’ and ‘Best Value’.

What is interesting about the emergence of the ‘new’ public sector managerialism in boththe USA and the UK is that this may begin to explain certain similarities betweenrespective managerial modes of governance in policing terms. Newburn and Jones (2004)argue that any ‘convergence’ between the UK and USA may be partly explained by social,economic and cultural changes at the structural level. They also point out that theappearance of ‘convergence’ may also be explained by more ‘micro’ level factors, namelykey actors and agencies who are involved in policy transfer and adoption between thecountries. One thinks here of David Blunkett’s numerous visits to New York and otherAmerican cities to identify best practice and its potential transferability whilst serving asHome Secretary and prior to this Jack Straw made several visits to explore zero-tolerancepolicing at the time of the 1997 election (Newburn and Jones, 2004).

Before turning to an analysis of both Compstat and Best Value one has to address thequestion as to whether the ‘new’ public sector managerialism is actually compatible withattempts to achieve community justice. The ideas promoted by Alinsky (1972) in NorthAmerica were practiced by the National Association for Community Justice from 1975onwards (Williams, 2002). Whilst the notion of ‘community justice’ has diverse meaningswhich are open to contestation, one of the ways in which it has been predominantlycharacterised is by reference to a ‘bottom up’ promotion of neighbourhood basedparticipation in civil society generally and in criminal justice decision making morespecifically. This type of communitarian approach is compatible with a ‘rights’ and‘responsibilities’ type ideology which is underpinned by the notion of citizenship. In manyways the ‘new’ managerialism can be seen to be the opposite of this because rather thantreating people as ‘citizens’ who are active in terms of shaping service delivery, they arevery often treated as ‘customers’ or consumers of public sector service delivery (Clarke andNewman, 1997). The new managerial agenda additionally can be characterised as being


48

driven by a centralised ‘top down’ agenda set by the state and central government ratherthan a localised, ‘bottom up’ agenda.

Before further judgement is made on ‘new’ managerial compatibility with attempts tosustain ‘community justice’, an examination of what specifically constitutes the managerialtechnologies of Compstat and Best Value is explored.

What Is Compstat?Compstat was introduced in 1994 in New York City by police commissioner WilliamBratton. Whilst directed patrol and the use of information mapping and technology areintegral to Compstat, its most notable feature is the geographic accountability of precintcommanders who are called to account at 1 Plaza - police HQ. According to Eck andMaguire (2000: 230), ‘…they are held accountable through frequent debriefings at policeheadquarters, where they are ‘grilled’ about crime-reduction strategies and resourceallocation decisions’. Commanders are ranked and evaluated based on their comparativecrime statistics and anticrime plans. Commanders who do not measure up are reassignedto other positions.

What is Best Value?The Local Government Act of 1999 put a statutory responsibility on police authorities to‘challenge’, ‘compare’, ‘compete’ and ‘consult’ in terms of conducting Best Value reviews.As well as this a rigorous new suite of Best Value performance indicators were developedwhich were designed to ensure that police forces would strive for ‘continuousimprovements’ in service delivery. These indicators effectively institutionalised ‘leaguetables’ whereby forces and nowadays, Basic Command Units could be ranked in quartilesaccording to performance against targets. On occasion in this paper, the doctoral researchof Long (2004) is referred to because of the insights which can be generated from theempirical work conducted whilst interviewing a sample of 41 police middle managers inthe UK between September 2000 and March 2001. This work focused on police middlemanagement perceptions of the introduction of the Best Value regime and associatedculture of performance management in UK.

Compstat Meets Best ValueAt face value Compstat seems to have been a response to high crime rates in New York,whereas in the UK Best Value was very much a continuation of the logic of ‘new’ publicsector managerialism of both limiting spending on the public sector generally and linkingfunding to quantifiable performance (Note for example the Police and Magistrates CourtsAct 1994). Despite this difference, Compstat and Best Value not only have commonthemes, they have similar antecedents and introductions accompanied by comparablethemes of crisis, insecurity and lack of public confidence in the police.


49

Perception of a ‘Crime Crisis’In New York, a ‘crime crisis’ was in the process of being generated before Compstat’sintroduction in February 1994. A month before Mayor Guiliani’s November 1993 election(which was followed by his January 1994 appointment of William Bratton as policecommissioner), 59% of New York City voters polled, declared the city less safe than fouryears earlier and 46% said that crime remained a major issue (Dao, 1993: 1). In addition,the NYPD’s leadership promoted a sense of internal crisis within the department in orderto facilitate organizational change and confront the external crime crisis. According toSilverman (2001: 91), Commissioner Bratton claimed that,

Organizations can change the most when they are in crises. When I came tothe New York Transit police, it was clear to everyone that the departmentwas in crisis, with crime escalating and morale very low. With the NYPD,we had to create a crisis since there was no crisis of confidence. Theprevailing view was that we did things well. We are the best. There is no-one any better. So the strategies and reengineering process was intended tocreate a crisis and a process to move the organization through changes….Itwas revolutionary.

Newburn and Jones (2004: 140) are keen to point out the differences in the crime ratesbetween the UK and the USA. They make the point that unlike in New York, ‘There hadbeen no particularly spectacular rise in the murder rate in the UK or, say, in London.Secondly, despite fears to the contrary, crack use in the UK never reached anythingapproximating ‘epidemic’ proportions’. Despite differences in crime rates between the twocountries, the point is that fear of crime and a sense of impending crisis was evident inboth countries. This sense of ‘crisis’, real or imagined, was a necessary catalyst for changeboth in the United States and in the UK. The Best Value regime, which is underpinnedby The Local Government Act of 1999, has to be traced back to the drive for the pursuitof ‘economy’, ‘efficiency’ and ‘effectiveness’ which occurred across the public sector fromthe early 1980’s onwards. The UK’s call for a change in ‘Manpower, Effectiveness andEfficiency in the Police Service’ (Home Office: 1983) was activated by officialdom’scriticism of contemporary ‘crises’. As with New York in the 1990s, crime levels wereperceived to be unacceptable in the UK in the early 1980’s. Circular 114 stated that, ‘Thenumber of serious crimes recorded by the police has practically doubled’. (Home Office1983: 1). Unacceptable crime rates, coupled with more police and better funding, wasdeemed to be reflective of a crisis in ineffective police performance and strategies. ‘Since1971, police strength (excluding civilians) has gone up by some 24,000 and on 31st March1983 there were 121,003 police officers in England and Wales’. As with New York, theHome Office spoke to the public’s dwindling sense of security and confidence in thepolice, with there being reference to consecutive British Crime Surveys which revealeddeclining public confidence (Home Office 1983: 2).

In both countries, therefore, ‘crises’ were provoked so as to hasten police reform whichwould then be perceived as ‘natural’, ‘inevitable’ and ‘progressive’ (Clarke and Newman,


50

1997). This sense of crisis led to the introduction of the kind of management culturewhereby performance was not just encouraged but rather it was demanded.

The Common Philosophy of ‘Continuous Improvements’Under the ‘new’ managerial calculus, ‘citizens’ are being increasingly treated as ‘customers’(Clarke and Newman 1997). This shift towards viewing recipients of welfare services aspaying customers has meant that both Compstat and Best Value require the police todemonstrate ‘continuous improvements’ in service delivery. The key point here is thatBest Value is not just a review process and Compstat is not just a series of meetings atheadquarters. Both Best Value and Compstat have to be treated as philosophies in thatthey represent somewhat more than their constituent parts.

In the UK context of Best Value, forces have to demonstrate their commitment tosecuring ‘continuous improvements’ in service delivery by improving their positionswithin the league tables. Forces and Basic Command Units can be grouped into ‘families’which are then used to rank them in terms of classification into quartiles. Rather thanbeing in the bottom two quartiles - namely ‘failing’ and ‘coasting’, the regime requiresforces and BCU’s to at least have the status of being ‘striving’ and if possible to emulate‘top quartile’ success.

In the US context of Compstat, the implicit philosophy of ‘continuous improvements’ waseffected in practice through the setting of performance standards for the wholedepartment and its sub-units. Entrance to Bratton’s higher echelon was restricted tocommanders committed to double-digit crime reduction. Establishing a specific objective -a 10% reduction in crime for 1994- was the initial propellant for change:

While target setting is the norm for the private sector, it usually is anathemafor public organizations because it offers a yardstick against whichperformance can be more accurately measured and, if deficient, condemned.Some of Bratton’s top aides, reflecting traditional bureaucratic caution,advised him against this public commitment. ‘I told him he was flirting withmedia disaster and cynicism’, recalls one former top official. Thecommissioner, however, was aware of the power of goal setting as a focusand a rallying cry for action. Specific goals, as Bratton knew, operate asmobilizers of personnel, enabling an organization to see that old ways do notwork and that one must ‘push the envelop’ in order to reach new heights(Silverman, 2001 : 89).

At face value, with its emphasis on fundamental performance reviews over a period ofyears, Best Value purports to be about a longer-term strategy of delivering continuousimprovements in performance, whereas Compstat appears to be a more short-term andimmediate response. To overstate this difference would, however, be naïve in the sensethat both Best Value and Compstat are dependent on achieving quantifiable performance


51

indicators, which tends to result in short-termism or organisational ‘myopia’ (Smith,1995).

As well as representing a drive towards continuous improvements in performance, it isworth considering the lack of genuine originality of both regimes.

The Long History of Both RegimesDespite Alexander’s (2000: 263) perception of there being a, ‘revolution in public servicedelivery’, in the late 1990’s, both Best Value and Compstat are not ‘new’ in the sense thatthey are both underpinned by Taylorist principles of ‘scientific management’ (Taylor,1911). It was the time-served mechanical engineer, Frederick Winslow Taylor, who inworking for the Midvale and Bethlehem Steel Companies towards the end of thenineteenth century, devised new systems of industrial production. The basic principlebehind this was that human labour could be broken down into its constituent parts andmeasured accordingly. A pre-requisite of Taylorism was that performance should bemonitored to ensure that tasks are done in a prescribed way to achieve the resultsrequired. In the catering industry, chains like Pizza Hut and McDonald’s have taken thisto an extreme, with Ritzer (2000) noticing that this kind of McDonald’s effect was sopervasive in terms of its spread to the operation of organisations in both public andprivate sectors. This paper will go on to suggest that whilst Best Value and Compstatrespectively appear to empower police middle managers to make their own decisions,something which is completely anti-Taylorist, in reality the performance cultureengendered by both regimes effectively places police managers into a ‘straightjacket’ byprescribing on exactly what they should focus on.

Best Value and Compstat Appear to be PoliticallyProgressiveBest Value and Compstat are seen by many police managers themselves as beingpolitically progressive compared to ‘what came before’. In the UK, for example, thechange agenda around ‘economy’, ‘efficiency’, and ‘effectiveness’ which led to Best Value,was, according to the following middle manager whom Long (2004) interviewed, part of anecessary response to increasing public dissatisfaction and corresponding public pressure:

The police at that time were very much seen as a power unto themselves.They were unique in any sort of sphere in the country and they dictatedwhat the people got which can’t be a good thing and this recognition thatwe were inefficient, publicly meant that we had got to address these issuesand change and respond to what the public wanted.

In New York in the wake of repeated corruption scandals prior to Compstat, the emphasiswas on preventing future police corruption and maintaining favourable communityrelations. Commanding officers were more likely to be assessed on their anti-corruptionrecords and their neighbourhoods’ confidence in their precint police presence than intheir performance in addressing crime. The Compstat orientation shifted the primary focus


52

to anti-crime strategies and reduction. The new emphasis of assessing the accountability ofpolice middle managers on their performance rather than in terms of corruption requiredthem to be given more power and yet more responsibility at the same time.

Devolution of authorityCompstat and Best Value are underpinned by the ideology that the devolution of powersand decision making from the ‘centre’ to the ‘localities’ is beneficial. This is positively butperhaps somewhat naively referred to by its supporters as ‘empowerment’. Power isdevolved from the ‘top’ to a lower level in the organisation. It rests on the belief that themiddle manager has more autonomy to control and direct resources to appropriate localproblems as he or she sees fit. According to Silverman (2001: 84-85):

In New York, reengineering acted like a booster cable to the NYPD’sbattery, providing the cranking power needed to activate decentralizationand command accountability. Relinquishing control of daily operations wasthe most fundamental yet difficult challenge facing the new administration.Traditionally, the person at the apex of the NYPD pyramid would retaincontrol through standardized procedures and policies. In order to holdprecint commanders accountable for crime prevention, however, the newleadership in NYPD in the early ‘90’s, knew the organization must grantthem more discretion. Rather than allow headquarters to determine staffingand deployment on a city-wide basis, it was decided that reducing crime,fear of crime, and disorder, would flow from patrol borough and precint co-ordination of selected enforcement efforts.

Re-engineering reports sought to ‘empower’ precint commanders to tailor and implementtheir own crime-fighting plans, thereby shifting the NYPD from a routine of patrol-and-arrest activities to one weighted towards results. Commanding officers (CO’s) wereauthorized to allow their anti-crime units to perform decoy operations - a function thathad previously been left to the Citywide Street Crime Unit. Precint personnel werepermitted to execute felony arrests warrants, and CO’s could use plainclothes officers forvice enforcement activities. Patrol cops were encouraged to make drug arrests and toenforce quality-of-life laws. Headquarters restrictions on the total number of personnelthat precint commanders could assign to their own ‘speciality units’ (for instance, streetnarcotics units) were lifted. These operational moves were significant departures from theNYPD’s long-standing practice of prohibiting precint personnel from conducting sensitive,corruption-prone enforcement activities. Compstat meant that the police manager in NewYork had to be more active in terms of making interventions, demonstrating a morecommitted approach to the ownership of performance delivery (Long, 2003). Accordingto Silverman (2001:99):

Not only will the high command hold the front lines accountable, but streetcaptains themselves must be committed to ownership.


53

Devolution of powers down from senior towards middle police management has occurredin the UK as well as in New York. Middle police managers are increasingly expected toplay a pivotal role in terms of delivery of Best Value in policing, by leading and managingtheir staff at local or Basic Command Unit level on an everyday basis. The AuditCommission (2001: 5) refers to performance management in policing as beingcharacterised by ‘a culture of devolved responsibility’. According to the AuditCommission (2001: 12):

BCU’s are acquiring increasing devolved capability. This reflects a widertrend in organisational management: that of moving decision making closerto the front-line, be it school headteachers and governors, primary healthcare groups or, in the private sector, regional directors of nationalcompanies. There is widespread acceptance that local managers will performmore effectively, and make better use of resources, if they have control overthe means by which corporate objectives are achieved.

Greater empowerment in terms of the increased opportunity to make decisions wassomething which several middle managers mentioned when interviewed by Long (2004).For example; ‘Empowerment has certainly taken place and I think people have got hold ofit quite well.’ This statement by a middle police manager in the UK, is indicative of abelief in the benefits of a less hierarchical and militaristic rank structure. This has meantthat middle managers are more able to influence and take decisions and that this has beena definite benefit in terms of the introduction of Best Value style managerial culture.Police leadership tended to used to be about commanding in terms of taking control of a‘crisis’ situation or a major incident, or secondly, making sure ‘troops’ on the ‘front-line’are supported well and guarded against complaints (Long, 2003). Both Comspstat and BestValue require the police manager to be far more active and interventionist inmanagement terms than ever before in taking ownership of local performance delivery. Soit is no longer about ‘command’ style leadership in the militaristic sense.

Added Responsibilities Accompany Devolution and‘Empowerment’While both Compstat and Best Value involve the devolution of powers to the middlemanager, these powers come with added responsibilities. It is here that these‘responsibilities’ link back to the previous argument about performance culture being‘Taylorist’ in the sense of breaking down police labour into its constituent parts andmeasuring it. Whilst both Compstat and Best Value appear to empower middle managersin reality, the responsibilities that they have far outnumber the so-called ‘freedoms’. Thisis what Garland (1997) more broadly refers to as ‘responsibilisation’. In the UK context,middle management performance as part of a BCU team is assessed according the criteriaset by a national suite of Best Value performance indicators. Alexander (2000: 271),makes reference to, ‘the output orientation that is at the heart of the process’. This outputorientation by means of performance indicators, creates additional pressure. This extrapressure is coupled with the fact that there has been significant downsizing of middle


54

management posts from the late ‘80’s and throughout the ‘90’s. Between 1988 and 1997,for instance, there was a decrease of 37% in the number of officers in the superintendingranks. The inspecting ranks witnessed a reduction of some 12% between 1992 and 1997(HMIC 1998: 42). As a consequence of downsizing, middle managers in the organisationhave found themselves having to take on more and more responsibilities. The followingstatement by a middle manager interviewed by Long (2004) illustrates this:

There is a lot more responsibility for lower middle managers - Inspectorlevel particularly, and Sergeant as well. They’re having to take on moreresponsibility and are more accountable for their actions than perhaps theywere 20 years ago.

Similarly, in New York, many division commands, which stood between the precintcommanders and their borough commanders, were eliminated. As a result, middle levelprecint managers and commanders were held responsible for all types of crimes withintheir commands. Not only were they assessed on the comparative crime statistics but theiranti crime strategies and tactics were regularly reviewed at Compstat and other meetings.Pressure to meet these demands became a way of life and only intensified from year to yearas the expectations grew that crime would continue to decline on a yearly basis. Indeed,the relative downsizing of the middle ranks in both the USA and UK has effectivelymeant that police middle managers have less power to assert their ‘freedoms’ as they areincreasingly burdened with additional responsibilities (Mulraney, 2001).

The Impact of Censure and BlameThere is the very real threat that both Compstat and Best Value can result in the publicnaming and shaming of ‘underperforming’ middle managers. In New York, Compstat hasled to demotions and sackings. According to Silverman (2001: 118), ‘Generally, precintscheduling is based on unfavourable crime statistics or sudden upturns in particular crimesor shootings-known by the NYPD as ‘spikes’’. Some commanders have been known to besubject to public humiliation and scorn at Compstat meetings.

There is less party-political interference in the UK than the US, due to the doctrine ofnon-partisanship, so it is harder to sack or demote ‘inefficient’ and ‘ineffective’ policemanagers. Having said this, in the context of Best Value, Section 15 of The LocalGovernment Act of 1999 gives the Home Secretary reserve powers to intervene in therunning of statutory authorities who are deemed to be ‘failing’. This has not yet occurredalthough if the same path is followed which occurred in both the education and healthsectors in the UK, it has every reason to follow suit.

Thus both regimes are driven by the threat of censure, rather than there being genuineattempts to learn from ‘good’ or ‘best practice’. The essence of this process of more‘empowerment’ and yet increasing ‘responsibility’ is wonderfully captured in Powell’s(1999: 364) cynical comment on the present political culture, which he characterised asone of, ‘decentralizing blame and centralizing credit’.


55

Whilst some would argue that blame culture is justified in the name of increasedaccountability, what is often overlooked is that blame has displacement effects which maybecome perverse to the extent that they are counterproductive to the pursuit ofaccountability.

Potential for Performance Data ManipulationCompstat and Best Value may spawn negative unintended consequences. One suchconsequence is the added pressure for police managers to manipulate or misrepresentperformance information. In New York, a few commanding officers have been exposed asmanipulating their crime figures although this is not a new phenomenon. Yet the demandsfor improved performance are enormous. This spills onto street level performance.According to Silverman (2001: 212), ‘Numbers, sometimes any numbers, rule the day.This system, in the words of one participant, is ‘wound up too tight’. A Brooklyndetective, who was a twenty-year veteran, put it this way, ‘Compstat is everything. Peopleare tired of being harassed, searched and frisked, and run off the streets. People are fed up;the cops are, too’.

In the UK context of Best Value, it appears that the misrepresentation of performanceinformation continues to be a problem. The HMIC (2000) report On The Record, revealedwidespread and varying interpretation of the rules, with many offences being wronglyclassified. The ‘league table’ style of performance culture which Best Value engenders islikely to see an increase in this pressure for the manipulation of statistical data. Bothsystems put such an onus on performance that the pressure to cheat in order to manageappearances or what Adlam (2002: 31) calls ‘managing the look’, is huge. What thisdemonstrates is that Compstat and Best Value are attempts at Taylorist style management.They never fully achieve the type of total social control advocated by Taylor (1911)simply because there is room for manipulation of the figures and attempts to subvertmanagerial control.

Bureaucratic IncreaseMax Weber (1961) argued that the institutionalisation of rationality is a constitutivefeature of modern capitalism. The formal structures created by bureaucracies would lead togreater efficiency (Weber, 1968). In talking about the benefits of bureaucraticorganisation in terms of precision and speed, Weber was cited by Gerth and Mills (1970:124) as arguing that, ‘The fully developed bureaucratic mechanism compares with otherorganisations exactly as does the machine with the non-mechanical modes of production.Precision, speed, unambiguity, knowledge of the files, continuity, discretion, unity, strictsubordination, reduction of friction and of material and personal costs- these are raised tothe optimum point in the strictly bureaucratic administration’.

Best Value and Compstat can be equated with Max Weber’s theory of rationalisation asattempts to impose a formal rationality on police management, with police managers inboth countries striving for the optimum and most ‘efficient’ delivery of performance. Theperformance indicators which underpin both regimes are an example of where there has


56

been an attempt to impose formal rationality onto the conduct of policing because theyare attempts at increasing ‘knowledgeability’ (Dandeker, 1990: 12).

Whilst identifying many advantages of fundamentally bureaucratic systems, Weber (1958)acknowledged the negative and destructive, down-side. George Ritzer (2000: 123) coinedthe term, ‘the irrationality of rationality’ to acknowledge what sociologists nowadays referto as the ‘iron law of oligarchy’. Excessive paperwork and ‘red tape’ can causebureaucracies to become like an ‘iron cage’. When this occurs, procedural adherence andexcessive rule-following make a formally rational system, simply irrational in practice.Compstat and Best Value may be guilty of increasing the bureaucratic burden on themiddle manager in terms of the time it takes to compile, analyze and supply theinformation for meetings and auditors. With specific regard to Compstat, Silverman(2001: 211) makes the point that:

Demands to produce numbers have triggered the expansion of NYPDprocedures that work, but without maintaining an eye on the structuralhealth of the organization. The remedies of police ‘doctors’ are akin todoubling a medication of five milligrams to ten, since the currentprescription has worked so well: more of the same strategic medicine isintroduced, regardless of warnings about possible side effects.

Yet while performance demands increase on the commander levels, precints are losingresources at the same time headquarters and specialized units augment their memberships.

In the UK context, empirical research conducted by Long (2004), revealed a perceptionon the part of police middle management that Best Value is in danger of becoming overlybureaucratic. Take the following statement from a police middle manager, for example,which refers to the conduction of Best Value reviews:

What is happening is people are being seconded into the middle to do them.And there’s a lot of people doing them and the opportunity costs areextremely high. I mean we’ve got Superintendents, Chief Inspectors and allkinds of support staff, managers- involved in Best Value reviews for monthsat a time. Obviously we’ve got full-time people as well but people areseconded into them.

If this trend continues then both Compstat and Best Value are in danger of succumbing tothe ‘irrationality of rationality’. According to Ritzer (2000: 123), ‘Rational systemsinevitably spawn irrationalities that limit, eventually compromise, and perhaps evenundermine their rationality’. Without talking specifically about police managementsystems, Clarke and Newman (1997: 89) made the point that ‘new’ managerial regimes,‘require a good deal of attention and resources to be spent on legitimating activity,whether this produces increased organisational efficiency or not’. The above evidencesuggests that there is a real danger that supposedly formally rational regimes like Best


57

Value in the UK and Compstat in the USA are in danger of creating unnecessarybureaucracy and irrationality. This may have worrying implications for community justice.Should the pursuit of criminal justice policy aims and objectives become an end inthemselves then there is a real danger that this will be at the expense of social policiesrequired to ensure the upholding of values and aspirations which underpin communityjustice. This raises the wider debate about whether managerial modes of governance suchas Best Value and Compstat are actually compatible with the pursuit of genuineimprovements in community justice. The performance indicators, expressed in numericalterms which underpin both regimes are often alien and alienating for members of thepublic who are more concerned with their real life, everyday lived experiences of crimeand the fear of crime, than how these feelings and experiences are expressed,bureaucratised and publicised through the managerial technology of quantifiableperformance data (Long, 2004).

Genuine attempts at sustaining community justice should surely take into account theneeds, concerns and expectations of the community. In terms of policing practice, theseneeds, concerns and expectations are increasingly expressed through fears about what iscollectively referred to as anti-social behaviour (Blunkett, 2003). This is behaviour whichcan be characterised by litter dropping, noise, urinating in public places and so on. Muchof these types of behaviours have traditionally not been captured by the tendency for boththe Compstat and Best Value regimes to focus on volume crimes such as burglary, robberyand theft. There are, in effect, many so-called ‘low-level’ crimes and acts of anti-socialbehaviour which are not actually captured fully and effectively by Best Value andCompstat. This is not at all compatible with attempts to sustain improvements in ‘bottom-up’, community participation and justice. (HMIC, 2004). Whilst police middle managersmay be ‘responsibilised’ (Garland, 2001) by the Compstat and Best Value regimes,genuine attempts at delivering community justice would have to ‘responsibilise’ membersof the community as well. The civil renewal agenda launched by ‘New’ Labour towardsthe end of its second term in office (Blunkett, 2003) is an example of an attempt at‘bottom-up’ community engagement and a revival of what Habermas (1989) referred to ascivil society. This requires members of the community to take a more active andinterventionist approach as citizens by effecting change both within the criminal justicesystem and wider society. This is quite separate and distinctive from centrally set targetsand performance indicators which are imposed ‘from above’ by managerial regimes likeBest Value and Compstat.

ConclusionThis paper has highlighted the fact that despite significant cultural and politicaldifferences between the US and the UK, a comparative study of how police performance isassessed in both countries produces considerable insights. These insights are sixfold andcan be summarised as the following: (1) Both regimes were introduced as a response to aperceived crisis. (2) Both are underpinned by philosophies which demand continuousimprovements in service delivery. (3) Neither regime is ‘new’ when one considers thehistorical dimension to its origins in terms of discipline and surveillance. (4) Both regimes


58

are considered to be politically progressive compared to what came before. (5) Bothregimes ‘responsibilise’ (Garland, 1997) police middle managers in ways not achievedbefore. (6) It is because both regimes are ultimately underpinned by the threat of censurethat it is up to those with a stake in police reform on both sides of the Atlantic to addressthe negative unintended consequences which the regimes may engender. One suchunintended consequence is that these regimes may be counter-productive in terms ofactually making genuine improvements in service delivery and contributing to the pursuitof genuine community justice. Further exploration of all dimensions of changes in policingcan provide a fuller comprehension of police reform across national boundaries. Thestruggle, as always, begins here.

ReferencesAdlam, R. (2002) ‘Governmental Rationalities in Police Leadership: An Essay Exploring Some of

the ‘Deep Structure’ in Police Leadership Praxis’, Policing and Society 12(1): 15-36.Alexander, A. (2000) ‘The Police and Best Value: Applicability and Adaptation’, Policing and

Society 10: 263-275.Alinksy, S. (1972) Rules for Radicals. New York: Vintage Press.Audit Commission (2001) Best Foot Forward: Headquarters Support for Police Basic Command Units.

Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England andWales: CW Print Group.

Blunkett, D. (2003) Civil Renewal: A New Agenda. The CSV Edith Kahn Memorial Lecture. 11thJune. London: Home Office.

Clarke, J. and Newman, J. (1997) The Managerial State: Power, Politics and Ideology in the Remaking ofSocial Welfare. London: Sage.

Dao, J. (1993) ‘Dinkins and Giuliiani Split on Public Safety Issue’, New York Times, 11 Octobersec.A, p.1.

Eck, J. and Maguire, E. (2000) ‘Have Changes in Policing Reduced Violent Crime? An Assessmentof the Evidence’, in A. Blumstein and J. Wallman (eds), The Crime Drop in America.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dandeker, C. (1990) Surveillance, Power and Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Garland, D. (1997) ‘Governmentality and the Problem of Crime’, Theoretical Criminology 1(2): 173-

214.Gerth, H. and Wright-Mills, C. (1970) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. London: Routledge

and Kegan Paul.Habermas, J. (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.HMIC (1998) What Price Policing?: A Study of Efficiency and Value for Money in the Police Service.

London: HMIC.HMIC (2000) On The Record. Thematic Inspection Report on Police Crime Recording, the Police

National computer and Phoenix Intelligence System Data Quality. London. Home Office.HMIC (2004) Inspection of Wakefield District BCU: May 2004. London: HMIC.Home Office (1983) Manpower, Effectiveness and Efficiency in the Police Service. London: HMSO.Long, M. (2003) ‘Leadership and Performance Management’, in T. Newburn (ed.) Handbook of

Policing. Cullompton: Willan Publishing: 628-54.Long, M. (2004) Naming, Shaming and the Politics of Blaming: Best Value as a Censorious Mode of

Police Governance. Unpublished PhD Thesis.Mawby, R. (1999) Policing Across The World. Issues for the Twenty-first Century. London. UCL Press.McLaughlin, E. et al. (2001) ‘The Permanent Revolution: New Labour, New Public Management

and the Modernization of Criminal Justice’, Criminal Justice 1(3): 301-318.Minogue, K. (1988) ‘Mrs. Thatcher’s Economic Reform Programme- Past, Present and Future’, in R.

Skidelsky (ed.) Thatcherism. London: Chatto and Windus: 93-106.


59

Mulraney, S. (2001) ‘Performance Indicators Cost Service 1,000 Officers a Year’, Police Review 108(5589): 10.

Newburn, T. and Jones, T. (2004) ‘The Convergence of US and UK Crime Control Policy:Exploring Substance and Process’, in T. Newburn and R. Sparks (ed.) Criminal Justice andPolitical Cultures: National and International Dimensions of Crime Control. Cullompton: WillanPublishing.

Powell, M. (1999) ‘New Labour and the Third Way in the British National Health Service’,International Journal of Health Services 29(2): 353-370.

Ritzer, G. (2000) The McDonalidization of Society. London: Sage.Silverman, E. (2001) NYPD Battles Crime: Innovative Strategies in Policing. Boston: Northeastern

University Press.Smith, P. (1995) ‘Outcome-related Performance Indicators and Organizational Control in the

Public Sector’, in J. Holloway (ed.) Performance Measurement and Evaluation. London: Sage:192-216.

Taylor, F. (1911) The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper.Weber, M. (1958) The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism. Translated by Talcott Parsons.

New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Weber, M. (1961) General Economic History. Translated by Frank H. Knight. New York: Collier.Weber, M. (1968) Economy and Society, Volumes 1-3. Totowa, NJ: Bedminster.Williams, B. (2002) ‘The Meanings of Community Justice’, British Journal of Community Justice 1(1):

1-10.

Angry or What? Experiences of Being a Crime Victim

61

ANGRY OR WHAT? EXPERIENCES OFBEING A CRIME VICTIM

Beth Hodgson, University of Huddersfield

AbstractThis paper reports findings from a survey of 145 crime victims in West Yorkshire,designed to assess the physical and emotional impact of victimisation. This paper willnote the wide and far-reaching impact of crime victimisation, affecting all aspects of dailylife. All participants reported some effects after victimisation. Some groups suffered to agreater extent than others. Very few participants received any support from outside theirimmediate family or friends. They commonly complained of lack of personal contact withthe police, and lack of advice and information. The majority of participants thought thatreceiving an apology or meeting with the offender would not be helpful. They favouredremedies through the criminal justice system. The implications for the treatment ofvictims within the criminal justice system and the introduction of restorative models thatattempt to engage the victim in the process are discussed.

Introduction

The bulk of literature on the impact of victimisation comes from the United States, mostof which concentrates on violent crime, particularly domestic violence and sexualoffences. In the UK there is a growing literature on the impact of victimisation, but thislikewise largely focuses on more serious crime types. Research on the impact of less seriouscrime types is uncommon. Crime victimisation has three main impacts: financial loss,physical injury and emotional or psychological trauma. Emotional/psychological effects areless visible than physical injury and financial loss and are often left unnoticed andunattended by both the authorities and the victims’ family or friends. The emotionalimpact of victimisation has been referred to as the most devastating component of crimevictimisation effects and is often more serious and damaging than any physical injurysustained (Zehr 1990, Achilles and Zehr 2001). The relationship between physical andemotional symptoms is complex and not fully understood. Emotional stress can causephysical symptoms, such as headaches, tiredness or chest pains. Conversely, physical paincan lead to emotional upset and anguish. Individuals react differently to crimevictimisation; some are unaffected by the event, others experience serious and lastingharm. Reactions can differ for a variety of reasons, such as the type of crime committed,

Beth Hodgson

62

the experience of previous and/or subsequent victimisation and the personality of thevictim.

This paper will report findings from a study of 145 crime victims in Kirklees, WestYorkshire. The study was commissioned by the Kirklees Youth Offending Team (YOT) inOctober 2001. It involved a postal survey and a small number of qualitative interviews.The study was designed to assess the physical and emotional impact of crime on itsvictims, to examine their experience of the criminal justice system and to providerecommendations to improve their experience in the wake of victimisation.

The Impact of Crime on its VictimsThe first longitudinal study of crime victims in the UK was carried out by Shapland,Willmore and Duff in 1985. They interviewed victims of violent crime at various stagesafter the offence: soon after reporting the offence to the police, after committalproceedings and after the outcome of the case. They identified three consequences ofvictimisation: physical, psychological and financial. Physical effects included temporarysuffering (for example headaches or pain while performing daily activities) and permanentdisfigurements (for example scars or missing teeth). Psychological effects included worry,anxiety and depression. Financial harms included loss of property, money (both directlyand through loss of earnings) and medical expenses. At the first interview, 81% of victimsreported some of the above effects and at the final interview (the outcome of the case)75% of victims said they were still suffering. Shapland et al (1985) found that victims ofsexual assault and robbery suffered more than victims of physical assault. Physical assaultvictims were more likely to experience physical effects but for less serious assaults the highinitial impact had decreased markedly by the outcome of the case. Victims of sexualassault had the highest levels of effects at the first interview and the greatest tendency foreffects to persist over time. They also found that the precise effects of victimisationchanged over time. The prevalence of physical, social and psychological effects waspersistent and consistent over time; whereas financial loss and financial need decreasedover time.

Physical effects and emotional reactions to crime victimisation have been addressed in theBritish Crime Survey. The 2000 British Crime Survey (Home Office, 2000) revealed thatthe majority of victims experienced some degree of emotional upset after victimisation.87% of burglary victims, 83% of vehicle theft victims and 85% of victims of violence saidthey were emotionally affected. Of those who were affected, 59% of burglary victims, 36%of vehicle theft victims and 47% of violence victims reported they were either very muchor quite a lot affected by the crime. The most common reactions experienced for all threecrime types were anger (68% burglary, 89% vehicle theft and 62% violence) and shock(38% burglary, 22% vehicle theft and 41% violence). For victims of violent incidents,33% suffered minor bruising, 16% suffered severe bruising, 13% suffered scratches and10% suffered cuts.14% of victims required medical attention and 2% were admitted tohospital for one night or more.


63

Socio-demographic FactorsThere is a divergence of opinion as to whether socio-demographic variables, such as age,sex, race and socio-economic status have any impact on emotional suffering. Mawby andWalklate (1994) argue that certain groups are more affected by crime victimisation thanothers. They suggest that low earners are more affected than high earners. Those who livein rented accommodation are more affected than owner occupiers. Black people, especiallythose of African-Caribbean backgrounds, are more affected than white people. The elderlyand young victims are more affected than those in the intermediate age groups. Thosewho are divorced are more affected than those who are married. Those living in ahousehold with no other adults are more affected than those who live with other adultsand women are more affected than men. Other writers such as Van Ness and HeetderksStrong (2002) and Laub (1997) argue that demographic variables do not predictemotional suffering. Research conducted by Mawby and Kirchoff (1996) suggests thatthere may be cultural differences in the impact of victimisation. Their study compared theexperiences of UK crime victims with crime victims in Germany. They found thatalthough there was a commonality of experiences between the two groups, victims inGermany were more affected by crime than victims in the UK.

Previous VictimisationThe experience of previous victimisation and/or the occurrence of subsequentvictimisation may affect the degree of emotional suffering. MacLeod et al (1996) foundthat repeat victims of crime were more likely to report depression or upset (18%) andfeelings of resignation (8%) than first-time victims of crime (3% and 1% respectively).First-time victims of crime were more likely to feel shock or surprise (23%) and feelworried, scared or helpless (17%) than repeat victims of crime (12% and 8% respectively).Shaw (2001) found that emotional effects were prolonged and further intensified by aseries of crimes. She linked the emotional responses to victimisation to four recognisedstages in the bereavement process. The first stage was numbness and dazedness. Thesecond, anger and acute emotional pain. Thirdly, depression, disorganisation and despair.Finally, acceptance and resumption of normal daily activities. To recover fromvictimisation victims need to move through the first three phases to phase four. Thisprocess can be delayed with the occurrence of further victimisation. Many chronic victimsof crime are never able reach the final stage of recovery. She argues that full recoverycannot take place until victimisation ends.

Type of CrimeMuch of the research on the emotional/psychological impact of crime concentrates onviolent crime. The research suggests that victims of violent or personal crimes suffer morethan victims of household crimes. Laub (1997), for example, found that rape victims weremore likely to suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder than victims of other crime types.A study by Norris, Kaniasty and Thompson (1997) compared the symptoms of victims ofproperty crime and victims of violence with the symptoms of non-victims. They foundthat crime victims experienced higher symptoms than non-victims and that victims ofviolent crime experienced higher symptoms than victims of property crime. Spackman

Beth Hodgson

64

(2000) argues that the association between crime seriousness and impact is uncertain. Shesuggests that the more serious the crime to the individual victim the more likely it is tohave an impact.

SupportSupport from the victims’ family or community can alleviate the intensity of emotionaleffects. In the study by Shapland et al (1985) almost all of the victims interviewedexpressed a need for emotional support and reassurance. Some victims coped withinformal support, whereas others wished for help from agencies. According to Norris et al(1997), believing that support is available if needed can often be more beneficial thanactually receiving support.

Participation in the Judicial SystemWortman et al (1997) argue that the most important determinant of anxiety anddepression is participation in and treatment by the criminal justice system. They foundthat active participation in the judicial process empowered the victim, enhancedsatisfaction and had a positive impact on a victim’s mental health.

Restorative JusticeThe last thirty years have witnessed a ‘re-emergence’ of restorative models of justice in theUK and around the world, due, partly, to the belief that traditional, punitive forms ofjustice fail to meet the needs of the victim. Restorative justice places the victim at thecentre of the judicial process and encourages participation in that process, while holdingthe offender accountable and responsible. It aims to restore the relationship between thevictim and the offender, improve the victims’ experience of the criminal justice systemand reduce re-offending (Miers, 2001). It has been suggested that restorative justiceprogrammes aid the emotional healing of crime victims (Zehr, 1990) and enhance victimsatisfaction with the criminal justice system (Umbreit, 2001).

Much of the research available on restorative justice schemes concentrates on the impactsuch schemes have on offending behaviour and on re-offending rates. Studies that look atthe impact of restorative justice schemes on crime victims predominantly measure victimparticipation rates and levels of victim satisfaction with the criminal justice system.Several studies from the UK, North America, Australia and New Zealand are discussed inbrief below. These studies have been selected because they share a common law, languageand culture. These countries also have a high volume of restorative justice programmes.

Umbreit (1994) looked at various restorative justice schemes across different sites inNorth America. He found that crime victims from all sites were significantly less upsetabout the crime and less fearful of being revictimised by the same offender after mediation(49% were upset about crime post mediation, compared to 67% pre-mediation, and 10%were afraid of being revictimised post mediation compared to 23% pre-mediation). Hefound that victims involved in face-to-face mediation were more likely to experiencesatisfaction and fairness than groups not involved in mediation. Almost all of the victims


65

expressed satisfaction with one or more aspects of personal empowerment in the process ofmediation. Three themes emerged from the interviews he conducted with victims: afeeling of being involved in the judicial process of justice, the opportunity to expressopinions and emotions and a sense of emotional healing. Umbreit concluded thatexpressions of satisfaction with victim-offender mediation were consistently high forvictims regardless of site, culture and seriousness of offence.

Different types of intervention have varying degrees of effectiveness. Using data from 90youth justice conferences in South Australia Daly (2003) differentiates betweenconferences with high levels of ‘restorativeness’, procedural justice and co-ordinator skillin managing the conference and conferences with low levels. She found huge variationsbetween ‘high level’ and ‘low level’ conferences. 78% of victims attending ‘high level’conferences said that the conference was helpful in overcoming emotional orpsychological effects, compared to just 22% of ‘low level’ conference attendees. However,‘high level’ conferences were not related to the victims’ recovery (62% of high levelconference participants had not fully recovered from the incident, compared to 38% oflow level conference participants).

Miers et al (2001) conducted a fifteen-month study of the effectiveness of restorativejustice in seven schemes across England between July 1999 and November 2000. Three ofthe seven schemes had little or no contact with victims during the fieldwork stage of thestudy and interviews were conducted with victims from only four of the schemes.Participation rates were low and in only two instances the victim had actually sought outthe scheme. One third of the victims agreed that the offender had made sufficient amendsfor the offence and over two thirds were either satisfied or very satisfied with theirinvolvement in the scheme. Less than one in five victims said they were either dissatisfiedor very dissatisfied.

A study by Morris and Maxwell (2000) found that victims involved in family groupconferencing found it a positive experience. 60% of participants said they found it ahelpful, positive and rewarding experience. Victims reported two specific benefits of theconference. First, it provided the victim with a voice in determining appropriateoutcomes. Secondly, it provided an opportunity to meet the offender and his or her familyto assess their attitude and understand why the offence had occurred and the likelihood ofit recurring. Approximately one quarter of participants said they felt worse after attendingfamily group conferencing. A number of reasons were given such as they did not feel theoffender was truly sorry, the inability of the offender to make reparation and the inabilityof the victim to express themselves adequately. Morris and Maxwell concluded that theobjections were rooted in poor practices and were not fundamental objections to familygroup conferencing.

Victim participation in restorative justice programmes particularly in this country isgenerally low. For example, 89% of victims in a scheme in West Yorkshire refused toparticipate (Miers, 2001). In Umbreit’s (1994) study between 40% and 60% of victims

Beth Hodgson

66

offered victim-offender mediation programmes refused to participate, in most cases becausethe crime was deemed too trivial. Eleven areas in England and Wales piloted the newreferral order between March 2000 and August 2001. An eighteen-month evaluation ofthe pilot found that victims attended a youth offender panel in only 13% of cases(Newburn, 2002). Of those who did attend 78% said the opportunity to express theirfeelings and speak directly to the offender had been a very important influence on theirdecision to attend the panel. 71% said it was very or somewhat important to have a say inhow the problem was resolved and half of the victims said it was very or somewhatimportant to ensure they would be repaid for the harm/loss they experienced. None ofthose interviewed said they felt pressured to attend the panel meeting.

The research reported here is the result of a six-month study conducted for the KirkleesYOT in West Yorkshire, between October 2001 and March 2002. The study was designedto assess the physical and emotional impact of crime on victims in the Kirklees localauthority area and to examine their experience of the criminal justice system. The studywas commissioned by the YOT ahead of the national implementation of the referral orderin April 2002. The referral order tackles youth offending through interventions based onthe principles of restorative justice. It can involve the victim meeting the young offenderin a panel meeting and includes an element of reparation. The main aim of the study wasto inform the implementation of the referral order in Kirklees and to providerecommendations to improve the experience and treatment of crime victims in thecriminal justice system. Although there is a vast amount of literature on the impact ofvictimisation, surprisingly little is known about the impact of crime on less serious crimetypes or how crime affects daily activities and relationships. This research attempts toaddress the gaps in the literature by focusing not only on the impact of crime on physicaland emotional health, but also the impact of crime on daily life, work and personalrelationships.

Methodology850 postal survey forms were distributed to all known crime victims in the Kirklees localauthority area during two three-week periods in December 2001 and February 2002. Thesurveys were distributed via two local Victim Support agencies to ensure anonymity andconfidentiality. The survey was included with Victim Support’s own letter to crimevictims, which is sent out soon after the offence is reported to the police (usually withinseven days). All victims who reported a crime within the study period and were contactedby Victim Support in this period were asked to complete a questionnaire. 145 surveys werecompleted and returned. The response rate was low, but similar to other surveys of thiskind. The survey explored the offence, the impact of the offence, support received afterthe offence, and attitudes towards the offender, the police and the criminal justice system.The survey questions were predominantly multiple choice, with a small number of open-ended questions. There are two factors that make this an unrepresentative group. Onlythose victims who were contacted by Victim Support during the study period as part oftheir routine procedures were sent a questionnaire. Secondly, only those who responded tothe survey were included, 83% of questionnaires not being returned. The low response


67

rate could indicate either satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system orvictim services in the target population. Victims who were satisfied with services mayhave felt they had nothing to contribute to the survey, whereas others may have beenunwilling to assist due to feelings of dissatisfaction.

To supplement the data from the survey, a small number of interviews were conductedwith crime victims. The questionnaire asked respondents if they would agree to take partin an interview at a later stage. Fifty-two respondents agreed to do so. During March 2002an attempt was made to contact all fifty-two respondents by telephone. Only eighteenrespondents could be reached, due to incorrect telephone numbers on the survey form orunavailability at the time of the call. Of those who were reached, one declined toparticipate and seventeen interviews were conducted in total. A semi-structured interviewformat was used. The purpose of the interview was to gain a deeper and more thoroughunderstanding of the experience of victimisation and needs of crime victims.

SampleRespondents comprised seventy-five males and seventy females. The youngest was aged 16and the oldest aged 75. Two-thirds of the respondents were aged over 40 (66%). 26%were aged between 20 and 39, and 8% were under 20 years of age. The ethnicity ofrespondents was fairly representative of the population in Kirklees, 90% of respondentswere white, 3% were Indian and 3% were Black Caribbean. 89% of the Kirkleespopulation is white, 3% is Indian, and 1% is Black Caribbean (Office of NationalStatistics, 1991). 41% of respondents were married and 41% were employed full time. Themajority of respondents were homeowners (55%), 22% rented from the Council, 10%rented privately, and 1% rented from a Housing Association. A wide range of offences wassuffered, from theft to attempted homicide. Approximately two-thirds were victims ofproperty-related offences and one third were victims of personal offences. The samplecontained a greater proportion of personal offences than the proportion in police recordedcrime statistics. In 2001/02, 82% of crimes recorded in England and Wales were offencesagainst the property and 15% were crimes against the person (Home Office, 2002).

ResultsPhysical impactOf the 145 victims surveyed nearly one quarter (24.4%) were injured during the offence.The majority of injuries were minor, requiring no medical attention, but some experiencedserious and near-fatal injuries, such as burns, fractures and stab wounds. In comparison toother symptoms experienced, physical injury had little impact on the quality of life ordaily activities of those involved. Only one victim said the physical injury was the mostupsetting aspect of the offence. As well as the physical injury sustained during theincident, other physical symptoms were experienced. Some of these are listed in Table 1.

Beth Hodgson

68

Table 1: Physical symptoms

Physical symptoms % of respondents

Difficulty sleeping 50.4

Stress 39.6

Anxiety 35.3

Panic attacks 31.4

Nervousness 24.5

Change in appetite 17.3

Depression 15.1

Crying 15.1

There is an overlap between the physical symptoms listed above and the emotionalsymptoms discussed below. These physical symptoms were more commonly experiencedalongside other effects rather than in isolation. For some, the cause of the physicalsymptom was apparent. For example, fear of offender retaliation often led to anxiety andnervousness around strangers. For others, the cause of the physical symptom was less clear.Half of those surveyed reported difficulty sleeping after the offence. In the follow upinterviews those reporting difficulty sleeping in the survey were still experiencingproblems some two-to-three months after the offence. Difficulty sleeping often led toother problems, such as poor functioning at work and moodiness or irritability. Femaleswere significantly more likely to experience difficulty sleeping (p=0.034), anxiety(p=0.044), nervousness (p=0.043) and crying (p=0.00) than males.

Emotional impactThe vast majority of victims surveyed reported some kind of emotional reaction followingcrime victimisation (96%). The type of effects experienced varied considerably, rangingfrom intense anger and revenge, to feelings of loneliness and isolation. Some of the morecommon reactions are presented in Table 2.

The most common reactions experienced by all groups involved anger towards theoffender and fear that a similar offence may happen again. For many, the incident was alife changing experience - nearly three quarters (71.0%) reported that they had to makechanges in their lifestyle because of the offence. For a small number the experience was sotraumatic they had to leave their own home and/or began using alcohol, cigarettes ordrugs more often. Repeat victims of crime were significantly more likely to experienceanger (p=0.020), feelings of powerlessness (p=0.004) and abuse/invasion (p=0.001-) thanfirst time victims of crime. During the interviews, feelings of violation and invasion ofprivacy caused the most upset and distress, particularly amongst older victims.


69

Table 2: Emotional reaction

Type of reaction % of respondents

Angry with the offender 97.6

Afraid a similar offence may happen again 90.6

Made lifestyle changes because of the offence 71.0

Afraid of retaliation 58.0

Critical of self 52.3

Wanted revenge 52.0

Felt isolated and alone 42.7

Feelings of powerlessness 35.3

Feelings of abuse/invasion 28.8

Drinking/smoking/using drugs more 23.0

Had to leave home as a result of the offence 12.9

Low self esteem 10.8

The impact of victimisation on work and personal relationships was also explored. Manyvictims reported that their work and/or personal relationships had been affected as a resultof the offence. Table 3 presents the main findings.

Table 3: Impact on work and personal relationships

Impact % of respondents

Relationship with family and friends affected 23.8

Strained relationship with partner 15.7

Problems in sexual relationship 10.1

Relationship with partner ended 9.0

Work affected as a result of the incident 31.0

Time off work as a result of the incident 28.9

Table 3 shows that the impact of crime on work and personal relationships was greater formales than for females. Other than the end of the relationship with a partner, males weremore likely to experience each of the above than females. During the interviews, malessaid they found it difficult to express their emotions or talk to others about the incident.

The survey asked if the emotional effects were so serious they were having a negativeimpact on quality or enjoyment of life. Over one quarter of respondents (29%) said theemotional effects were so serious they were having a negative impact, 51% said they werenot having a negative impact and 20% were unsure. More males (33%) than females(24%) said they were having a negative impact. Respondents who had suffered force,violence or threat were significantly more likely to say the effects were having a negativeimpact than respondents who had not suffered force, violence or threat (p=0.003).

Beth Hodgson

70

The data clearly showed that all groups experienced emotional reactions followingvictimisation regardless of socio-demographic characteristics, type of crime and previousvictimisation. However, there were differences in the type of symptoms experienced. Themost noticeable difference found in the data was between those who had suffered force,violence or threats of violence in the offence and those who had not. The former weresignificantly more likely to experience fear (p=0.01), low self-esteem (p=0.026), fear ofretaliation (p=0.01), self-criticism (p=0.03) and problems in relationships withfamily/friends (p=0.015) than the latter.

Support and Recovery92% of victims said they received either full or some support from their family or friends.A small minority received support from other agencies - 6% said they received supportfrom crisis lines, 16% from the community, 7% from a counsellor and 19% from thehealth services. Those using health services were prescribed a range of treatmentsincluding sleeping pills, anti-depressants and painkillers. Over one-third (38%) said theyhad not recovered from the offence at the time of the survey, 36% said they had recoveredfrom the offence and 26% felt unsure. The majority of those who had recovered, said theyrecovered within seven days of the offence occurring. Of those who had not recovered,63% said they were still suffering emotionally, 17% were still suffering physically and 18%were still receiving some form of treatment or assistance. In the follow up interviews mostvictims said they had fully recovered, but they still thought about the incident regularly.

Attitudes Towards the PoliceJust over half (53%) of victims said they were either very satisfied or quite satisfied withthe way the police handled the case. Those who were dissatisfied with the police weredissatisfied for a variety of reasons. Most complained of lack of personal contact with thepolice, lack of information about the case and lack of support. Others thought that thepolice had not done enough to catch the offender/s or felt the police had not taken theircase seriously enough.

Attitudes Towards the OffenderThe majority of victims (62%) had either very negative or negative feelings towards theoffender. These feelings ranged from anger, hate and fear. 77% said that receiving anapology from the offender would not be helpful. Those who said an apology from theoffender would be helpful said it would only be helpful if the offender did it on his or herown accord and that it would have to be sincere. 71% said they would not like to meetthe offender. 14% said they would like to meet the offender and the remainder wereunsure.

Criminal JusticeTwo thirds of victims (66%) thought that punishing the offender was the fairest option inthe criminal justice system. A further 20% thought that in addition to punishing theoffender they should also receive some form of help or rehabilitation. 7% said that payingback the victim was the fairest option and 7% said receiving the offender’s expression of


71

apology was the most important. Victims generally viewed community penalties andrehabilitation programmes as the soft option, and advocated stronger penalties and harsherpunishment.

Conclusions and RecommendationsIndividuals react differently to crime victimisation. Some experience minor or transitorysymptoms, others suffer serious and lasting harm. This paper discussed two main impacts ofcrime: the physical and the emotional. For the majority of victims, the emotional effectsof victimisation were more damaging than any physical injury sustained. Whilst all groupsof people were affected by victimisation, there were differences in the types of symptomsexperienced. Victims who experienced force or violence appeared to suffer the greatestimpact. In the follow-up interviews (some two-to-three months after the offence) mostvictims said they had fully recovered from the offence but a small number were stillsuffering either physically or emotionally. Other research has shown that emotional effectsmay be prolonged by other events, such as further victimisation, dissatisfaction with thepolice or judicial system, or other trauma.

Restorative JusticeThe majority of the victims in this research did not want contact with the offender, andadvocated stronger penalties and harsher punishment. There is evidence to suggest thatrestorative schemes increase the satisfaction and emotional healing of victims whoparticipate and restore justice to local communities. However there is still a long way togo to change the victimised public’s perception of these schemes, if indeed it is morallydefensible to seek to do so. Providing victims with information about the range ofrestorative interventions available, their merits and their pitfalls, will allow them to makea free and informed choice.

Identifying Those Most at RiskAlthough the majority of respondents suffered from the consequences of crime, somepeople were more affected than others. Those who experienced force, violence or threatsof violence suffered to a greater extent than those who did not suffer force, violence orthreats. According to Maguire and Kynch (2000) victims of burglary and violence, lowearners and ‘exceptionally vulnerable’ groups are more likely to be contacted by VictimSupport because these groups are more likely to experience severe emotional reactions.The effects of crime vary considerably between individuals and support services should beneeds-based. Services should not discriminate by type of crime, socio-economic status orperceived vulnerability. Individuals most at risk should be identified at the first policecontact with the victim. Police officers should ask the victim questions about the historyof the event and the effects of the crime, and victims should be referred immediately to avictim service if necessary. This should be the rule particularly for repeat and chronicvictims.

Beth Hodgson

72

Providing Information and SupportImmediate and direct and support should be made available to all victims of crimeregardless of the severity of the offence. Maguire and Kynch (2000) found that only 10%of victims in the 1998 British Crime Survey recalled some form of contact with VictimSupport. They also found that Victim Support schemes were more likely to contactvictims of burglary (26%) than victims of theft (6%). Advice and information about thecase should be made available to the victim at every stage of the case. Providing supportto victims of crime will help restore a sense of justice in local communities and increasepublic confidence in criminal justice agencies.

Health ServicesIt is clear that crime victimisation is an important health issue. However, the responseand recognition from health services in the UK is insufficient (Robinson and Keithley,2000). Health care workers often fail to identify victims of crime or respondinappropriately. Health practitioners currently work within the criminal justice system toassess the health needs of offenders, yet there is no such support available for victims ofcrime. Dedicated health workers could be employed to work directly with victims of crimewhere emotional and physical support is needed.

Personal ContactVictims complained of lack of personal contact. In cases where a police officer did notattend the scene victims commonly felt that the incident was not taken seriously by thepolice and felt let down by the criminal justice system. Personal contact throughout thecase is extremely important in making the victim feel part of the process.

Raising AwarenessVictims do not make use of (or are not aware of) the services and support that areavailable to them. An education campaign would raise awareness of the services available,and reduce the stigma that is often attached to them.

Local StrategyLocal strategies should be developed to deal with the problem. The 1996 Victims’ Charterset out a number of victims’ rights and provided information about national services.However, very few victims were aware of this document. A similar document setting outwhat standards of service victims should expect and what services are available should beproduced at the local level. This document should be supplied to every victim of crime.Knowing that support is available is often just as important to victims as actually receivingsupport.

Further ResearchThis research was conducted within a very short timeframe, and as such was limited to arelatively small sample and the immediate consequences of the offence. Further research isrecommended with a larger sample over a longer period of time. This research also relied


73

on self-report data. Research should make use of other sources of information, such asmedical records. Further research is also required to measure the impact of restorativejustice programmes on crime victims. Much of the research available focuses on offendersand reconviction rates. Research should also explore recovery times and the length ofduration of physical/emotional effects.

ReferencesAchilles, M. and Zehr, H. (2001) ‘Restorative Justice for Crime Victims: The Promise, the

Challenge’, in G. Bazemore and M. Schiff (eds.) Restorative Community Justice: Repairing Harmand Transforming Communities. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing.

Daly, K. (2003) ‘Making Variation a Virtue: Evaluating the Potential and Limits of RestorativeJustice’, in E.G. M. Weitekamp and H. J. Kerner (eds.) Restorative Justice in Context:International Practice and Directions. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

Home Office (1990) The Victims’ Charter: A Statement of the Rights of Victims of Crime. London:HMSO.

Home Office (1996) The Victims’ Charter: A Statement of the Service Standards for Victims of Crime.London: HMSO.

Home Office (1997) No More Excuses: A New Approach to Tackling Youth Crime in England andWales. London: HMSO.

Home Office (2000) The 2000 British Crime Survey: England and Wales. London: HMSO.Home Office (2002) Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002. London: HMSOLaub, J. H. (1997) ‘Patterns of Criminal Victimisation in the United States’, in R. C. Davis, A. J.

Lurigio and W. G. Skogan (eds.) Victims of Crime (Second Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

MacLeod, M. D., Prescott, G. W. and Carson, L. (1996) Listening to Victims of Crime: VictimisationEpisodes and the Criminal Justice System in Scotland: An Examination of White and Ethnic MinorityCrime Victim Experience. Edinburgh: The Scottish Office.

Maguire, M. and Kynch, J. (2000) Victim Support: Findings from the 1998 British Crime Survey.London: Home Office.

Mawby, R.I. and Kirchoff, G. (1996) ‘Coping with Crime: A Comparison of Victims’ Experiences inEngland and Germany’, in P. Davies, P. Francis and V. Jupp (eds.) Understanding Victimisation.Newcastle: Northumbria Social Science Press.

Mawby, R. I. and Walklate, S. (1994) Critical Victimology. London: Sage Publications.Miers, D., Maguire, M., Goldie, S., Sharpe, K., Hale, C., Netten, A., Uglow, S., Doolin., K., Hallam,

A., Enterkin, J. and Newburn, T. (2001) An Exploratory Evaluation of Restorative JusticeSchemes. London: Home Office.

Morris, A. and Maxwell, G. (2000) ‘The Practice of Family Group Conferencing in New Zealand:Assessing the Place, Potential and Pitfalls of Restorative Justice’, in A. Crawford and J.Goodey (eds.) Integrating a Victim Perspective within Criminal Justice. Dartmouth: Ashgate.

Newburn, T., Masters, G., Earle, R. and Goldie, S. (2002) The Introduction of Referral Orders into theYouth Justice System: Final Report. London: HMSO.

Norris, F. H., Kaniasty, K. and. Thompson, M. P. (1997) ‘The Psychological Consequences ofCrime: Findings from a Longitudinal Population Based Study’, in R. C. Davis, A. J. Lurigio andW. G. Skogan (eds.) Victims of Crime (Second Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Office of National Statistics (1991) Census of Population. London: ONS.Robinson, F. and Keithley, J. (2002) ‘The Impacts of Crime on Health and Health Services: A

Literature Review’, Health, Risk and Society. 2(3): 253-261.Shapland, J., Willmore, J. and Duff P. (1985) Victims in the Criminal Justice System. Aldershot:

Gower Publishing.

Beth Hodgson

74

Shaw, M. (2001) ‘Time Heals All Wounds?’, in G. Farrell and K. Pease (eds.) Repeat Victimisation.Monsey, New York: Criminal Justice Press.

Spackman, P. (ed.) (2000) Victim Support Handbook: Helping People Cope with Crime. London:Hodder and Stoughton.

Umbreit, M.S. (1994) Victim Meets Offender: The Impact of Restorative Justice and Mediation. Monsey,New York: Criminal Justice Press.

Van Ness, D. W. and Heetderks Strong, K. (2002) Restoring Justice (Second Edition). Cincinnati:Anderson Publishing Co.

Wortman, C. B., Battle, E. S. and Lanikau, J. P. (1997) ‘Coming to Terms with the Sudden,Traumatic Death of a Spouse or Child’, in R. C. Davis, A. J. Lurigio and W. G. Skogan (eds.)Victims of Crime (Second Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Zehr, H. (1990) Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice. Pennsylvania: Herald Press.

Community Justice 9

75

Community Justice Files 9

Jane Dominey, De Montfort University

Intensive Supervision and Monitoring Schemesfor Persistent OffendersThe Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate has published adevelopment and practice report about intensive supervision and monitoring (ISM)schemes (formerly known as persistent/prolific offender projects). These schemes aim toprovide intensive supervision and surveillance of persistent adult offenders combiningsupport for rehabilitation with swift response in the event of non-compliance. Theschemes, which target the most persistent offenders in a local area, are run by the policeand probation services working in partnership. Other agencies, for example, housing,education, alcohol and drug projects and employment, also contribute.

This report summarises the findings of a study looking at the implementation and deliveryof these schemes, using qualitative data from interviews with ISM staff and participantsconducted between April and December 2003. The evidence from the study was generallypositive, with interviewees concluding that the scheme was making a considerable impacton local communities and the lives of individual offenders.

The report makes recommendations about the flexibility that staff need when makingappointments. Care should be taken to ensure that ISM participants do not becomedependent on the scheme. Schemes should be resourced sufficiently to allow for regularhome visits. Women participants, in a minority on ISM schemes, may have particularissues, for example requiring appointments that fit with childcare commitments or a needto work with a female member of staff. Mentoring arrangements may be appropriate forsome black and Asian ISM participants.

Other recommendations include good communication between the ISM scheme and localcourts, as well as with other partner agencies. There may be benefits in ISM teammembers attending police tasking meetings on a regular basis to foster positive linksbetween the scheme and the local police.

For further information, see http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/dpr41.pdf

Jane Dominey

76

Restorative Justice: Helping to Meet LocalNeedsThis is the title of a guidance document issued in March 2005 by the National CriminalJustice Board to members of local criminal justice boards. The guidance encourages localboards to develop restorative justice for adults in their local areas. The guide outlines thebenefits of restorative justice in improving victim satisfaction with the criminal justicesystem, raising public confidence and reducing the fear of crime.

It identifies a number of points as key if restorative approaches are to be successfullyintroduced, including:

• starting with a particular area or group of victims or offenders and building from there• strong leadership from the top as restorative justice requires new thinking and a

change of culture• building on existing expertise in youth justice or the voluntary sector• multi-agency work with contributions from criminal justice agencies and the

voluntary sector• adequate training for staff involved in direct victim-offender contact• creating a group of specialist staff who act as a springboard for developing this work

throughout the organisation• raising awareness about restorative approaches and victim awareness amongst all staff• setting performance measures which support good quality restorative justice

approaches.

The report also includes resources intended for managers charged with implementingrestorative justice approaches. These include frameworks for strategic planning andperformance management.

For further information, seehttp://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs4/rj_implementation_guidance.pdf

Young People and Anti-social BehaviourRecently published guidance focuses on the role that Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) canplay in preventing and reducing anti-social behaviour perpetrated by young people. Thereport, published jointly by the Youth Justice Board, Home Office Anti-social BehaviourUnit and the Association of Chief Police Officers, is intended for staff in YOTs and alsofor other agencies, for example housing providers and local authorities, working to tackleanti-social behaviour.

The guidance argues that YOTs play a crucial role in this endeavour by providing adviceon interventions that can be used to address the risk factors behind a young person’sbehaviour, contributing to decision made about individual young people andimplementing interventions with young people involved in antisocial behaviour.

Community Justice 9

77

The report gives examples of good practice, for example the range of measures put in placeto tackle under-age drinking and criminal damage outside a medical centre in Oxfordshire.A multi-agency approach and local media coverage led to a reduction in vandalism,improved fencing at the medical centre and the provision of a mobile youth centre.

The guidance also highlights the role of the individual support order (ISO). If amagistrates’ court imposes an antisocial behaviour order (ASBO) on a young person agedbetween 10 and 17, it is also required to make an ISO if it takes the view that it wouldhelp prevent further anti-social behaviour. YOTs will advise the court on the need for theISO and outline what it might contain.

Speaking at the launch of the guidance Rod Morgan, Chair of the Youth Justice Boardsaid:

Youth offending teams nationwide have a very successful track record inworking with difficult and disruptive young people. It is vital that YOTswork with other agencies such as local authorities, police, social landlords,so that they can be involved in making decisions on tackling anti-socialbehaviour, and can draw up plans to work positively with a young person.Ultimately we want to make a lasting difference to the young people withwhom we work and the communities in which they live.

The full guidance can be downloaded from the Youth Justice Board website athttp://www.youth-justice-board.gov.uk/Publications/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=212&eP=YJB

A Review of What WorksThe second edition of the research study ‘The impact of corrections on re-offending: areview of what works’ was published by the Home Office in February 2005. This lengthystudy begins by assessing the evidence for the effectiveness of interventions with offenders.It considers the evidence for the effectiveness of offending behaviour programmes run inprison and probation in the UK and concludes that the quasi-experimental and non-experimental evaluation studies most common in the UK make it difficult to attributeoutcomes to the effects of the intervention. However, the report does confirm thatinternational evidence tends to support the use of cognitive-behavioural offendingbehaviour programmes and interventions with offenders. Findings also show that offenderswho complete programmes typically do better than non-starters, non-completers andcomparison groups, and that those who start and fail to complete do much worse than theother groups.

The report identifies and discusses factors associated with the onset of offendingbehaviour, the persistence of offending over time and with desistance from crime. It alsoargues that attention should not focus exclusively on the cognitive deficits of offenders butalso on work to ensure that prisoners and those supervised in the community are able to

Jane Dominey

78

integrate into the community by, for example, improving their basic skills and securingstable accommodation.

The report concludes that, whilst providing useful pointers about the effectiveness ofinterventions, the current knowledge about ‘what works’ falls some way short of providingdefinite answers and solutions. Poor implementation and sub-optimal research design areidentified as two key factors that limit the development of knowledge about theeffectiveness of interventions and the report identifies possible improvements.

In his foreword to the study, Martin Narey, Chief Executive of the National OffenderManagement Service, writes:

(This study) is positive in confirming that there is a sound theoretical basisfor our programmes, and that for some programmes there is now goodevidence that they do indeed reduce re-offending. But the report also sets ussome major developmental challenges - for more powerful research methodsthat will give us a clearer picture, more sophisticated measures of impact,more complex interventions that tackle the mix of criminogenic factorspresent in each individual and the creation of offender management as aneffective tool for targeting the right interventions in each case. These arechallenges which NOMS was established to meet and we are determined todo so.

Home Office Research Study 291 ‘The impact of corrections on re-offending: a review ofwhat works’ by Gemma Harper and Chloe Chitty is available athttp://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hors291.pdf

Reducing Child Imprisonment‘A better alternative: reducing child imprisonment’ is the third and final report in a seriesfrom Nacro’s committee on children and crime. It considers how the numbers of childrenheld in custody might be significantly reduced and argues for a universal commitmentacross the youth justice sector to pre-court diversion and keeping children out of prison.

The report argues that the following areas of policy need attention:

• There should be no financial incentives that favour custody. For example, the costs ofcustody are met centrally and not by the local authorities that fund alternatives tocustody.

• Youth justice practitioners must be convinced of the need to avoid custody. Custodyshould not be seen as welcome respite when managing difficult cases.

• Intensive supervision and surveillance programmes should be reserved as an alternativeto custody and not used in place of other, less intensive, community options.

• The range of low-level community options needs to be expanded and greater use madeof fines, discharges and reparation orders.

Lord Carlile, chair of the Nacro committee on children and crime, said

It is well recognised that there are too many children held in custody, andthat many of the custodial placements in which they are held are unsuitable.This report shows how effective alternative interventions can break thecycle of damaged children becoming revolving door cases in the criminaljustice system, and highlights what needs to be done to bring about a verynecessary reduction in child imprisonment.

For further information, see www.nacro.org.uk

Crime in ScotlandThe 2003 Scottish Crime Survey (SCS) is a household survey of people’s experiences andperceptions of crime based on interviews with more than five thousand adults throughoutScotland. The survey provides information about the extent of crime and victimisation inScotland and compares its findings with official police recorded crime statistics. It alsoexplores the risk of victimisation, public perception of crime and the prevalence of druguse in Scotland.

Key findings about victimisation include:

• Twenty-three per cent of respondents were victims of at least one personal orhousehold crime in 2002. This represents a small increase from 20 per cent in 1999but remains lower than the risk in 1992 (27%).

• One in six (18%) households experienced an incident of property crime in 2002. Themost common property crime was vandalism, experienced by one in ten households.

• Just under 3 per cent of households were victims of housebreaking in 2002. Thisrepresents a continuation of the downward trend in the prevalence of housebreakingsince 1992.

• Only 6 per cent of respondents were victims of a personal crime in 2002. The mostcommon personal crimes were assault (3%) and personal theft (2%). Less than oneper cent experienced robbery.

• In terms of the variation of risk among different sections of the population, thefollowing observations can be made:• Men were slightly more likely than women to become victims of both household

and personal crime in 2002. This is particularly evident amongst 16 to 24 year oldmen in relation to personal crime.

• The high prevalence of personal crime against young men is primarily due to thehigh prevalence of violent crime amongst this group.

• Those aged 60 or over were the least likely to become the victim of bothhousehold and personal crime.

• Vehicle owners living in the most deprived areas were most likely to be victims ofvehicle theft.

Community Justice 9

79

The report, which is written by Susan McVie, Siobahn Campbell and Korin Lebov, isavailable on-line at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/justice/sccs.pdf

Domestic Violence and Young PeopleWomen’s Aid has launched a national domestic violence website for children and youngpeople. The website has been designed to provide information about domestic violence,help young people identify whether it is happening in their home and point them toadditional support and information. It also contains information for young people who areconcerned about their friends. The website uses interactive checklists, quizzes and gamesto help children and young people to think through the issues that surround domesticviolence. The website also contains safety measures to ensure that people can use itwithout putting themselves at risk.

See www.thehideout.org.uk

Work with Young Offenders ArchiveThe Community and Criminal Justice Division at De Montfort University (DMU)Leicester now houses the national archive on work with young offenders covering theyears 1968-94. This was formerly held at the National Youth Agency (NYA) and wasrelocated to DMU when Alison Skinner the NYA Information Officer responsible for thissubject area joined the university.

This is a unique collection containing:

• Department of health policy documents on the origins and development ofintermediate treatment;

• Research and evaluation reports;• Journal articles;• NACRO documentation on the LAC83 (3) initiative directed at serious and

persistent offenders in the 1980s;• Reports of work with young offenders UK wide covering the period 1973-94;• Books and practice manuals on work with young offenders

This is an essential resource for anyone conducting research on trends in policy andprovision affecting young offenders over the last 40 years, as part of MA or PhD levelstudy.

The collection can only be consulted on site. It can be accessed via Bibliographies on theI.T. literature entitled:

• A Bibliography of Intermediate Treatment 1968-84• A Bibliography of Intermediate Treatment 1985-94

Jane Dominey

80

If you are interested in finding out more or visiting the collection, please contact Joe [email protected] or Alison Skinner [email protected] who will be able to advise youfurther.

BOOK REVIEWS

ALTERNATIVES TO PRISON: OPTIONS FOR ANINSECURE SOCIETY. Anthony Bottoms, Sue Rexand Gwen Robinson (eds.). Willan publishingNovember 2004; pp 436: £25 pbk;ISBN 1-84392-104-9

This book represents one of the final products of the Esmee Fairburn funded ‘RethinkingCrime and Punishment’ initiative, and reports on the research programme commissionedby the Coulsfield Inquiry into alternatives to prison. In sixteen separate chapters a rangeof leading authorities in the criminal justice field summarise relevant research andhighlight a number of key issues at the heart of the debate about alternatives to prison.

The editors begin the book with two very different introductory chapters. In the first ofthese the editors seek to answer the question which forms the chapter title - ‘how did weget here?’ and usefully synthesise the policy related history of alternatives to prison,locating where ‘here’ is in terms of the development of late modern society and identifyingseven contemporary themes in debates about community penalties, namely punishment,technology, managerialism, partnership, effectiveness and risk management, ‘creativemixing’ and reparation. In the second introductory chapter Lewis then uses Home Officestatistical and research material to track trends in crime, victimisation and punishment.He concludes amongst other things that crime rates are falling but that this has not hadthe expected impact on the numbers of people sent to prison, and that crime rates aretherefore only one of many influences on the use made of prison.

These two introductory chapters set the tone for much of what is to come. Whilst like anyliterature review what is presented is not entirely new, each chapter usefully gathersknowledge together in one place and injects vitality into debates through a fairlydispassionate consideration of the most recent national and international research andstatistical data, with due regard given to the situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland.As might be expected from the criminal justice grandees that have contributed chaptersand edited the book, each chapter is highly authoritative, comprehensive and wideranging. Particularly worthy of note are Mair’s explorations in the relatively unresearchedarea of diversionary and non-supervisory disposals, and Nellis’ contribution in relation to

Book Reviews

81

electronic monitoring. Mair highlights how such sentences have been marginalised for toolong even though paying attention to them could lead to a recalibration of sentencingwhich might impact on the use made of custody. Nellis explores the new modality ofcommunity supervision offered by electronic monitoring and the challenges andpossibilities offered within a surveillant-managerial criminal justice paradigm. A highlyinformative chapter by Wasik in the latter third of the book brings the reader right up todate by discussing some of the issues that might arise from the Criminal Justice Act 2003.Whilst highlighting concerns about the effects of political rhetoric he optimisticallyconcludes the act should have a noticeable impact on the use made of immediate custody.

Given the existence on popular punitiveness there is a focus throughout the book onexploring public attitudes to punishment. Maruna and King review historical and ongoingresearch into public opinion towards community penalties. They find that though thepublic are not nearly as punitive as is sometimes thought, punitive attitudes towards offendersdo exist and are often impervious to change through the presentation of new informationabout crime. They advocate research which seeks to go beyond mapping the relationshipbetween cognition and punitiveness to develop an understanding of the relationshipbetween punitiveness and emotions. Bottoms and Wilson also go beyond the review remitto present findings from ongoing research that attitudes to crime differed in two similarlyhigh-crime communities. They hypothesise from this that punitiveness is an attitudeassociated with local culture and social life, the way environmental or social ‘signals’ ofrisk (e.g. graffiti or public drinking) are interpreted and the degree to which the area isconsidered policed and under control. They pose the question whether the withdrawal ofthe probation service from the community context and into programme delivery wouldtherefore have done anything to address local attitudes towards community penalties.

In other chapters Bottoms explores what research says about the efficacy of sentencingframeworks, McIvor explores restorative and reparative approaches, whilst Raynorexplores rehabilitative and reintegrative approaches, Rumsgay explores approaches tosubstance misusing offenders, and Worral and Mawby consider intensive projects forpersistent offenders. Each chapter follows a fairly standard format in discussing somethingof the history of their subject matter and then exploring what research reveals about thestate of knowledge in the field, before highlighting some themes for further consideration.

Naturally, depending on their particular interests, some of the chapters will be moresatisfying to readers than others, but there is not a poor one amongst them and eachseparately offers a very satisfying up to date, state of the art consideration of their subjectmatter. This is not a rousing book to be read cover to cover in a couple of sittingshowever. In aggregate the heavy use of research and statistical material means that thereading can be heavy going at times. There are also a few omissions - for example aconsideration of such claims as those made by NACRO that one reason for an increase inthe use of imprisonment is the contemporary absence of the ‘crusading zeal’ youth justicestaff for example used to bring to their work. Nonetheless as a reference book this is anessential and impressive book, likely to be a useful resource for practitioners and policymakers for years to come.

82

Iolo Madoc-Jones, University of Wales, NEWI

HANDBOOK OF POLICING. Tim Newburn (ed).Willan Publishing, 2003; pp 757; £28.50. pbk.

ISBN 1-84392-019-0

The idea of the handbook to be used as a conceptual and methodological almanac forcriminologists has proven to be a popular formula, evidenced by the Oxford UniversityPress’s three editions of the Oxford Handbook of Criminology (Maguire, Morgan andReiner, 2002) and The Handbook of The Criminal Justice Process (McConville and Wilson,2002). Tim Newburn’s edited volume is the latest addition to this small but distinguishedlist. It services the needs of a wide audience consisting of undergraduate and postgraduatestudents, researchers, practitioners and policy makers. Newburn’s collection bringstogether a number of leading writers in the field of policing to provide cogent andauthoritative overviews of key developments in police organisations and the activity ofpolicing. The text is split into four main parts: historical and comparative; contextual;practical aspects of, or doing, policing; and themes and debates.

Following Newburn’s elegantly concise overview of the book’s general purpose andcontents Part I begins with a historically informed account of the evolution of the modernpolice service. Rawlings introduces the concept of policing, prior to the emergence of themodern police service 1829 as charted in Emsley’s contribution. These two chaptersprovide a thorough analysis of the development of the police and also the consent thegeneral public gradually gave to a permanent police presence in modern liberal democraticsocieties. Newburn’s chapter illustrates the fragility of this hard won consent, as anineteenth century organisation was forced to face the political and economic challengesand existential uncertainties of the twentieth century. The book also shows that in thetwenty first century policing is conducted in a global environment characterised bypermanent revolution and moral ambiguity. R.C. Mawby’s contribution introduces acomparative dimension to illustrate the uneven evolution of police and policingthroughout the globe, whilst also showing that there is considerable convergence andharmonisation of policing related activities across the world.

This latter theme is elaborated in Part II by Walker’s extremely useful survey oftransnational policing, with a particular emphasis on the EU and North America. Thereare additional chapters covering issues such as organisational structure (R.I.Mawby andWright), police culture (Foster) and police powers (Sanders and Young). A typically finelycrafted piece by Reiner, this time on policing and the media, is the final contribution inthis section of the handbook. This chapter is particularly refreshing because it establishes afirm connection between the sociology of policing with cultural and media studies.

‘Doing Policing’ is the title of the third and longest part of the book and deals with thepracticalities of police policy and practice in different areas of activity. It contains

Book Reviews

83

chapters on a wide and representative range of police functions, drawing on the expertiseof key contributors ranging from policing on the streets to policing in the suites. As wellas addressing more traditional themes such as volume crimes there is the welcomeinclusion of chapters outlining what the police do in response to terrorism and cyber-crime. In their current form terrorist activity and crime on the inter-net pose new threatsand risks for the police, and also require increasingly innovative and dynamic approachesfor the management of these hazards.

Part IV of the collection consists of essays focusing on a range of topical debates andthemes in police studies, including race (Bowling and Phillips) and gender (Heidensohn).Peter Neyroud’s article on policing and ethics is an excellent synthesis of years of practicalexperience and academic rigour and it provides an indispensable framework forconceptualising police legitimacy. Long’s and Jones’ respective chapters on policeleadership and police governance outline the context in which any form of ethicalpolicing may be delivered.

The Handbook of Policing is a must buy book for anyone with a serious professional oracademic interest in policing. It successfully combines academic rigour and policyrelevance in crisp but comprehensive chapters written by academic and police practitionerwriters with expertise in issues with long histories as well as novel developments. Aparticular strength of the Handbook is the editor’s grasp of a subject matter, which isconstantly changing in a world that exists in flux and mutability. It locates debates aboutpolicing in wider discussions in the political and social sciences, especially disputessurrounding the diminution of nation states as the key providers of security. State fundedpolice organisations remain pivotal to policing in local communities but the policenowadays operate at many levels in micro, meso and meso domains. The book rightly callsfor recognition of the fact that policing is a joined-up activity locally, regionally,nationally and internationally. More than that, policing services in many different formsare increasingly being delivered by the private and voluntary sectors, as well as byenergised and engaged citizens in local communities.

In short, there is little that this book does not do. However, whilst the length of thevolume probably ensures that there are no glaring omissions in its coverage, it is notinconceivable that over the next few years a new edition will be in demand. The pace ofpolice reform and the emergence of new problems requiring different styles of policing willcall not only for amendments and revisions to the text, but also the addition of newthemes. I look forward to witnessing the refinement and expansion of The Handbook ofPolicing.

ReferencesMcConville, M. and Wilson, G. (eds.) (2002) The Handbook of The Criminal Justice Process. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.Maguire, M., Morgan, R. and Reiner, R. (eds.) (2002) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (3rd

edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Book Reviews

84

Chris Crowther-Dowey, Sheffield Hallam University

Book Reviews

85

PUNISHMENT AND POLITICS: EVIDENCE ANDEMULATION IN THE MAKING OF ENGLISHCRIME CONTROL POLICY. Michael Tonry. WillanPublishing, 2004; pp. 163; £15.99 pbk.ISBN 1 84392 062 X

In this text Michael Tonry provides a succinct and insightful analysis of English criminaljustice policy during the Labour Party’s second term in Government. Broadly coveringpolicy documents between 2001 and 2004 he looks at the ways in which the CriminalJustice Act 2003 came into being. Central to his analysis is the relationship betweenevidence-based policy development and the increasingly severe, or punitive, rhetoric ofthe Government; which he argues emulates the approach taken in the United States.

From the outset this text provides a well-argued and engaging discussion of the variouspolicy documents provided by the Labour Government in recent years. This includesdiscussion of the Halliday and Auld reports as well as the White Paper, Justice for All andthe subsequent Criminal Justice Act 2003. Accompanying this are the recent proposals ofthe Carter report and the underpinning policy document, The Way Ahead. Tonry attemptsto consider the progression of policy contained within these documents to betterunderstand the reason why English crime control policies appear to characterised by anincreasingly ‘populist punitiveness’ (Bottoms 1995).

The main thrust of this analysis is that whilst New Labour places significant importanceon evidence-based policy this is often compromised by an overwhelming determination tobe seen as ‘tough on crime’. Therefore, whilst there is a certain degree of evidence-basedpolicy in both Halliday and Auld, by the time such policies reach their legislativefulfilment much of this has been replaced by broader political concerns to deflect mediaand Opposition criticism. In other words the evidence-base is replaced by a more symbolicset of policies designed to ensure New Labour’s law and order credentials.

At one level this analysis is far from remarkable, being almost a taken-for-granted truismof New Labour - its battle between substance and image. Yet what is far more interestingabout Tonry’s analysis is that he starts the complicated task of trying to understand whyEnglish crime control policies are increasingly punitive and why New Labour has soughtto emulate an American approach that has not alleviated crime problems in the UnitedStates. Peppered with a range of useful comparisons between the UK and US, andbetween the UK and the rest of Europe this book explores why the English experience isso different from that of other European nations. Tonry concludes that three inter-relatedfactors have led to the exceptional direction of English crime control policies. These are:postmodern anxieties brought about by the abundant reminders of the risk of victimisationvia crime prevention initiatives; a cultural attitude that favours the debasement ofprisoners; and what Tonry calls an English ‘taste for punishment’. It is these cultural and

Book Reviews

86

ideological factors that distinguish England from its European counterparts and give itmore in common with the United States.

Tonry goes on to look at the pervasive influence of such conditions on the construction oflegislation. In particular he examines the problem of racial disparities in the criminaljustice system, the formation of sentencing councils and the legislative provisions fordealing with ‘dangerous’ offenders. Within each of these subject areas he considers howthe ‘tough on crime’ mantra has corrupted the evidence base and led to legislative reformthat undermines due process safeguards and imposes increasingly more severe, andarguably, less effective sentences. Having provided this provocative analysis Tonryconcludes by setting out some important ideas about how some of these imbalances can beredressed.

Overall, this is a compelling text that makes good use of a combination of empirical dataand comparative examples. It should be read by all students of criminology or criminaljustice and will also prove valuable to those working in the field and trying to make senseof recent legislation. Yet I have two criticisms of this text. Firstly, Tonry’s policy revisionsare unlikely to have much impact as they are obviously subsequent to the legislation.Whilst he is the first to admit this it doesn’t alter the fact that such revisions are thereforea largely redundant activity. I think his analysis would have benefited enormously from amore extensive final chapter that began the task of pushing the policy debate in moreprogressive directions. As it is, the book ends on what feels like a note of despair, offeringlittle or no inspiration for a way forward. Secondly, I am not convinced that the problemsof New Labour’s crime control policy can be so easily encapsulated in the ‘tug-of-war’between evidence-based policy and punitive rhetoric. Surely other factors such as thecommunitarian ideology that appears to play such a strong part in the direction of NewLabour’s policies is also relevant? And what about other important directions within thecriminal justice arena, the growth of restorative justice, neighbourhood wardens orcommunity crime control? Where do these sorts of activity fit within Tonry’s analysis?Arguably, these are the practical expression of Blair’s ‘Third Way’ which derive theirimpetus from a clear political ideology that is too often unacknowledged withindiscussions of criminal justice policy. In my opinion, this is the missing link in what isotherwise an effective analysis of much of New Labour’s recent crime control policy.

Simon Green, University of Hull

Book Reviews

87

PUNISHMENT, PLACES AND PERPETRATORS:DEVELOPMENTS IN CRIMINOLOGY ANDCRIMINAL JUSTICE RESEARCH. GerbenBruinsma, Henk Elffers and Jan de Keijser(eds.). Willan Publishing, 2004; pp 336, £45.00,hbk.ISBN 1-84392-060-3

At a time when ‘what works’ is moving towards ‘what works for whom, in whatcircumstances and when?’ this book is a helpful reminder of how little is really knownabout the causes of, and panaceas for, crime. It provides an international overview of threethemes in contemporary research and theory which is suitable for postgraduate students,practitioners and policy makers who want their knowledge straight from the heart of theacademic discourse. The themes go directly to the detection, management and treatmentof offenders in the community and prison: ‘punishment and criminal justice’, ‘location andmobility’ and ‘perpetrators and criminal careers’. By placing criminology alongsidecriminal justice, the book recognises what Garland and Sparks have said that

Criminology is not just a creature of the academy.It is also located in other social and institutional settingsand those other settings have shaped much of its development.(Garland and Sparks, 2000: 192)

Nonetheless the book is heavily theoretical and, in places, a little obscure. It warrantspersistence in perusing all eighteen of its chapters if only to find out about the state of theart and likely developments in the future.

The book opens with two introductory chapters before ‘punishment, places andperpetrators’ (the shorthand for the three themes of the book) are examined in detail by avariety of European and North American authors. Anthony Duff, Malcolm Feeley andMichael Tonry may be known to some in the community justice field. The writers’interests are clearly related to the themes and some chapters provide interestingcounterpoints or complementary accounts within the theme but these could have been‘joined up’ more explicitly by the editors. The first chapter highlights the ‘challenges forcriminological and criminal justice research’ and provides a useful context for subsequentdiscussions. Pages 10-17 are the closest that the book comes to drawing together the workas a whole and this misses out several of the arguments made in different chapters. To alarge extent one senses that the book is a collection that is intended to disseminate theoryand research to new audiences. As such the needs of those audiences to have the messagesmoderated further could have been recognised.

In chapter 1 Gerben Bruinsma and Rolf Loeber highlight the changes in crime andcriminal justice as a result of technology and globalization whilst recognising that long

Book Reviews

88

established questions in criminology have not yet been answered. The poor empiricaltesting of theory is acknowledged and the challenges that lay ahead are sign posted. Inrelation to criminal justice and punishment these are seen as the tendencies towards long-term incarceration or prevention. The former could bring ‘selective incapacitation’ forthose identified (wrongly or rightly) as the most dangerous and the latter ever greatercontact with a wide range of social institutions in the community. The spread ofglobalization also brings the challenge of transnational crime and raises questions abouthow criminal justice systems can respond. The second theme of the location of crime andoffender mobility reveals new ways of thinking about offending which, potentially, hasgreat significance for offender management, particularly in an age of electronic monitoringand satellite tracking. The theme is not just about the local in terms of neighbourhood butalso international as more is known about the influences upon transnational crime and itsglobal geography. A warning given here by the authors about the tendency ofcriminologists to be ethnocentric is apposite, as crime is increasingly connected not just inrelation to public and private spaces but also across borders and continents. The finaltheme of criminal careers and the impact of interventions and punishment on them wasthe most disappointing and yet holds the most promise. It highlighted the concept of‘criminal trajectories’ and the need for experimental work to find out how they can beaffected. The author’s argue that this might be helped by combining geographical andaetiological theories of crime. There is no sense in which any answers are imminent in away that will help those charged with crime control and offender managementresponsibilities could use.

In chapter 2 Michael Tonry traces a history of European and North American criminologyand holds out the possibility that it is Europe where the greatest possibilities lay for itsfuture. Unfortunately, the UK and USA are recognised as bastions of politically, ratherthan research, informed criminal justice.

The three main parts of the book could have each benefited from a brief editorialintroduction and commentary. The chapters vary in length and significance but only thechapter on ‘A semi-parametric, group-based approach for analysing trajectories ofdevelopment: a non-technical overview’ proved almost unfathomable. The motivation forthe approach used of a Victorian picture about the influence of different factors on lifecourses proved more revealing of the social lens being used than the complex analysesmade.

In the first part of the book on ‘punishment and criminal justice’ the opening chapterdraws on Dutch penal policy in arguing for the increased use of actuarially basedpredictive tools despite their known weaknesses. Whilst the danger of using statisticsbased on groups for individual risk assessment is well known Malcolm Feeley, in asubsequent chapter, shows how actuarial techniques are far more deeply embedded incriminal justice than ever before. This, together with a move towards ever greater use ofpunishment, means that retribution for the past and risk management for the future arecombined in the activities of the modern state. R. Anthony Duff’s chapter sits neatly after

Book Reviews

89

90

Book Reviews

this one as it argues for a new form of communicative sentencing which is not punishmentoriented but seeks to influence the offender - as a moral actor - away from crime. Thiscomes with preconditions for the use of punishment that places social justice firmly at theheart of the system and broadens the narrow legal basis of offenders’ culpability byconsidering the community’s responsibilities to them. Other chapters in this part point tothe inherent difficulties the system has in carrying out effective punishments that reducecrime, the need to promote the human rights of the most distasteful of offenders, thevarying trends in global youth justice and transnational policing of dis/organised crime.This is by far the strongest part of the book which brings together, in good order, anumber of important theoretical debates that need airing at a time of punitive drift.

The second part of the book on location and mobility covers just four chapters. The firstby David Weisburd shows how historical notions of crime ‘place’ have changed as morehas become known about environmental crime prevention. A specific example of ‘crimehotspots’ is examined which illustrates how intensive police patrols can make a differenceto levels of crime thereby showing a direct benefit of research to practice. So often thelinks are not so clear or the world changes and the benefits are lost. Two chapters on thejourney to crime provide fascinating insights into the routine lives of offenders and crimeprofilers. This area, more than most, shows how criminology is not just multidisciplinarybut that it uses a wider array of disciplinary backgrounds than ever before. As the editorsrightly argue new ways of understanding and talking about these linkages are needed. Thefinal chapter in part two again touches on transnational crime by revealing the results ofresearch in the Netherlands using police files which shows that the ‘Mafia’ image isinappropriate and that just as in legitimate businesses social ties play a part in illiciteconomic activity.

Part three of the book on perpetrators and criminal careers provides an array of researchfrom developmental psychologists which point to the limitations of the field and thebreadth and depth of further study that is needed. Alfred Blumstein argues that suchresearch is worthwhile as it may inform a more rational crime policy if more is knownabout when people start and stop their offending careers and the impact of incapacitationand rehabilitation. This also, of course, opens up opportunities for ‘selectiveincapacitation’ if those who are said to account for a disproportionate amount of crimecan be accurately identified (which they cannot at present). Blumstein suggests that thosewho have ended up in prison must, on average, have taken advantage of the most criminalopportunities. Whilst this is proposed as a ‘policy insight’ it is also an argument to supportexisting approaches to criminal justice which have led to an over use of custody. Otherchapters in this part of the book were the most challenging to read and certainly relied ona ‘scientific’ approach to delinquent development. The last two chapters on peerinvolvement in crime were, however, interesting if only in their conclusion that peer andindividual factors may well be inter-related in offending.

Overall the book was engaging and stimulating. It was worth the persistence required intrawling though the chapters to draw out what is and may be happening in the field. If it

leads readers towards an understanding of just what is known and not known about crimethen it brings the possibility that crime policy and community justice practice will becomealert to its own shortcomings. For academics it will help them to walk a little morehumbly in their daily lives as they realise just how new their discipline really is, howimportant the influence of other disciplines is becoming and how much more it has to doto answer some basic questions about crime.

ReferenceGarland, D. and Sparks, R. (2000) ‘Criminology, Social Theory and the Challenge of our Times’,

British Journal of Criminology 40 (3): 189-204.

Richard Lynch, Sheffield Hallam University

Book Reviews

91

DRUGS, PRISONS AND POLICY MAKING. KarenDuke. Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. pp 206.£52.50 hbk. ISBN 0-333-98203-7

With the increasing interest over the last decade in the issue of drugs in prisons it wasinevitable that someone with experience of working within or closely to the penal systemwould try to examine and unravel the complex process of policy development withinprisons in this important area of their working practice.

In her historical analysis, Karen Duke describes drugs policy development in the EnglishPrison Service since 1980. The subject matter is divided into 6 sensible chapters which areeasy to read with well integrated empirical evidence including interviews and summaryconclusions which keep the reader focused. As a practitioner working within the PrisonService throughout this period I was able, to relive the sometimes tortuous development ofclear policy and direction.

The reactions to events both inside and outside prisons, the political pressures for changeand the burgeoning prisoner population are recounted accurately but when combined withthe Prison Service’s unhurried appreciation of research the collective effect on the policymakers becomes obvious and enlightening. The omni-present dichotomy betweendiscipline (order and control) and the therapeutic response to drug issues in prisons issensibly and sensitively examined in as far as it limits certain models of care. The case isclearly made for policy makers to change their perspective and deal with ‘the drugsproblem’ not in an insular fashion as a prison problem but as a much broader socialphenomenon requiring a more collective response.

One critique of this text was that during the historical analysis of the policy makingprocess described in the book, quotations from external sources such as directors of drugsagencies and penal reform groups seemed to predominate perhaps at the expense of theviews of civil servants or policy makers themselves. Readers may well find that thisimbalance could flavour the whole tone and subsequent perception of the book.

Overall, one has to be positive in acknowledging that this text helps us to understand thedynamics involved in policy making in this unique arena. The book may well have utilityin terms of developing future policy in the area.

Alec McCrystal, Yorkshire and Humberside Prison Service Area

92

british journal of community justice · 2019. 12. 2. · british journal of community justice...

Documents