Diversion ahead: Tackle low-level repeat offenders, tackle prison capacity
As another round of prison capacity emergency measures takes place, we must turn our attention to the repeat offenders regularly in and out of prison and regularly back in court who are ‘prison bed-blocking’ the system. Without focused investment on England’s so-called “prolific offenders” – people consistently in the headlines for shoplifting and low-level crime — bigger prisons and better resourced courts will do little to impact the prison population that’s reinforcing this persistent volatility, and frankly, undermining justice as a whole.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood and Justice Secretary Alex Norris need to join up and pay attention to this small but highly impactful ’revolving door’ group, repeatedly cycling in and out of the criminal justice system – for whom new technology and faster court processes will barely make a dent. If the job of justice reform for our newest round of justice Ministers seems big, it’s because it is. We need a pragmatic approach to crime reduction before we fund more failure.
Targeting persistent and prolific offenders should be a priority area of focus. These are people responsible for volume crime, namely nonviolent offences such as drug offences, theft, and other acquisitive summary crimes. Prolific offenders are most likely to cycle in and out of the system, adding to stagnation in our courts and taking up cell space.
More focused attention on this group could make a significant impact on the cost to the taxpayer and make a dent in the current prison population bursting at the seams, meaning less need to rely on early release schemes as all too regular ‘emergency’ measures.
Around 29,000 people in England and Wales are caught in this cycle. They account for more than 130,000 offences each year, costing an estimated £5 billion annually. A 1% reduction in reoffending would save approximately £65 million per year. It is crimes of this nature, that, whilst labelled as ‘low risk’ and ‘low harm’ have a huge impact on communities. Evidence shows that targeted interventions make a reduction in this type of persistent offending. That means supervision and support with substance misuse treatment, mental health support, stable housing and swift, joined-up problem-solving in the community, so punishment comes with a pathway out. If we want safer streets, we must stop funding failure.
In his much-discussed report, Lord Brian Leveson outlined how better use of diversion could be transformative to the justice system. We agree. Diversion is where, rather than sending a case to court, the person arrested is referred onto an intervention – known as an out of court resolution (OOCR).
Diversion is often seen as being for young people, but it works for adults too. It can be a quick, practical, pragmatic way of getting a person into an intensive programme directly addressing the causes of their offending. It is tragic that there has been so little discourse, let alone action, on this section of recommendations. Today’s announcement should reignite attention on how the justice budget is best spent.
Revolving Doors’ research is clear that prolific offending is caused by issues of deprivation. To solve this, we need more than investment in the courts, but a cross-government strategy linking justice, health, and housing to reduce crime. A whole-system approach to prolific offending that prioritises diversion would serve to relieve pressure on frontline services and deliver measurable fiscal savings. This seems to be where the new Burnham Cabinet is heading with its focus on devolution and place-based interventions.
Beyond investing in police and court level diversion we need to reduce reoffending to minimise the prison estate, focussing on the 29,000 people repeatedly responsible for low level offences across the country is a good place to start. It’s time to prove to the public that fast and fair justice reform can be evidence-led and concerned with results rather than rhetoric.
