Out of court disposals and the ‘rehabilitation revolution’
Today, we are submitting our response to the government’s Out of Court Disposals review. The review is wide-ranging, and intended to take stock of current Out of Court Disposal (OOCD) arrangements with the aim of making the system simpler and easier to understand, and increasing public support.
However, this review also provides an opportunity to consider how OOCDs could be used more effectively to find early solutions to the underlying problems faced by many offenders, and help to divert them away from offending behaviour.
Members of our service user forum, who have experience of multiple and complex needs and the criminal justice system, reported receiving multiple OOCDs, but mostly fines or simple cautions. These did not prevent or deter them from reoffending because they failed to address their underlying issues. As one forum member commented:
“I’ve never been arrested sober, I’ve always been stoned or drunk. So it wasn’t rocket science to offer me a bit of rehabilitation….if they’d have intervened earlier, and given me another way to go I would have taken it and I wouldn’t have wasted 35 plus years of my life. As soon as I was offered the chance I grabbed it with both hands, and I’ve lived a more or less good life since”
If OOCDs are to reduce the chance of these people committing further offences, there needs to be a greater emphasis on their rehabilitative purpose. Currently, this is the exception rather than the norm, and for many their first links into rehabilitative services come further down the criminal justice pathway, often following further offences and when their problems have worsened.
So far the government’s proposed ‘rehabilitation revolution’ has done little to address situation, focusing on probation and those being released from prison. However, a number of considerations could help ensure OOCDs link more effectively with rehabilitative provision. For example:
- Conditional cautions should be used more effectively to provide rehabilitative conditions as an alternative to prosecution.
- A ‘triage’ approach should be adopted, improving the identification of underlying needs such as poor mental health and/or substance misuse, and diverting these offenders into treatment where appropriate.
- Opportunities for informal and restorative solutions such as community resolution should be expanded as a means of solving low-level disputes, and as part of a broader problem-solving approach linked to a strong emphasis on neighbourhood policing.
To achieve these kinds of changes, any moves to make the OOCD system simpler and easier to understand must not take place at the expense of local flexibility. There is no magic solution that OOCDs can provide in isolation to improve rehabilitation – they must exist in a broader landscape of community services developed by local commissioners (including police and crime commissioners), health services and VCSE partners.
As such, the current OOCDs review should not be viewed in isolation, but considered in the context of a range of efforts happening in local areas and across government departments to ensure that health and social care needs are responded to effectively at the earliest possible point in the criminal justice system. For example, the review should consider how future OOCD guidance should be shaped in the context of the recently announced roll out of mental health liaison and diversion services.
In the diverse life experiences of members of our service user forum, there is often a common theme – repeated contacts with the police and other services, and repeated failures to help them address their problems until they have worsened and become entrenched. More effective use of OOCDs could be one part of the puzzle to make sure that in the future every contact counts.
