1

The Future of Criminal Justice in Scotland: the Research-Policy

InterfaceLesley McAra

University of Edinburgh

2

Structure of paper

• What role should academics play in the policy process?

• The research-policy interface: lessons from the past

• The future of research: a modest proposal

3

What role should academics play in the policy process?

• Whose side are academics on?- Problem raiser- Problem solver- Critical friend

• Increased dependence on government sponsored research – the exponential growth of ‘administrative criminology’

• Research Evaluation Framework - need to show impact

4

Lessons from the past

5

Pre-devolution: research-policy interface

• Critical criminological tradition nurtured by and within the ‘quasi-state’ (Scottish Office)

• ‘Democratic intellectualism’ and links between knowledge and politics

• Role of the academy in sustaining Scotland’s divergent trajectory

BUT• Failed to EVIDENCE fully the intellectual case for

Kilbrandon and core social work values, and to engage policy-makers in critical debate about the gaps between system ethos and day-to-day practice

• Thus left adult and juvenile systems vulnerable to political attack

6

Early post-devolution years: the research-policy interface

• Demise of government Central Research Unit and restyling of in-house researchers as ‘analysts’

• Government-sponsored research dominated by programme/policy evaluation

• Survey companies/research consultancies began to dominate the tendering process

• Increased tension between Scottish academy and government as the latter looked south and west for evidence-base

7

What happens when government stops listening?

1. Massive overhaul of extant structures but no evidence that

change was needed

8

Justice Minister Communities Minister

National Criminal Justice Board

32 Community Safety Partnerships

32 Community Planning Partnerships

Risk Management Authority

Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency

22 Drug and Alcohol Action Teams

32 Youth Justice Teams (Operational)

32 Youth Justice Strategy Groups

Scottish Prison Service

National Youth Justice Strategy Group

11 Local Criminal Justice Boards

11 Procurator Fiscal Areas

National Criminal Justice Plan

National Advisory Board on Offender Management

National Community Safety Coordinator

Local Authorities Community Safety Forum

6 Sheriffdoms 8 Community Justice Authorities

8 Police Force Areas

Scottish Parliament

Justice 1 Committee

Justice 2 Committee

CommunitiesCommittee

Finance Committee

Petitions Committee

32 Local Authorities

Social Work Departments

Convention Scottish Local Authorities

Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration

Association Directors of Social Work

ACPO(S)

Children’s Hearing Reporters

58 District Courts*

49 Sheriff Courts

Victim Support

Voluntary sector agencies (over 100 and counting!)

Education Committee

9

Police recorded crime/offences in Scotland (1988-2007)

Source: Scottish Government

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000

1800000

2000000

19881990

19921994

1996/97

1998/99

2000/01

2002/03

2004/05

2006/07

10

Scottish Crime Survey: total crime estimate (1992-2006)

Source: Brown and Bolling 2007

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000

1800000

2000000

1992 1995 1999 2002 2003/04 2005/06

11

Court convictions (1992-2007)Source: Scottish government 2008

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

19921994

1996/971998/99

2000/012002/03

2004/052006/07

Nu

mb

er

pe

r 1

00

0 p

op

ula

tio

n

12

Scottish crime survey :% very or fairly worried that they will be victim

Source: Brown and Bolling 2007

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1993 1996 2000 2002 2005

Housebreaking

Sexual assault

Mugged/robbed

Assault

Vandalism to home

13

Offence referrals to children’s hearing system

Source: SCRA 2008

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

/97

1997

/98

1998

/99

1999

/00

2000

/01

2001

/02

2002

/03

2003

/04

2004

/05

2005

/06

2006

/07

% p

op

ula

tio

n

14

What happens when government stops listening?

2. Moral panic and heightened anxieties

15

A moral panic?

• Statements by Ministers

- Youth crime and anti-social behaviour is a complex and serious problem across Scotland. However, one thing is clear – our communities have had enough of it. (Scottish Executive 2002)

- Serious crime is down but as today’s statistics show, communities are clearly still plagued by vandalism and other persistent forms of antisocial behaviour. (Scottish Executive 2004)

16

A moral panic?

• Media headlines (focus on ‘ned culture’)- Crackdown on 'neds' will require extra £12m

(Scotland on Sunday, June 2004)

- Friday night out with the superneds (Sunday Herald, June 2003)

- Nike the Ned downed 60 bacardis and went on wrecking spree (Daily Record, May 2004)

- Ned alert as Buckie runs out (Scottish Sun 2008)

17

Public attitudes towards youth crime(Source: Scottish Social Attitudes Survey : Anderson et al. 2005)

Is level youth crime same/ higher/lower as 10 years ago?

%

Higher 69

Lower 2

Same 25

18

What happens when government stops listening?

3. Unscientific targets

19

Unscientific targets?

• 10% reduction in number of persistent offenders by 2006 (from baseline of 1,201 offenders in 2004) with further 10% reduction by 2008

• National strategy for management of offenders: 2% reduction in reconviction rates for all types of sentences by March 2008

20

Unscientific targets cont.• Aggregate rates measure institutional practices more

than individual change

• Even best and most rigorous research suggests that only 5% reduction in recidivism possible in comparison with control groups (NB requires programme excellence combined with careful targeting) (see Lösel 1995)

• Not all young persistent offenders access specialist programmes and target setting did not permit follow-up of those exiting hearings system at age 16

• No quick-fix possible, some of most effective strategies are ‘slow-burn’

21

What happens when government stops listening?

4. Missed opportunities

22

Research into policy: silenced voices

• ‘Tougher’ sentences in the community, have not reduced the use of imprisonment but instead have contributed to its growth (Tombs and Jagger 2006)

• The emphasis on public protection and the ‘commodification’ of offender management exacerbates the isolation and exclusion of the offender (McCulloch and McNeill 2007)

• There is widespread public support for community-based sanctions which offer the opportunity for less serious offenders to reduce their offending behaviour. These options are seen by the public as being more effective and more cost-effective than imprisonment (Hutton 2005)

23

The Future

24

Future perfect? A new relationship

• New strategic investment to encourage theoretical and methodological innovation and new ways of working with government

- The Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research

- The Scottish Institute for Policing Research

• A ‘listening’ government??

25

A modest proposal (1) Filling in the gaps (what we don’t know)

• More longitudinal research which captures offending and criminal justice careers (both quantitative and qualitative)

• Need for national level self-report survey (along lines of the ‘Offending Crime and Justice Survey’ in England/Wales)

• Further engagement on cross-cutting issues of gender, ethnicity, and religious affiliation in respect of all aspects of criminal justice process and practice

26

A modest proposal (2)Critical engagement over the lexicon of policy

• ‘Effective’

• ‘Evidence-based’ policy

• ‘Partnership’ (multi-agency) working

• ‘Community’

• ‘Risk management’

• The entire language of ‘new public management’

27

A modest proposal (3) Promulgate what Scottish research tells us

- Persistent serious offending is symptomatic of deeper seated need (Kilbrandon was right!) (McAra and McVie 2007)

- Critical moments (especially school exclusion) in the teenage years are key to pathways into and out of offending and diversionary strategies (away from ‘justice’) facilitate the desistence process (McAra and McVie 2010)

- The quality of the one-to-one relationship between the social worker and offender is crucial to success of supervision (role of social workers to assist offenders construct a non-offender identity, and to act as advocate for the offender in context of broader economic opportunity (McNeill 2006, Barry 2007)

- (Aside from protecting the public from a small number of dangerous individuals) prison does not work! (Carlen and Tombs 2006, etc.etc.)

- The need for policy-makers to take a long term view, with greater recognition that criminal justice policy is only one part of a broader solution to the problem of crime (health, education, housing, economic regeneration) (McAra and McVie 2010)

28

Conclusions

29

Who or what is criminological research for?

…Our role as criminologists is not first and foremost to be received as useful problem solvers, but as problem raisers. Let us admit - and enjoy that our situation has a great resemblance to that of artists and men of letters. We are working on a culture of deviance and social control … Changing times create new situations and bring us to new crossroads….Equipped with our special training in scientific method and theory, it is our obligation as well as pleasure to penetrate these problems. Together with other cultural workers, we will probably have to keep a constant fight going against being absorbed and tamed …and thereby completely socialised into society. (Nils Christie 1971)

30

Child

Bronfenbrenner/Martens (1993)

Mother

Father

Siblings

Friends

Dwelling

Neighbourhood

Leisure timeTV/mass media

School

Parents’ work situationChild health

centre - medical care

Family policies

Housing policiesJob security legislation

Hours of work

Labour market policies

Communal support of voluntary agencies and leisure activities

Cultural policies

Child care policies

Social security