The claim: “The public are right to think that community sentences are failing” - Blair Gibbs, Policy Exchange, speaking on the Today Program.

Background

As the Government prepares to announce reforms to the UK justice system which are expected to alter the way in which community sentences are carried out, a document published by think tank Policy Exchange questions the effectiveness of community service as a way of tackling crime.

The report was widely cited in the media, with the BBC, the Mail, the Telegraph and the Evening Standard each leading with different aspects of its critical conclusions.

Mr Gibbs referred to a survey of public perceptions commissioned for the report which appeared to show that community service was widely considered a “soft option”.

The report argues that this in itself represents their failure to act as a deterrent; but it also casts doubt on their success in rehabilitation and the prevention of repeat offending.

Are the public really so tough on community service? And if so, are they right that it needs to be tougher on criminals?

Payback

Only 38 per cent of respondents to the YouGov poll commissioned by Policy Exchange actually describe community “a soft option”, rather than the two thirds quoted by the Mr Gibbs.

But this was an abbreviation rather than an inaccuracy, since when asked to pick one description from a list, the proportion that choose either soft or “weak and undemanding” was 60 per cent.

The survey also suggests that fewer than half of people actively oppose the extension of community service to replace short term prison sentences, and the methodology could be criticised for influencing respondents with a somewhat loaded list of possible judgements. Nevertheless, the report does seem to indicate a general conviction that community sentences lack toughness.

On the report's own terms, this in itself is the main problem: its key argument is that community services, designed for minor and first offences, have now suffered a “mission creep” and become a form of punishment without assuming a more punitive element.

The fairness of this judgement depends largely on whether deterrence, rehabilitation or retribution is most highly prioritised in an evaluation of justice. The report does show that most people feel “payback” is an important aspect of justice, and that community service is perceived to fall short on this measure.

Rehabilitation

But it is also argued that community services are ineffective as a form of rehabilitation – something on which the Daily Mail placed particular emphasis.

One statistic cited by Policy Exchange was that a third of offenders given a community sentence did not complete it satisfactorily.

Some have argued that some of the terminations because of “failure to comply with requirements” may be partly the result of stringency rather than regular flouting of the rules. Policy Exchange cite examples of community service in charity shops that counter this claim.

It is true that a two thirds completion rate does not seem particularly high, but it is rising. Furthermore comparing compliance rates to fines and imprisonment, as the report does, is slightly unjust, since the element of offender responsibility inherent in community sentences probably makes a certain amount of non-compliance inevitable.

In truth, how damning completion rates really are is a matter for debate.

A more standard measure of rehabilitative success is that of re-offending rates. A recent compendium from the Ministry of Justice found that 36.8 per cent of those completing community sentences in the first quarter of 2008 re-offended within a year, which compares favourably for rates of 61.1 per cent for short custodial sentences.

This is not, however, comparing like with like. “Offenders that receive each disposal type”, warns the compendium, “are not similar and vary in a wide rage of offender specific characteristics, such as age, gender and previous criminality.”

In fact, one consideration during sentencing is the likelihood of re-offence: those most at risk of re-offending are more likely to receive community sentences.

The actual comparative effectiveness of community sentencing is contentious and unclear: Policy Exchange argue that when expected re-offending rates are compared to actual rates, there is no substantial difference between prison and community work. The Howard League, on the other hand, claim that community sentencing is “a more effective penalty against offending.”

Conclusion

Full Fact has previously looked into the question of whether prison really does work, and our findings were inconclusive. Unsurprisingly, we must once again conclude inconclusively on the fraught and knotty issue of justice.

As a punitive measure, community sentences in the current form do seem to be perceived as weak. If, as most of the public and Policy Exchange believe, justice primarily concerns “payback”, this is clearly a problem.

It may have a negative impact on the success of community service as a deterrent, although whether the specific form of punishment has such an impact has been questioned.

In terms of rehabilitation, the weight of evidence seems to suggest that community sentencing is slightly more effective than incarceration, although there is no consensus.

And this analysis does not even cover other issues, such as that of cost.

On his own stated terms, Mr Gibbs' claims are somewhat justified, if more forceful than the evidence allows. However, neither the report nor this fact check can resolve the issue, and the debate continues.