Sample Characteristics

As noted above (at 4.2), offender participants were recruited purposively, so as to maximise the diversity of experiences included within the relatively small sample size, whilst staff were recruited on a convenience basis. However, it is still worth noting the actual diversity that was achieved in the sample groups, since it is reasonable to assume that certain characteristics are likely to contribute to the way in which social phenomena such as community punishment are experienced.

5.1.1 Offenders1

The nine offenders in the sample came from a broad range of backgrounds, and could be expected to experience their sentences differently as a result. Since they were selected using the criteria of the offence(s) committed, the order and requirements imposed, and their demographics (that is, their age, gender, and ethnicity), it makes sense to discuss the diversity of the offender sample in those terms as well.

(a) OFFENCES COMMITTED

The offences committed by the participating offenders were numerous. For the purposes of Figure 5.1, below, I use the following categories, which are of course arbitrary, to describe the offences committed without interfering with individual offenders’ anonymity: deception offences, such as fraud; property offences, such as theft or criminal damage; regulatory offences, such as those surrounding parking or dangerous driving; sexual offences; and violent offences, with the latter group partitioned to distinguish between domestic and other violence.

Figure 5.1: Bar Chart of Participating Offenders by Offence Type

1 _{A brief overview of the facts in each offender-participant’s case is laid out in Appendix G.}

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Deception Property Regulatory Sexual Violent (Domestic) Violent (Other) Violent (Total) N u m b e r o f O ff e n d e rs Offence Type

Some offenders had committed multiple offences, and some crimes could fit multiple labels (for example, a robbery is both a Violent (Other) and Property offence). Additionally, the Violent (Total) bar has been added to demonstrate the extent to which violent offences dominated this sample – it combines the two sets of violent crimes, rather than listing different offences. As a result, Figure 5.1 contains more offences than offenders.

(b) ORDERS AND REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED

As noted above (at 1.3), community punishment takes two main forms in England and Wales: the community order and suspended sentence order (SSO). Due to the recruitment of offenders through their supervision officers, every offender was necessarily serving a supervision requirement. However, some offenders were also subject to: accredited programme;

specified activity, and unpaid work requirements. Again, the relatively

limited range of requirements recruited was a consequence of the selection of offenders, since the participating Centres both provided access only to supervisory teams with general responsibilities, whereas many of the excluded requirements fell under the remit of specialist probation officers who were therefore excluded from the sample in practice.

In addition to the requirements on the community punishment itself, many offenders were also serving additional orders that also impacted on their lives, including: fines; disqualification orders (prohibiting sex offenders from working with children); restraining and non- molestation orders (imposed to prevent domestic violence, child abuse, and similar family- or partner-based violence); and driving bans.

In total, four offenders were serving SSOs, and five community orders. The requirements imposed are laid out in Figure 5.2. Again, since offenders could receive multiple orders and requirements, it contains a higher number of orders than offenders.

Figure 5.2: Bar Chart of Participating Offenders’ Requirements

(c) DEMOGRAPHICS:AGE,GENDER, AND ETHNICITY

Demographic factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and religion affect both how somebody approaches the world and how other people respond to them. It follows that these factors will have a profound effect upon the impact experienced by offenders subject to community punishment. These factors were not systematically built into the study, but have been recorded to reflect the extent to which this sample is representative of the broader population.

Since this study only scratches the surface of the differences between different demographic groups of offenders, I decided only to record those factors that offenders would be most likely to be willing to talk about, namely age, gender, and ethnicity, using information from the offenders’ case-files and their own self-identification at the start of primary interviews. This is not to say that other factors, especially sexual orientation, do not have any impact on the pains of community punishment. Rather, these differences deserve much more detailed consideration in studies that explicitly explore those differences.

0 1 2 3 4 5 Accredited Programme Disqualification Order

Driving Ban Fine Specified

Activity Unpaid Work N u m b e r o f O ff e n d e r s

In terms of offender age, it is generally understood that adults tend to commit more crimes early on in life, before becoming less and less likely to offend as they get beyond their mid-30s (e.g. Farrington 1986). Against that background, the offenders in this sample are somewhat unusual, in that they are generally older than we might expect. As Figure 5.3 shows, there was no clear pattern to their age distribution.

Figure 5.3: Bar Chart of Participating Offenders by Age Group

Participating offenders were overwhelmingly white and male. In fact, only two of the nine participants were female, and only one was non- white; seven were White (British), with the eighth self-defining as White (Other).

This can be explained in part by the locations of the participating centres. In the more rural OC, the number of Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) individuals remains very low, meaning that those within the criminal justice system in that area are largely white. By contrast, in IC most women offenders subject to community punishment were overseen in a specific Women’s Centre, whose regime was so different to that of the Probation Centre in question that I decided to exclude it from the study.

0 1 2 3 4 5 18-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+ N u m b e r o f O ff e n d e r s Age Group

5.1.2 Staff

Two aspects of diversity in the staff sample are worth discussing: the

training level of participants, and their own demographic variations. (a) TRAINING AND JOB TITLE

Whilst all staff responsible for supervision requirements are known as ‘supervision officers’, this role can be filled in practice by one of two types of probation officer: Offender Managers (OMs), and Offender Manager

Probation Service Officers (OMPSOs).2 As a result of their lower rank, OMPSOs tend to handle offenders who have committed less serious crimes, as well as those who pose a lower risk of re-offending and of serious harm. OMs, on the other hand, tend to deal with offences of intermediate seriousness. They may specialise in certain types of offences, or may work within specialist teams handling high-risk cases.

The study included a total of seven OMPSOs and four OMs. As a result, offenders tended to present a lower-than-average risk of reoffending and of committing serious harm.3

(b)DEMOGRAPHICS:AGE,GENDER, AND ETHNICITY

Once again, the demographics of participating staff were recorded at interviews, in terms of their age, gender and ethnicity. In terms of age, the sample was fairly evenly distributed, with the majority of participants being in their 30s or 40s (see Figure 5.4, below). Reflecting the high level of training expected of OMs, and even OMPSOs, no participants were under the age of 25. Those over the age of 50 were also relatively rare, reflecting the fact that both OMs and OMPSOs are relatively junior within the probation hierarchy, and could be expected to be promoted or to move on from their jobs for another reason as time goes by.

2

Recall n. 2 of Chapter Four. I have not distinguished between the level of training of OMPSOs, which, it must be recognised is a simplification that could be mitigated by further research.

3 _{Throughout this chapter I use the shorthand ‘risk’ to refer to both concepts unless}

otherwise stated, since they are the two indexes of risk most commonly referred to by probation staff: Canton 2011: 131-132.

Figure 5.4: Bar Chart of Participating Staff by Age Group

In terms of gender, there was a reversal of the inequality between the sexes in the offender sample, with eight female and three male staff participants. This is largely in keeping with national trends in the gender of probation officers (Annison 2007).

The ethnicity of the staff sample, however, is once again very strongly skewed in favour of white ethnic groups: ten staff self-identified as White (British), whilst the other defined themselves as being of Caribbean descent. Once again, to some extent this is reflective of the largely white general population of the county (and indeed of England and Wales as a whole: ONS 2012), especially in rural areas, but it nevertheless limits the ethnic coverage of the sample.