Authored by Miranda Shanks, Policy and Communications Manager, Catch22.
Background to the paper
The 2003 Criminal Justice Act introduced ‘hybrid sentences’ served in custody followed by a post-custodial period in the community; the latter also termed as the “licence period” in which individuals are supervised by the Probation Service. Its purpose is to support smooth resettlement into everyday life, while maintaining the highest standard of public safety. As a preventative and risk management measure, when a person breaches one or more of their licence conditions or indicates an increased risk themselves or public safety, Probation can recall them back into custody.
A fixed term recall (FTR) is a recall to prison for a fixed number of days – followed by automatic re-release. If the individual’s original sentence is less than 12 months, the FTR is set as 14 days and if the sentence was over 12 months, the FTR will be 28 days.
Fixing Fixed Term Recall seeks to provide a comprehensive exploration of how FTR are currently being imposed within the CJS and their impact on the rehabilitation and resettlement journeys of individuals on licence. In doing so, this paper highlights the experiences of those subject to them, the challenges of their use, and recommendations to reduce the need for FTR while improving their effectiveness in managing non-compliance of low-risk individuals.
Research Questions and Methodology
The paper has been shaped by three key research questions:
- How and why are FTR currently being used?
- How is FTR experienced and perceived by those subject to them?
- What steps can be taken to ensure those at risk of FTR are supported, ultimately reducing the need for FTR?
This Insights Paper adopts a mixed-method approach to increase robustness, address data gaps in the public domain, and ensure lived experienced and service insights. It therefore incorporates:
- Literature review: extensively looking at the broader landscape of research and commentary relating to FTR.
- Data analysis: using Freedom of Information (FOI) accessed Ministry of Justice (MoJ) data to demonstrate the scale and trends in FTR use both currently and since 2018.
- Semi-structured interviews: providing evidence and insight to inform the discussion. Interviews were held with five people who had either experienced FTR or had been on licence and therefore at risk of FTR, as well as five Catch22 caseworkers who have supported such cohort through community-based rehabilitative services.
Evidence collated through qualitative, semi-structured interviews was analysed through a process involving thematic grouping of key insights, which helped to shape the structure of this report’s discussion.
Findings
Data
Data on FTR is significantly limited and the publicly available Offender Management Statistics (OMS) data on recall does not currently differentiate between ‘fixed term recall’ and ‘standard recall’. A more granular breakdown of which licence condition has been breached would, for instance, be required to understand how these might correlate with specific cohorts or vulnerabilities. Such data limitations not only reduce transparency but are also likely to hinder data-driven review of FTR practice and effectiveness, including analysis which may support targeted solutions to improve resettlement outcomes.
Scale of FTR
Given the restricted OMS data, and to assess the scale of FTR, this research relied on Freedom of Information (FOI) data requests to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to obtain annual and quarterly FTR numbers as well as a breakdown in reasons for FTR.
Analysis shows that, despite a decrease from 2018, the annual FTR numbers have started to rise again since 2022.
- Increase – The latest quarterly figure available is 2,208 FTRs (Q1 2024); an increase of 78% from Q1 2022 and nearly as many as used in Q1 2018.
- Reasons – Given increased average sentence lengths, the reunification of Probation in 2021, and the introduction of End of Custody Supervised Licence (ECSL) scheme in 2023, the recent FTR increases can be partially attributed to both the increased total number of people on licence and the increased licence period.
- SDS40 impact – A further increase in FTR numbers will be likely following the start of SDS40 in September 2024, which changed the point at which standard determinate sentenced individuals are automatically released from custody from 50% to 40% of their sentence served.
The growing scale of FTR underlines the importance of reviewing and reducing their use.
Reasons for FTR
Understanding why people are receiving FTR is key to reducing its number, and another aspect in which having more publicly available data on FTR would be beneficial. Importantly, there can be more than one reason why someone on licence receives an FTR.
- Non-compliance – “Non-compliance” is the most common reason for FTR. On average, 73.4% of all FTR between 2018 and 2023 were cited with non-compliance on the recall dossier. Non-compliance means a breach of one or more licence conditions (excluding failure to reside, failure to keep in touch, or committing another offence – which are pulled out as separate data categories) but does not provide detail on the specific condition that has been breached.
- Re-offending – FTR with reference to “facing a further charge” has dropped from a peak of 33% in 2018 to 17% in 2023.
- Main reasons – The FOI data obtained for this paper indicates that the most likely reasons for an FTR are a breach of a licence condition, failing to stay in contact with the Probation Officer or failing to reside at a specified address.
Addressing such reasons should therefore be at the forefront of policy considerations in reducing the use of FTR.
Lack of FTR effectiveness in improving compliance
The research for this paper leaves serious doubts about the effectiveness of FTR in terms of improving compliance.
- Deterrent – While the literature review and analysis of the qualitative data provide clear indications that FTR can act as a deterrent for non-compliance, they also point towards those on licence having to negotiate licence conditions that may be counterproductive to their successful resettlement and rehabilitation.
- Secondary FTR – The FOI MoJ data obtained demonstrates that, since 2018, 13-16% of FTRs have been “secondary”; i.e. they have been imposed on people who have previously served an FTR during their licence period. The stability of this proportion, also against the changes in FTR totals, indicates that for certain licencees the current FTR process does not effectively reinstate engagement or compliance, and may fail to address underlying challenges.
- Positive change – The qualitative research findings suggest that personal growth and self-reflection tend to drive compliance more effectively than external enforcement measures alone.
Lack of FTR effectiveness in improving rehabilitation
The findings demonstrate that a key limitation of FTR is its lack of rehabilitative productivity, particularly in the context of:
- Brevity – The brevity of an FTR means there is little opportunity to address underlying support needs or criminogenic behaviours contributing to non-compliance, whether that is through targeted interventions or support services.
- Communication – The important relationship and communication between the probation officer and person on licence tend to get interrupted by FTR. FTR therefore risks disrupting more “person-centred” decision making on licence conditions and support, and indeed can cause mistrust and disengagement.
Resettlement challenges
The research shows that challenges in resettlement related to, particularly, housing precarity, substance use, and/or mental health tend to increase the risk of FTR. The FTR itself subsequently exacerbates such challenges by disrupting the continuity of rehabilitation in the community.
- Accommodation – Homelessness is a key driver of recall with precarious or unsuitable housing also complicating compliance. Without stable housing, Probation cannot assess risk effectively. Reversely, FTR often forces individuals to “start over” in securing housing post-release, thus exacerbating the risk of homelessness.
- Substance use – Challenges with addiction and lack of community support to “get clean” are major factors in desistance and non-compliance, which a subsequent FTR and short spell in prison does little to address. Tackling non-compliant behaviour that is driven by addiciton through treatment, rather than relying on FTR, would address root causes of recidivism and could significantly improve resettlement outcomes.
- Mental health – Poor mental health and support provision appear to increase risks of non-compliance and FTR, while short stays in prison can worsen conditions like anxiety and depression or delay effective treatment.
Licence conditions
- Unachievable conditions – FTR are often driven by unachievable or overly restrictive licence conditions that prison leavers feel are imposed without their meaningful input, leading to disengagement and non-compliance.
- Flexibility – A lack of flexibility in interpreting licence conditions can also undermine positive steps towards recovery.
- Active defiance – When it is felt that licence conditions are imposed without meaningful input, justification or personalisation, disengagement and “active defiance” are more likely.
Conclusion
Despite limited data on FTR, through rigorous analysis of FOI data and lived experience evidence, this paper deepens the sector’s understanding of non-compliance, licence breach and the risks and impacts of FTR.
Though intended to provide a proportionate response to non-compliance with licence conditions, balancing public protection with the opportunity for rehabilitation, FTR has significant implications on both the individual and the public. In general, FTR is applied when an individual’s broader resettlement needs are unmet. Rather than addressing the underlying causes of non-compliance, FTR can exacerbate existing issues and create additional barriers to rehabilitation. Two key characteristics of FTR – their brevity and their disruption of community-based support – limit their rehabilitative value.
Current practices also reveal a two-fold systemic issue. Firstly, a general lack of sector-wide knowledge on the extent and reasoning behind FTR use (also due to limited data transparency) makes targeted and preventative support a challenge. Secondly, an insufficient provision of rehabilitative support options, or “alternatives”, available for those “at-risk” of FTR means that Probation are left with little choice but to press the recall button.
Future reform should prioritise interventions that promote successful engagement with licence conditions through positive resettlement outcomes and, ultimately, reduce the need for FTR to custody altogether. Effective change will also require that future research and development in this area is informed by those directly affected, incorporating the lived experiences of individuals on license or FTR.
Recommendations
The findings of this paper indicate a set of policy and practice recommendations to improve FTR, in four broad categories: early identification, alternatives and support, continuity of rehabilitation, and data-driven solutions. These recommendations aim to both prevent the use of FTR where other interventions prove more effective and to transform FTR – where it is required – from a punitive measure into an opportunity for meaningful intervention.
- Better early identification
1.1 HMPPS should implement objective processes by which those at highest risk of FTR are identified and eligible for preventative support and intervention.
Before reaching the point of requiring FTR, the system must be equipped with an objective way to identify those displaying behaviours and resettlement needs associated with non-compliance and therefore at risk of FTR. This can include previous recall and non-compliance as well as housing precarity. Of those evidencing high-risk, there needs to be tailored rehabilitative options available.
- Better alternatives and support
2.1 HMPPS should meaningfully involve individuals in the co-production of their licence conditions.
Provide specific opportunities ahead of individuals’ release from custody to participate, understand, and input into the development of their licence, in order to foster a sense of ownership, personalisation, and accountability.
2.2 The Ministry of Justice must develop and commission high-intensity ‘recall prevention programmes’ targeted at those at highest risk of FTR.
Commission high-intensity mentoring programmes to pair those at risk of non-compliance with navigator mentors offering wrap-around, holistic support to strengthen engagement and attendance with Probation and to liaise with Probation to meet the individual’s wider resettlement needs such as housing, substance dependency and mental health.
2.3 The Ministry of Justice must develop and make greater use of structured alternatives to FTR such as rehabilitation centres, alcohol tags or community-based treatment programs in cases where non-compliance is associated with dependency.
Fund and develop community-based treatment programs or residential rehabilitation provision for individuals whose non-compliance is related to dependency on substance use.
2.4 HMPPS should mandate a presumption against FTR where lack of stable and appropriate housing is identified as a driver of non-compliance and licence breach.
Housing-led approaches should be prioritised to support individuals experiencing housing precarity in maintaining their licence conditions. HMPPS should therefore mandate the use of FTR only when housing is not associated with non-compliance.
- Better continuity of rehabilitation
3.1 HMPPS should develop targeted interventions around licence compliance to be delivered during FTR periods.
Introduce custodial based programs and interventions that address the underlying causes of licence breaches and promote positive engagement with Probation, so that an FTR period is used productively.
3.2 HMPPS should mandate that individuals on FTR are contacted at least once by their Probation Officer during their FTR period.
Enforce practice-level communication between Probation and individual during the FTR period to help maintain support networks and identify issues before release, ensuring timely access to the support needed for successful reintegration.
3.3 HMPPS must ensure timely access to mental health care whilst on FTR.
Increase investment in and resourcing of prison mental health support available in custody such that waiting times will not be a barrier to accessing support for short-term FTR cohorts.
3.4 The Ministry of Justice must ensure that every person leaving prison can access stable, long-term accommodation.
As recommended by the Clinks RR3 Special Interest Group on Accommodation, the Government should develop a cross-departmental strategy, underpinned by a ministerial board, focused on mitigating the barriers to accommodation faced by people leaving prison. This strategy should review how FTR impacts housing precarity and vice versa.
- Better data collection and sharing
4.1 The Ministry of Justice should commit to improving data and data sharing on FTR and publish a comprehensive quarterly breakdown of different recall figures and reasons.
To strengthen data-driven implementation of better FTR practice and improve resettlement outcomes, the MoJ data ensure its data on the number of FTR, their type and reasons, as well as the costs becomes more robust and transparent.
Acknowledgements
This research was conducted as part of an Impact Fellowship with the University of Plymouth, under the guidance of Dr. Katie McBride & Prof. Zoë James, who shaped and provided academic rigour to the methodological process. Thank you to both for their extensive support, guidance and supervision, and for their willingness to share their many years of wisdom in effectively evidencing and articulating some of the criminal justice system’s most pressing problems.
A huge thank you to all those who agreed to participate in the interviews which informed this work, as well as all those across the sector who spoke with me informally to help build an accurate picture of fixed term recall. Your time and openness is hugely valued.