Season 4, Episode 8: The problem with fixed term recalls

Transcript

Stella Tsantekidou 

Hi everyone. My name is Stella Tsantekidou and I’m the Head of Policy and Campaigns at Catch22 and this is the Catch22Minutes podcast. Today we are discussing all about fixed term recall.  

Critics of fixed term recall have argued that it can be used excessively, leading to a revolving door effect where individuals are repeatedly imprisoned for relatively minor breaches of their license conditions, rather than being supported to reintegrate into society. This, they argue, undermines rehabilitation efforts, contributes to the overcrowding of prisons, and exacerbates the challenges faced by the already strained UK criminal justice system. This policy also can have disproportionate impact on certain groups, further entrenching inequalities within the system.  

On the other hand, proponents of fixed term recall have argued that it is a necessary tool for protecting the public and ensuring that individuals who pose a risk are adequately supervised upon release. They argue that the policy provides a flexible means of responding to breaches of license conditions, acting as a deterrent against further offending, and helping to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system.  

The debate around fixed term recall reflects the broader tensions within criminal justice policy between punitive and rehabilitative approaches, and between the imperatives of public safety and individual rights. These debates are particularly important when we’re thinking about the context of rising prison populations in the UK, with concerns about the sustainability of the current system and the effectiveness of existing policies in reducing reoffending rates and supporting the rehabilitation of offenders.  

Also, we have general elections coming up, so politicians are paying more and more attention to what the public cares about and what criminal justice policies work.  

With me to discuss all of that and to give us a bit more of a background to fixed term recall is Miranda Shanks. Miranda, you are so welcome to the podcast. Please tell me a bit about who you are and what you do. 

Miranda Shanks 

Yeah. My name is Miranda Shanks. I’m the Policy and Communications Manager for our Justice and Education services. So, I on the one hand support all of our services with their, kind of, external communications. But on the other hand, I work to understand what some of the, kind of, big ticket issues facing our service users and our practitioners who work in those services, what those big issues are and how we can, kind of, translate those issues into effective policy solutions that we take to government and and try and implement. 

Stella Tsantekidou 

Could you give us a short recap of what fixed term recall is and what’s the problem with it, basically.  

Miranda Shanks 

 Yeah so, recall in the, kind of, criminal justice sense of the word describes the return to prison of someone who is serving their license period, so they will have been in custody for, you know, however many months, they’ll come out, they’ll have to serve time on license or on probation, as it’s sometimes referred to. And recall happens, or specifically, fixed term recall, happens when they breach one of those license conditions, so that might be that they didn’t show up to a probation appointment or they went into an area that they shouldn’t have done. And probation will flag this and initiate a fixed time recall. And what this means is the individual will be rearrested and then returned back into custody for either two weeks, if they were kind of originally on a shorter than 12 month sentence, or four weeks if their sentence was over 12 months. So Yeah. It’s a very short stint back into custody for breach of license, essentially.  

There’s a few problems that particularly we see with fixed term recall across our services. It’s a very short period of time to be back in custody for. So, two weeks isn’t long enough at all to do kind of any meaningful resettlement work, and what we see is that fixed term recalls don’t typically fix the root cause of the noncompliance that that person has displayed. So, you know, for whatever reason they weren’t able to abide by their license conditions, but it’s not clear that being back in custody for two or four weeks works to support them to then go and comply when they come out again. So yeah, it’s not very easy for them to do meaningful resettlement work.  

But on the other hand, it’s kind of long enough to disrupt progress that they have maybe made back out in the community, so, in our experience delivering support services, we see that people might be, you know, making really good progress towards employment or towards getting their kind of finances in order or securing stable accommodation. And they go on to breach a license condition for whatever reason, and being placed back into custody for two weeks is really, really disruptive of their resettlement journey that we know can often have a lot of ups and downs.  

It’s particularly disruptive when people feel as though their kind of licensed breach isn’t indicative of kind of a return to criminogenic behaviour or they feel their license breach doesn’t indicate that they were going to really commit a crime and actually it was for kind of a technicality. So yeah, fixed term recalls are kind of problematic in and of themselves. But also, if you zoom out and think a bit more about like the kind of issues the criminal justice system in general is facing, fixed term recalls are obviously contributing to this rise in the prison population and also, we know that kind of short-term sentences aren’t very effective. So, there’s kind of wider problems in those two respects.  

I personally think the key problem with fixed term recalls is not only that they’re really ineffective, but it’s that, probation don’t have any alternatives to them and and the probation services work in a very, very difficult climate at the moment. They’re incredibly under resourced, they’re dealing with very, very difficult cases. And often the people who are committing these license breaches, there just simply isn’t an alternative action to take and really fixed term recalls should be a kind of last case scenario where all other approaches haven’t worked. But in reality, I think we’re seeing probation officers simply don’t have any other choice. So, it’s, you know, lock them up, otherwise, what else can we do with them? They don’t really seem to have any other kind of weapons in their armoury. And yeah, the cohort that we’re dealing with is really, really unique because probation deem them too risky to keep in the community, yet not risky enough to warrant a standard recall, which would mean they’re back in custody until the end of their license – so a much longer time. And I’m not sure that the system is clear about what two weeks in custody is going to do to mitigate that risk. So, you know, they’re too risky to leave in the community. But what’s to say that that risk is going to be gone two weeks later? So, I think that’s a big problem and we’ve just not found an effective way to deal with that very unique cohort who has very unique needs in terms of supporting their compliance issues. 

Stella Tsantekidou 

To play devil’s advocate, when I’m listening to you saying all of that, you have made it very clear that fixed term recall doesn’t serve the needs of these people, right? The people who this is being used on that is very detrimental for themselves and presumably for their immediate community, people who care about them.  

What are the benefits of fixed term recall? So what would the proponent of fixed term recall say about why it should be used on these individuals and why it may not be beneficial for the long term success and rehabilitation of that specific individual, but perhaps it’s something that is desirable for their wider community or for the society or for the average voter who hears you defend these people who in their minds, they are people who have committed some kind of crime to deserve to be in that position to begin with. 

Miranda Shanks 

Yeah, I think that’s really interesting point. I mean, when you consider the purpose of the criminal justice system, it is both to punish those who commit crimes and also to rehabilitate them. But I think, yeah, you’re right, a kind of maybe more right-leaning voter would say, this person is still serving their sentence for a crime that they’ve committed, therefore, they should be complying with their license conditions, and if they don’t, there should be some form of punishment and I think that’s right. You know, we can’t just let people not comply with the conditions that are set to keep our public safe. But at the same time, we’re not seeing that fixed term recalls are the solution to that because people are coming back in worse situations than they went in in.  

So yeah, there’s a question to be had there. How do we punish noncompliance, but also make sure that we’re not leaving people worse off and leaving our society less safe. And I think that goes back to my point about alternatives, which is that it doesn’t seem like there are appropriate alternatives to that problem. 

Stella Tsantekidou 

So, what you’re saying is that fixed term recalls may appear to be a solution, it may appear to be a measure that’s trying to solve something, but it’s not actually achieving that, we don’t have evidence that it is achieving that. Which links to a wider debate that we have been discussing a lot at both Catch22 and with other organisations in the criminal justice sector, which is that very often politicians and policymakers are lured in by criminal justice policies that capture the headlines and that look like they are working, so tough on crime policies, but when you scratch beneath the surface, they are things that we have been trying already for a very long time. They don’t seem to make a difference, and sometimes they even exacerbate the problems.  

And there is some very interesting research that came out last week. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, announced it and it was the commission, I think, the London Assembly Commission, the LSC. And what the research showed was that rise in the cost of living, so the cost-of-living crisis, the more intense it was in an area, the more violent crime would increase in that area. So, something that we have been hearing from our frontline services for a very long time, which is that very often the thing that leads to, especially young people being lured in by criminal activities, is the lack of economic opportunity, the cost of living crisis, lack of amenities, lack of investment, and we also saw some research by the centre-right think tank Onward, which shows that the public doesn’t feel safe even in areas where violent crime has been falling, because violent crime has been falling across the UK, and especially in London – this is something that was highlighted by the research last week as well. Violent crime is falling, but people are not feeling safer. And what the research by Onward shows is that for a lot of voters the increase of feeling unsafe is linked to the lack of policing and the lack of visible policing which, nobody can argue that, you know, people feeling safe is important. It is obviously very, very important.  

But what surprised me by that research is that it failed to make the link between… it said that in areas where there is a fall in visible policing so cuts in police numbers, there is also an increase in people feeling unsafe, even when there isn’t an increase in violent crime. And what surprised me by the research is that it did not make the link between a cut in police numbers and a cut in local investment more generally. Because obviously the local authority which has to cut police numbers is also a local authority where there is a lack of investment more generally and you would expect them to be – I don’t have research to prove that right now – but one would expect logically that you would see other problems related to economic inequality in the same area.  

So, I think there is an interesting argument to be made about what looks like it is working, so a policy like fixed term recall, versus what actually we’ve seen works in reality. So, I’m wondering, Miranda, if you could tell me briefly because fixed term recall is a problem that you’re doing research on right now and you are accompanying this research with the campaign in Parliament. So could you tell me why you picked fixed term recall as a topic to focus on and what you have been doing in the last few months and your plans looking ahead in case there is anyone listening to this podcast thinking, if this is a low hanging fruit, which is what we think it is fixed term recall, we think it’s a policy that politicians should be looking at to reform, what kind of opportunities are there to intervene? 

Miranda Shanks 

Yeah, absolutely. And I think just to like pick up on your point about the link between crime and the cost of living crisis, there is definitely a parallel here with fixed term recalls, which is that people are emerging from custody into really, really awful situations in which you know they don’t have accommodation, they’re really struggling to get a job, they’re struggling to get benefits, and it’s not a surprise that these people who are living very chaotic lives and have had, you know, a lot of probably trauma and ACES, it’s not a surprise that they can’t comply with their license conditions.  

And just to give an example, often people who are getting issued these fixed term recalls are those who have no permanent address, and that’s not because they’ve chosen to have no permanent address. That’s because they’ve been released from prison and handed a tent or told, you know, to sort yourself out. And they’ve got no one to lean on, so is it a surprise that they then break the license condition of no fixed abode? Absolutely not. That’s because we as a society haven’t invested in giving these people the support they need to flourish and to thrive. And and that’s totally a lack of investment and lack of resource and the cost-of-living crisis. So yeah, I think that’s an interesting parallel. 

In terms of what we’re doing at Catch22 to campaign on this, I think broadly we are kind of interested in an organisation in campaigning on anything that that prioritises rehabilitative alternatives to punitive actions, so we’ve always kind of advocated for a rehabilitative approach to criminal justice, and fixed term recalls, to us, do seem like one of those practises that does very little to kind of holistically support individuals, and much like many of the kind of approaches taken in our criminal justice system, they’re kind of expensive, short-term, sticking plasters to much wider issues of poverty and disadvantage. And I think that there are some much longer-term things that can be done to support individuals who are stuck in the criminal justice system to thrive, that aren’t just kind of shoving them back in in prison. But obviously that’s not a particularly politically appetising route to take. Particularly when we’ve got very short-term policy making.  

So, to go back to your original question, what are we doing to campaign on this? The first thing that we’re trying to do is plug a bit of a research gap in fixed term recalls. So, there’s very little out there that showcased the lived experience of those who have been subject to fixed term recalls. So very little that’s kind of highlighting their voice and their experience and their perspective, and why for them fixed term recall either has or hasn’t been damaging to their kind of rehabilitation and their resettlement. So, we are pulling together a report that will be very much a springboard for discussions with policymakers around fixed term recalls and hopefully act as a prompt to consider more rehabilitative, long term and cost-effective alternatives to fixed term recall.  

The other thing that we’re trying to do is utilise the sentencing bill, which is currently passing through Parliament to try and get some alternatives in legislation to fixed term recall. So, in an ideal world we would like to see there be many more steps available for probation officers to take before it gets to the point of needing a fixed term recall. So, for instance, could we use community orders to both try and kind of punish noncompliance whilst also not hugely detrimenting the rehabilitative journey of the individual. So yeah, together we’re hoping to kind of shift the focus away from fixed term recall and the focus away from custody in general, which we know, and the government has kind of repeatedly acknowledged, is often not the best course of action for people who are leading these very kind of troubled lives and turning to crime. 

Stella Tsantekidou 

Thank you, Miranda. To conclude, what I would like you to do is I want you to recap, what do you think are some of the alternatives to fixed term recall? And how do you think charities like Catch22 and other organisations campaigning on this issue should frame these alternatives to convince politicians and the public, I guess, because the politicians are looking at the public, to reform fixed term recall? 

Miranda Shanks 

Yeah, absolutely. I think that there’s a range of alternatives that can be taken. What we would say is that, in all possible circumstances, people should be diverted away from custody because there’s so much evidence that custody, particularly for short term stints, stints in custody, evidence that that doesn’t work. So, we would always advocate for a community alternative to noncompliance, so for example a community order. The politician response to that would of course be well, you know, if this individual isn’t manageable in the community, how would a community order act to, you know, mitigate their risk? So, what I personally think the alternative should be is that we should be identifying these individuals much, much earlier on, and we know that’s doable. We know we can identify those people who are showing signs of noncompliance and indicating that they perhaps need a little bit of extra support when they’re out in the community. And I think really what we should be doing is identifying those people early on and then offering them a much more intensive, wrap around, holistic support package whereby we really support them to understand their license conditions, to participate actively in their license conditions, but we also support them in the areas that are going to help them to comply with those license conditions, so accommodation, for example, employment, you know. We have mentors go with them to probation sessions to make sure that they are, you know attending and they are keeping in regular contact with their probation officer. We need to be doing this much earlier on before it gets to the stage of needing to send someone back to custody. And we know at Catch22 that’s possible because we’ve delivered a service that does exactly that, that had very, very impressive outcomes in minimising the rate of fixed term recall.  

So yeah, my opinion is that we’re seeing this from the wrong perspective. We’re letting people get to the point where we have to put them in custody because there’s no other option and really, we need to be acting very much upstream of that. 

Stella Tsantekidou 

Here, here. Miranda Shanks, thank you so much, I think that’s all we have time for today, but thank you so much. This was brilliant.