Research Summary3/10
The Evidence and Analysis
Unit of the Office for Criminal
Justice Reform exists to
improve policy making,
Community Payback and local criminal
justice engagement initiatives:
public perceptions and awareness
decision taking and practice
in support of the Ministry of
Louise Moore, Annabelle Phillips and Katya Kostadintcheva
Justice purpose and aims
to provide the public and
Parliament with information
necessary for informed debate
and to publish information for
future use.
Improving public confidence in the Criminal Justice System (CJS) is a key government
priority. The 2008 review by Louise Casey ‘Engaging Communities in Fighting Crime’
suggests that public confidence in the CJS may be linked to the visibility of justice, and
to how the CJS informs and engages with the public. At a local level, a range of work
is underway to ensure the public recognise CJS services. Following publication of
the ‘Engaging Communities in Criminal Justice’ Green Paper in April 2009, a number
of new measures have been introduced which are intended to give communities a
greater say in the way justice is delivered at a local level.
The current piece of exploratory research looked at the public response primarily to
local Community Payback projects, but also to four criminal justice initiatives designed
to engage communities in criminal justice: Community Prosecutors, Community
Impact Statements, Citizens’ Panels, and Community Justice Teams.
Key points
• Over half of respondents living in the immediate vicinity of a local Community
Payback project had seen or heard about the local project.
• General awareness of Community Payback was higher than for the specific
•
© Crown copyright 2010
Extracts from this document
•
may be reproduced for
non-commercial purposes
on condition that the source
is acknowledged.
•
First published March 2010
ISBN 978 1 84099 381 3
Contact info:
•
[email protected]
•
The views expressed in
this Research Summary
are those of the authors,
not necessarily those of
the Ministry of Justice
(nor do they reflect
Government policy)
•
local Community Payback initiatives (three-quarters of respondents across the
four Pioneer Areas were aware of the term Community Payback). Residents
across the four Pioneer Areas also showed a good level of basic understanding
of the term ‘Community Payback’.
The research suggested awareness and reactions to local Community Payback
projects were affected by the location, duration and type of work undertaken, as
well as communications.
Changes implemented as a result of the Casey Review appeared to have
helped make Community Payback work visible with the Orange jackets worn by
offenders being cited as the most common reason for the public identifying local
projects as Community Payback.
Few respondents were aware of the opportunity to nominate Community
Payback work. They were, however, generally very positive about the possibility
of nominating schemes and further efforts to more widely publicise the
nomination of projects may be beneficial.
Residents were generally favourable to the Community Payback approach and
work being undertaken in their area, and were most supportive of offenders
doing outdoor manual work cleaning or repairing public spaces.
Communications, such as leaflets, may help clear up misconceptions and allay
concerns, including details of the supervision of schemes.
Perhaps not surprisingly, given the early stages of implementation, awareness
of the four criminal justice initiatives was low, although residents across the
four Pioneer Areas supported the approaches and efforts to give communities a
greater say in the way justice is delivered.
A multi-method approach was employed in the
current research which was concerned with
providing an early assessment (rather than an
outcome evaluation) in four Pioneer Areas,1 of how
such initiatives were delivered on the ground, public
awareness and perceptions of these projects, and
their expected scope for improving confidence in the
CJS. The five initiatives were as follows:
Community Prosecutors will engage more
with local communities to ensure local
priorities inform decision-making by the Crown
Prosecution Service.
• Community Impact Statements: a report
completed by the police, in short, standard
format that is intended to inform decisions made
by practitioners and aims to put an offence into
the wider context in which it was committed,
detailing its effects on the community.
• Community Payback: compulsory work in
the community as part of a court sentence,
previously ‘community service’/‘community
punishment’, was relabelled ‘Community
Payback’ in 2005 to increase public
awareness. Following recommendations in
Louise Casey’s review, unpaid work of this kind
is now consistently referred to as Community
Payback (the new term was not always used
following its introduction in 2005), and a formal
nomination process has been put in place
allowing members of the public to suggest
projects for consideration. In addition, from
December 2008, it was expected that the work
would be carried out in high-visibility orange
jackets with ‘Community Payback’ written on
the front and back.2 The fundamental principles
of Community Payback are that: i) it is a
sentence of the court and, thus, a punishment;
ii) it does not replace paid employment; and iii)
it makes offenders pay back to communities in
a constructive and demanding way.
• Community Justice Teams: bring together
the different parts of the CJS, for example,
the police, the courts and probation, to share
information about community issues and
work together with the public in a local area
to address local problems with anti-social and
criminal behaviour.
Approach
The exploratory research examined public awareness
of and responses to Community Payback projects
and four criminal justice initiatives in four Pioneer
Areas (Hull, Liverpool, Nottingham and Sandwell).
These areas were selected as they were known to be
undertaking work and communications on Community
Payback. While the ability to generalise from these
results will be limited, they may be applicable to other
Pioneer Areas where schemes are up and running,
and operating in similar contexts.
• Citizens’ Panels/Community Payback
Awareness of four specific Community Payback projects
(one in each Pioneer Area) was assessed. These
projects were typical examples of visible Community
Payback work rather than the most high-profile projects
in each of the areas. All involved group activity carried
out in residential areas, and covered a range of tasks
from clearing leaves to painting recreation grounds.
Citizens’ Panels: introduced to give local
people a say on how offenders on Community
Payback schemes repay the community for
their crimes. The panels enable members
of the public to nominate or propose work
projects for offenders at public meetings.
• Community Prosecutors: introduced to
A summary of the Community Payback projects can
be found in Table 1.
strengthen community engagement activity,
1
2
The Neighbourhood Crime and Justice Group in the Home
Office fund and work in partnership with 60 ‘Pioneer Area’
Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships. These areas,
which are coterminous geographically with local authorities,
were selected according to their ranking on a number of
Police Force Area and local authority measures including
British Crime Survey and Place Survey data relating to deprivation and public attitudes towards crime.
Distinctive clothing is not to be worn by 16/17-year-olds and
those subject to Enforcement Orders under the Children
and Adoption Act 2006. It is also not worn if there is a
potential risk to the public, staff or offenders, or if there is a
justifiable objection from the beneficiary of the work.
Although the different projects were not directly
comparable (including differing types of work, areas,
and time periods), the combination of projects
allowed perceptions of a wide range of Community
Payback work to be explored.3 Each of the four
3
2
Further follow-up research is currently underway in one
Pioneer Area to examine immediate perceptions of the
public to a Community Payback project in a non-residential,
town centre location.
Table 1
Community Payback projects for each of the four Pioneer Areas
Hull
Liverpool
Nottingham
Sandwell
Work
undertaken
Removing fly
tipping and clearing
overgrown hedges
Tidying common land Painting recreation
e.g. tree removal,
ground railings
painting fences
Clearing leaves/
overgrown areas/
litter
Duration of
work
One-off job lasting
one day
Four months
Two days
Three days
Area
Residential estate of
terraced and semidetached houses
Residential estate
including blocks of
flats
Recreation ground
in residential area of
flats
Other
criminal
justice
• Citizens’
• Citizens’
• Citizens’
Walkway in residential
area of semidetached houses and
blocks of flats
engagement
initiatives in
area
•
•
•
Panels
Community Impact
Statements
Community
Justice Team
Community
Prosecutors
•
•
•
Panels
Community Impact
Statements
Community
Justice Team
Community
Prosecutors
Pioneer Areas had also distributed leaflets to local
houses before or after work was completed. In three
areas, these referred to local Community Payback
schemes, while, in Hull, they referred to the Justice
Seen, Justice Done approach.
•
•
• Citizens’
•
•
Panels
Community Impact
Statements
Community
Prosecutors
2. An on the street survey with a purposive sample
of passers-by in the immediate vicinity of the
Community Payback projects (i.e. people seeing
the projects) to assess their immediate reaction to
Community Payback work, what they thought was
happening and how the activity made them feel.5
A multi-method approach was taken to allow public
perceptions of local initiatives to be examined from
several different angles. The combination of quantitative
and qualitative methods allowed for the triangulation
of research findings, and an assessment to be made
of how far messages on criminal justice activities were
communicated beyond the location where work was
undertaken, and the rationale for public perceptions to
be explored. The following methods were employed in
each of the four Pioneer Areas.
3. A local-authority-wide random-digit-dialling
telephone survey of adults aged 18 or over,
including a broader range of questions than
outlined for the household survey, examining
awareness of the local Community Payback
projects, national Community Payback work
and views on the other criminal justice initiatives
across the wider Pioneer Area.6
The sample sizes achieved for each of the Pioneer
Areas are shown in Table 2. The data presented in
this report are unweighted due to the small sample
sizes (and the lack of available population data for
the household and in-street elements). The results
therefore reflect the views of those interviewed
rather than the wider population in these areas.
1.A small-scale household survey with a random
sample of adults (aged 18 or over) in the
immediate vicinity of the Community Payback
projects who may have received leaflets/other
communications. The survey included detailed
questions about the information members of the
public received about the local project, whether
they had seen local projects or heard about them,
and their views on such information/activities.4
4
•
Panels
Community Impact
Statements
Community
Justice Team
Community
Prosecutors
An adjusted response rate of 58% was achieved across the
four areas. The unadjusted response rate for the survey
was 55%. The adjusted response rate is based on excluding ineligible property (codes included are property vacant,
property derelict, property demolished, non-residential
property and property not found) from the calculations.
5
6
3
The response rate for this survey was not recorded.
An adjusted response rate of 18% across areas was
achieved. An adjustment was made for those individuals who were ineligible to take part in the survey (e.g. the
telephone number was for a postcode outside of the local
authority).
Table 2 Interviews conducted by method across four Pioneer Areas
Household survey
Street interview
RDD telephone survey
Hull
63
24
323
Liverpool
53
10
281
4. Four focus groups were also conducted in
Nottingham, involving 32 members of the public,
to further explore perceptions of Community
Payback and the four criminal justice engagement
initiatives, the potential to impact on confidence,
and preferences on communications about such
activities.7
Nottingham
49
25
158
Sandwell
57
19
209
Overall
222
78
971
Community Payback project of some kind (other than
the specific local project) than in the other Pioneer
Areas. It is likely that the greater number of shorterterm projects taking place in differing locations in this
area provided more opportunity for members of the
public to see work in action. A higher proportion of
respondents in this area was also aware of the ability
to nominate work, and appeared more likely to do so.
Results
A slightly different pattern of awareness and recall
was observed for Sandwell and Nottingham where
the specific local work lasted two to three days
and there were a number of other projects in the
surrounding large residential areas. Residents
in these two areas recorded similar levels of
awareness of the local project to Hull, but their recall
of Community Payback in the wider local authority
area was comparable to that in Liverpool.
Awareness of the local projects
Just over half of respondents (completing the
household survey) living in the immediate vicinity of
a local Community Payback project reported having
seen the work being undertaken, suggesting projects
are ‘visible’ locally, but only half of those who had seen
or heard about the project were aware that the work
was being undertaken by offenders on Community
Payback. This suggests that further work may be
needed to link the local projects with the Community
Payback brand. Those who were aware that the local
projects involved offenders on Community Payback
were most likely to recognise the work from the highvisibility jackets.8 As might be expected, awareness
was lower among those living further away from the
project with around one in five being aware of the
projects across the wider Pioneer Areas.
Just over one-third of residents living in the proximity
of a local project who had heard of Community
Payback had received information about the project:
leaflets were the source most likely to be cited
by local residents. Those who were aware of the
projects were generally positive about the impact
on the local area and on the community (88% of all
respondents to the household survey agreed that the
work had improved the look of the local area). They
were also broadly favourable to Community Payback
as a type of punishment, and towards offenders
undertaking such work in their local area.
Awareness of the specific local project was found to
vary across areas, which suggests that the scope for
impact may vary depending on the delivery model
employed for Community Payback initiatives in
residential areas. Residents in Liverpool were more
likely to recall having seen the project/heard about it
across all surveys. The higher level of recall in this
area may be attributable to the longer-term nature of
this project which involved several initiatives taking
place over a period of several months on one estate.
By contrast, residents across the wider local authority
in Hull were much more likely to have seen a
7
8
Awareness of the wider Community Payback
scheme
Across all surveys over two-thirds of respondents stated
that they had heard of Community Payback (Table 3
shows the proportion across the four areas for the localauthority-wide survey). This mirrors previous national
findings from Home Office surveys9 and suggests that
the term is understood by the majority of the public. The
local-authority-wide survey suggested that members
of the public most commonly heard about Community
Payback from the media. When asked about the best
form of communication, leaflets through the door and
local television were cited as being most popular.
Focus groups consisted of individuals recruited from i) the
household survey; and ii) a new exercise in the vicinity of the
local project using a questionnaire to establish attitudes and
views towards Community Payback. This ensured those with
differing levels of awareness were included in the groups.
When asked what made them think the local work was
Community Payback, 27 of the 50 residents in the
household survey selected either ‘I recognised the orange
jackets’ or ‘Community Payback written on their backs’ from
the response options available.
9
4
See Justice Seen, Justice Done Tracker Survey. The corresponding figure from the Tracker in December 2009 was 75%.
Table 3 Proportion of respondents across four Pioneer Areas who reported that
they had heard of Community Payback
Pioneer Area
Overall
Hull
Liverpool
Nottingham
Sandwell
971
323
281
158
209
Yes
76%
78%
75%
76%
73%
No
24%
22%
24%
24%
26%
1%
*
1%
0%
*
Base size
Don’t know
* denotes less than 0.5%.
that the formal nomination approach was potentially
an important feature of the initiative as it offered
local communities an opportunity to be involved
in decision-making and to feel able to make a
difference. Participants were extremely positive
about the approach, referred to it without prompting
and greatly valued the opportunity it provided.
Responses to the household and local authority
surveys also suggested that respondents had a
good general understanding of the term ‘Community
Payback’ and were aware that it involved offenders
carrying out unpaid work in the community (92%
and 95% respectively of those who had heard
of Community Payback across areas). However,
members of the public showed less knowledge
of the specific details of the initiative and raised
some concerns about how many hours offenders
do each day, the type of offenders given this type
of sentence, the impact on re-offending rates, the
consequences of not turning up for work, and levels
of supervision. For example:
“The old people in the community who need jobs
doing, they can’t afford it… If they can get in touch
with somebody and say my garden’s a bit of a
mess… and let somebody come down and do it…
at least (the offenders) are putting something in.”
Awareness of local criminal justice engagement
initiatives
As might be expected given the early stages of
implementation, only a small proportion (between
one in five and one in ten) of residents across the
four Pioneer Areas stated that they were aware
of the local criminal justice initiatives. Community
Justice Teams were most well known with almost
one in five respondents in the local-authoritywide survey stating that they were aware of the
approach. The higher level of recall for this initiative
may be attributable to the longer-term operation
of community justice initiatives.10 Alternatively,
people may be getting confused with wider use
of the ‘community justice’ term. The low levels of
awareness reported for the Citizens’ Panels further
reinforce findings regarding the lack of awareness
of the nominations element of the Community
Payback scheme. Support for the four initiatives was
generally high amongst those interviewed across the
four Pioneer Areas.
“It worried me as I passed as they did not seem to
be supervised.”
As noted above, high-visibility jackets were the most
commonly listed means of identifying Community
Payback by respondents in the household survey.
Members of the public expressed differing views
about the use of the jackets, however. While some
residents in the discussion groups felt that the
jackets would deter offenders from committing
further crime, others did not agree with the use of
jackets to distinguish offenders.
“As I’m walking past, I think, if I do something
wrong, I’m going to have to wear that.”
“I don’t agree with the name on the back. I just
think it ought to be blank. It causes humiliation.”
Few respondents were aware of opportunities
to formally nominate Community Payback work.
Across areas, 87% of respondents to the local
authority survey were unaware or answered ‘don’t
know’ when asked whether local residents could
suggest a project (83% in Hull, 93% in Liverpool,
85% in Nottingham, and 89% in Sandwell). Even
fewer respondents had made a suggestion (only 2%
across areas in the wider local authority survey).
Evidence from the discussion groups suggested
10
5
There have, for instance, been three prior research publications relating to the North Liverpool Community Justice
Centre (see McKenna, 2007; Llewellyn-Thomas and Prior,
2007; and Joliffe and Farrington, 2009).
Over half of respondents to the wider local authority
survey agreed that hearing about all five initiatives
had increased their confidence in the CJS. However,
there were some concerns at the discussion groups,
for example, that the initiatives would not result in
change (due to beliefs that local police did not listen
to or act on residents’ complaints), and that they
would not be properly embedded in the CJS or last
for long.
Perceived scope for improving confidence in the
CJS
Analysis of both the household and wider local
authority surveys showed that residents were
broadly favourable towards Community Payback
(76% and 73% respectively). The street survey
and discussion groups also supported this finding,
highlighting benefits to the community as one of
the most positive outcomes of the approach. For
example:
Conclusions and implications
“It’s very good. They’ve cleaned up the area of
rubbish and leaves outside my house.”
The exploratory piece of research outlined here
suggests that the changes to Community Payback
implemented following the Casey Review have gone
some way to making community sentences more
visible, with members of the public across the four
Pioneer Areas showing awareness and a general
understanding of the Community Payback brand,
and citing the orange jackets as key identifiers of
such work. The public are less well informed about
the details of local projects, however, and further
efforts may be needed to publicise the formal public
nomination element of the approach. Whilst few
residents had actually nominated projects, this
research suggests that simply knowing that it is
possible to make a suggestion may improve public
perceptions of the CJS.
A large proportion of respondents completing the
household survey felt unable to assess the likely
impact of Community Payback on their levels of
confidence in the fairness and effectiveness of
the CJS (around 50% and 40% respectively were
unable to give a response either way or answered
‘don’t know’). Around one in three respondents
agreed that hearing or seeing Community Payback
had increased their confidence that the CJS was
effective (32%) and/or fair (27%).
Among those who were able to assess the likely
impact on confidence, the main reasons highlighted
for increased confidence were the general message
that something was being done, the perceived
benefits to the community, and the belief that the
punishment was appropriate for minor crimes.
Reasons cited for confidence not increasing were
perceptions that Community Payback was not a
tough enough punishment, not an effective deterrent
or not delivering justice to victims. Community
Payback is not normally used to make direct
reparation to victims. The intention that offenders
are provided with the opportunity to make indirect
reparation to the community may therefore need to
be clarified.
There are likely to be variations in awareness
and reactions to local Community Payback work
depending on the type of delivery model employed.
Locally focused, longer-term residential projects
conveyed positive perceptions and attitudes within
the local vicinity of the project. Whilst rotating oneday projects throughout the local authority resulted
in more individuals seeing Community Payback
work across the Pioneer Area, and were also linked
to greater awareness of the nomination process.
The reduction in knowledge for those living further
away from projects emphasises the need for a
range of activity and work across the local area
in order to maximise awareness. The concerns
raised by members of the public also show the
need to consider the likely impact the practicalities
of Community Payback (e.g. length and timing
of breaks, and the duration and location of work)
can have on public perceptions and the visibility of
the approach. The research outlined in this report
focuses on awareness and reactions to residential
approaches only, and it is possible that responses to
projects in town/city-centre based or rural locations
may differ.
A possible explanation for the difficulties in
assessing impact on confidence, emerging from
the discussion groups, was that residents may not
directly relate Community Payback to the CJS or
see it as a new initiative, given its grounding in
community sentences/unpaid work. For example:
“I knew about it for a long time … It’s just always
been there to me so it’s just the norm, basically.”
6
The formal communications produced in relation to
Community Payback appeared to assist with raising
the profile of the initiative, with leaflets being cited as
the most effective form of communication. Further
information could help to clear up misconceptions
and to explain the finer details of the approach,
however, including information on how many
hours offenders work each day, the type of work
undertaken, the consequences of not turning up,
the impact on rates of re-offending, and the level of
supervision provided to offenders carrying out such
work. The length of the working day, enforcement
and levels of supervision are all prescribed through
national standards. It is a requirement, for instance,
that members of the public should be able to
distinguish offenders from supervisors and it needs
to be communicated to the public that offenders
are closely supervised. While Community Payback
can be employed for a wide range of offences, it
may also be worthwhile reassuring members of the
public that their safety is paramount in the delivery of
Community Payback, and, before being allocated to
work projects, offenders on Community Payback are
required to be subject to a rigorous risk assessment.
In terms of wider links with the CJS, Community
Payback Citizens’ Panels, which are now operating
in 30 Pioneer Areas, may provide an opportunity
to publicise a clear relationship with other parts of
the CJS, given that the Panels are often linked to
neighbourhood policing meetings.
References
Casey, L. (2008) Engaging Communities in Fighting
Crime: A review by Louise Casey. Available:
http://cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/corp/
assets/publications/crime/cc_full_report.pdf.
Green Paper (2009) Engaging Communities in
Criminal Justice. London: Crown.
Joliffe, D. and Farrington, D.P. (2009) Initial
evaluation of reconviction rates in Community
Justice Initiatives. Ministry of Justice Research
Summary 9/09.
Llewellyn-Thomas, S and Prior, G. (2007) North
Liverpool Community Justice Centre: Survey of local
residents. Ministry of Justice Research Series 13/07.
McKenna, K. (2007) Evaluation of the North
Liverpool Community Justice Centre. Ministry of
Justice Research Series 12/07.
The four local criminal justice initiatives emerging
from the ‘Engaging Communities in Criminal Justice’
Green Paper had not been fully implemented at
the time this research was conducted. Therefore,
it is not surprising that few members of the public
were aware of such initiatives. The research shows
general support for efforts to give communities a
greater say in the way justice is delivered at a local
level, and that it is important that these approaches
are seen to be fully implemented and sustained.
7