Press Releases

Public involvement in the criminal justice systemLaura Edwards, senior research fellow democracy team

The criminal justice system is missing a trick. Public confidence is low. Public perceptions of crime rates are bleaker than the real picture. Expectations of what the service can deliver are frequently unrealistic. Yet at a time when the relationship between the public and the system is in decline, opportunities for the public to get involved are limited. Criminal justice remains a system delivered by professionals to the public. Involving the public more would lead to better service delivery, a criminal justice system owned by the public it serves and one in which they could better identify and fulfil their own responsibilities.

The last decade has seen a spurt of public involvement activity. Public service reform agendas emphasise the importance not only of customer focused services but also public involvement in decision-making. It makes common sense. Public services exist to serve the public. The notion that these services might be delivered without engaging with the communities whose needs they must meet is outdated. The public are demanding more responsive and accountable services. Public involvement offers the opportunity not just to provide information. It encourages constructive dialogue and in turn develops more trusting relationships between the public and service providers.

Public involvement is dependent on good relations between service providers and users; the customer focus element of the public service reform agenda. In its Criminal Justice Forum ippr explored the experience of being a witness where this relationship appears faulty. Witnesses can feel neglected and marginalised. The experience leaves the individual with little desire for future involvement. Improving support procedures for witnesses has value in aiding the course of justice as well as in building public confidence. It is vital for the service to get it right at these points of contact. This is as true for victims and offenders as it is for witnesses.

But public involvement is about more than good ‘customer service’. It means service providers sharing both decision-making and responsibility with the public. This is not to suggest that the public have direct control over processes or take of the system. However it is about finding appropriate opportunities to engage the public and creating more space for lay involvement. Attempts by Criminal Justice Agencies to involve the public often seem tired and unimaginative. Below three main entry points for public involvement in criminal justice are summarised:

Support and service delivery In support and service delivery roles the public might be lay magistrates, victim support volunteers, prison visitors or members of Neighbourhood Watch schemes. All activities which fit the model of active citizen. Some argue for more risk taking in this field, for example the introduction of community based crime resolution meetings where the public play a part as mediators between victim and offender.

Oversight In oversight roles the public can take on duties of inspection and evaluation. The lay visitors introduced post Scarman in 1982 who inspect police custody procedures are one example and post Macpherson, Independent Advisory Groups (IAGs) have been developed, with the aim of restoring confidence in the police amongst minority ethnic communities.

Strategy development There is also a role for the public in helping to shape the strategies within which services are delivered, for example by setting local policing priorities. The main statutory mechanism for local consultation are Police Community Consultative Groups. The body of plans on which the public must be consulted is also growing and includes Community Safety plans, Policing plans, Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership strategies and specialist plans dealing with for example youth offending or the elderly.

While there are mechanisms in place for the public to get involved in criminal justice the success of such initiatives is patchy. Many of these different entry points share the same flaws. The most striking is the tendency for involvement to be limited to a narrow section of the public. Neighbourhood Watch schemes tend not to form outside middle class leafy suburbs. Lay magistrates are predominantly white, middle class and middle aged and do not reflect the ethnic and economic diversity of the population they judge. Police Consultative Groups have largely persisted with the tired public meeting format which tends to attract a dedicated but small core group, often community representatives rather than lay people.

This is not unusual, it is easiest to reach those already vocal and engaged. But good public involvement is inclusive of a wider population. This requires different strategies, one size doesn’t fit all. It means commitment to exploring good practice from other sectors and being willing to experiment. The Government Office for the West Midlands publication ‘The active involvement of young people in developing safer communities’ is a good example. It describes a range of innovative techniques for engaging young people in the work of crime and disorder partnerships.

Another common flaw in the current menu of public involvement opportunities is lack of awareness. Crime is a close to home concern that many have personal experience of, there is an appetite to get involved. Yet research shows low awareness of what is available beyond the rather staid Neighbourhood Watch model. The answer to increasing take up of existing opportunities is more complex than simply better information and communication. Again, there is a need to be more innovative. Criminal Justice Agencies are in constant contact with a hugely diverse public audience but don’t use this as a way of involving them as anything other than victim, offender or witness. Those who’ve had experience of custody could be supported in developing skills as lay visitors to inspect police custody procedures for example. This is just one example but demonstrates the need to think more imaginatively about engaging more diverse audiences. An advert in the local paper advertising public meeting or a need for lay magistrates is not enough.

Another area of potential concern is the link between public involvement and impact. ippr has long rehearsed the mantra of good public involvement; be clear on purpose, fit method to purpose and link to decision-making. It is vital that the public know what their role is and are kept informed of progress. The criminal justice system may fall short on two fronts. First, the proliferation of ‘plans’ on which there is a need for public involvement makes it less easy to decipher where the public voice fits in decision-making. Second, the tension between centrally driven initiatives and performance targets and the desire for the public to influence local service delivery can be problematic. Ippr recommends restructuring public involvement in police plans and priorities through the establishment of a Divisional Police Board which would discuss and agree the local policing plan and monitor performance. There is certainly a need to join up and maximise the impact of current consultation arrangements.

The lack of good practice public involvement in criminal justice has repercussions for public confidence and the quality of relationships between service providers and users. Involving the public in criminal justice is more important than in any other service. The principle of shared responsibility in tackling crime is vital. Keeping the public on the periphery of the system is to the detriment of both the public and the success of the service.

This is an overview of the opportunities for public involvement in criminal justice and their flaws. What is needed now is a more systematic audit of what public involvement opportunities are currently available, how they’re working and how they could work better within the framework of good practice. This requires commitment to new ways of working and an element of risk taking. Both are vital if the public are to be inspired to become active and responsible citizens rather than disgruntled outsiders.

Laura Edwards is a senior research fellow in public involvement at ippr. In addition to public involvement policy her work involves researching public opinion on policy issues including crime, health and education.

Edwards L (2001) What role for the public in tackling crime? Public participation in the criminal justice system London: ippr

Government Office for the West Midlands CRSIU (2002) The Active Involvement of young people in developing safer communities Leicester: National Youth Agency

ippr (2001) the ippr/Guardian public involvement awards 2001 London:ippr

Neyroud P (2001) Public Participation in Policing London: ippr

Sparks C & Spencer S (2002) Them and Us? the public, offenders and the criminal justice system London:ippr

Spencer S & Stern B (2001) Reluctant Witness London:ippr