Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:29 pm
Time: 8:29 pm
Results for alternatives to incarcerations
5 results foundAuthor: France. Ministry of Justice Title: Parole groups for perpetrators of domestic violence introduced in the judicial district of the Tribunal de Grande Instance [Regional Court] of Mulhouse de Summary: As part of its involvement in the STARR project, from October 2010 to June 2011 the Ministere de la Justice et des Libertes undertook a research project on a system to combat recidivism in the area of domestic violence through probation measures. This research is, therefore, in response to the objective set out by the project: to identify and to share best practices applied within the European Union in order to effectively combat recidivism in three areas: - alcohol and drug addiction - juvenile crime - domestic violence In May 2010 the service des affaires europeennes et internationales (SAEI) of the ministere de la Justice et des libertes approached the direction de l'administration penitentiaire (DAP) [Penitentiar Administration Department], for it to develop a system to combat recidivism in the area of domestic violence implemented by its services de probation et d'insertion penitentiaire (SPIP) [probation and penintentiary integration departments]. This system was conspicuous through its innovative character, particularly the methodological tools applied. Following this approach the DAP reoriented the SAEI towards a system developed from the Mulhouse SPIP initiative, in partnership with the Accord68 association, involving the development of parole groups for the perpetrators of domestic violence. These parole groups were formed within recidivism prevention programmes (RPP) developed since the end of December 2007 by the DAP which represent a procedure for 'collective responsibility in the form of parole groups, the objective of which is to work on the development of the act and the conditions for its non-reiteration'. The objective of this study is to reproduce the experience of the parole groups and to describe their operation. Its conclusions are aimed at all the STARR project's partners but also at all Member States of the European Union interested in this system. They will also allow professionals in the judicial system in France to have access to 'feedback' on a system for the combat of recidivism. From 24 to 26 November 2010 the Ministere de la Justice et des Libertes also organised an international seminar devoted to domestic violence. Magistrats, experts, universities, representatives from the associative and medical sector from different European countries were also able to exchange information about the various existing systems within this field over three days. Details: Paris: Ministry of Justice, 2013(?). 44p. Source: Internet Resource: European Project STARR: Accessed October 27, 2014 at: http://www.starr-probation.org/uploaded_files/Rep%20STARR%20DV%20E.pdf Year: 2013 Country: France URL: http://www.starr-probation.org/uploaded_files/Rep%20STARR%20DV%20E.pdf Shelf Number: 133824 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationsDomestic Violence (France)ParoleParoleesRecidivism |
Author: Viglione, Jill E. Title: Bridging the Research/Practice Gap: Street-level Decision Making and Historical Influences Related to Use of Evidence-based Practices in Adult Probation Summary: Growing empirical research finds that a correctional system devoted to punishment is ineffective and can actually produce criminogenic effects (Nagin, Cullen & Johnson, 2009). As a result, many justice organizations, including probation, are encouraging managers and staff to adopt evidence-based practices (EBPs)--practices supported by scientific evidence, such as validated risk and needs assessments, motivational interviewing, and cognitive-behavioral therapies. Current research finds that when used appropriately, evidenced-based, rehabilitative interventions are effective at reducing recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 2010) and improving overall probation success (Taxman, 2008). Despite this push, justice organizations are often slow to adopt and implement effective practices. Implementation of EBPs falls heavily on street-level workers, like probation officers (POs) as they adopt/adapt and implement policy and practice changes by incorporating them into routines and decisions. Using a mixed method approach (ethnography and surveys), this study builds upon traditional street-level decision-making literature, but broadens the scope of inquiry by critically examining how POs understand, define and adapt new practices to their existing organizational routines. Further, this dissertation examines the conditions under which POs make adaptations to policy and the role that organizational culture and the history of the organization plays in shaping adaptation decisions, which ultimately play a critical role in the way in which POs carry out their job and policies designed to improve probation practice and outcomes. Details: Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, 2015. 314p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed July 25, 2016 at: http://digilib.gmu.edu/xmlui/handle/1920/9644 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://digilib.gmu.edu/xmlui/handle/1920/9644 Shelf Number: 139836 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationsEvidence-Based Practices Probation Probationers |
Author: Thorburn, Hamish Title: Trends in conditional discharges in NSW Local Courts: 2004-2015 Summary: Courts are increasingly choosing to give offenders a section 10(1)b bond rather than fine them according to new research by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR). A 10(1)b bond is one of the least severe penalties a court can impose on an offender. Offenders given a section 10(1)b bond are released without conviction on condition that they enter into a good behaviour bond. Breach of a bond may result in resentencing for the original offence. BOCSAR examined the penalties imposed by the NSW Local Courts between January 2004 and September 2015 for assault, drug, weapons, property damage and traffic offences. These offences account for around 80 per cent of all section 10(1)b bonds. Between January 2004 and September 2015, the percentage of offenders in these categories receiving a section 10(1)b bond rose from 15.2 per cent to 23.6 per cent. Over the same period the proportion of fines being imposed by the Local Court for the same offences fell from 66 per cent to 55.9 per cent; almost perfectly matching the increase in the use of section 10(1)b bonds. The growth in the use of section 10(1)b bonds remained significant even after controlling for changes in offender characteristics such as Indigenous status, gender, level of disadvantage, age, remoteness of residence, number of concurrent offences and prior criminal record. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2016. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, no. 196: Accessed September 15, 2016 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/Report-2016-Trends-in-conditional-discharges-cjb196.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/Report-2016-Trends-in-conditional-discharges-cjb196.pdf Shelf Number: 147882 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationsConditional DischargeCriminal CourtsDrug OffendersSentencing |
Author: Lurigio, Arthur Title: A Statewide Examination of Mental Health Courts in Illinois: Program Characteristics and Operations Summary: Background Mental Health Courts (MHCs) are designed to serve the challenging, multifarious, and extensive service needs of people with serious mental illness (PSMI). The current report describes the findings of an evaluation of MHCs in Illinois. First implemented nearly 20 years ago, MHCs provide treatment and programming in comprehensive case management strategies, which draw on permanent partnerships with community-based agencies and a wealth of providers through a brokered network of interventions. Most employ a team approach to supervision with dedicated stakeholders (prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers, mental health professionals), individualized treatment plans, voluntary and informed participation, specialized dockets and caseloads, and highly involved and proactive judges who preside over frequent court hearings and non-adversarial proceedings. Satisfactory program completion is defined by predetermined criteria. Clients are motivated to succeed by the threat of sanctions and the promise of rewards. Methods The current evaluation of Illinois’ MHCs was performed in stages with overlapping data collection procedures. The first phase of the research was intended to yield a snapshot of MHC programs in the state: jurisdictions in the planning stages of MHC implementation, those with operational programs, and those still deciding whether an MHC was feasible or warranted in terms of clients’ needs for services and the availability of local resources to support court operations and client interventions. All 23 court jurisdictions in Illinois were contacted for the screener survey. Given the critical role of services in client recovery and adjustment, the second stage of the evaluation involved a telephone survey of major providers in a wide variety of service domains. The next stages of the evaluation involved on-site triangulating data collection procedures in the 9 operational MHCs: court observations, focus groups with program staff members, and archival analyses. Client interviews and recidivism analyses were also performed in three programs, which were carefully selected for this purpose due to the distinctive nature of their location, size, program structure, and client population. Major Findings The Landscape: In spring 2010, 19 of the state’s 23 court circuits participated in the screener survey. At the time of the study, 6 courts reported no plans for MHC implementation, 6 were in the planning process to establish one, and 9 had operational programs. From spring 2010 to spring 2014, the number of operational MHCs grew from 9 to 21, an increase of 133%. At the time of the screener survey, the 9 operational MHCs served a total of 302 participants; 46% were women. African Americans were overrepresented among participants relative to the local population, whereas Latinos (measured as ethnicity) were underrepresented. Jurisdictions with no or little interest in launching an MHC were smaller and rural in composition. Courts in rural areas of the state served smaller populations, and, therefore, they had fewer PSMI and correspondingly fewer resources to meet their treatment needs. Unlike respondents who voiced no plans for an MHC, those in the planning process were all located in mostly non-rural large court circuits and counties. Overall, the planning processes in all counties were lengthy, deliberate, and collaborative. In some instances, the planning teams sought support and consultation from colleagues in their own or other criminal court systems or from MHC experts in the state. The first MHCs in Illinois were implemented in 2004, and the most recent one in the study period was implemented in 2008. Most of the jurisdictions with operational MHCs actually performed a formal needs assessment before launching their programs, and they consulted with experts to help design the programs. All of the jurisdictions involved law enforcement administrators in the planning and creation phases of their MHC programs. MHC Elements and Staffing: Most Illinois MHCs were largely characterized by the 10 elements of an MHC as defined by the Council of State Governments. These included: broad stakeholder planning and administration of the program; the selection of target populations that address public safety and the link between mental illness criminal involvements; statutory exclusions of potential participants based on charges and diagnosis; terms of participation that include mandatory supervision and mental health treatment; voluntary participation and informed choice; hybrid team approaches to case management with judges, attorneys, probation officers, mental health professionals, and TASC case managers who provided supervisory and brokered treatment services; regular court hearings and phased supervision; and a wide range of treatment and service options to address clinical and habilitation needs. The roles and responsibilities of MHC personnel were generally circumscribed; however, MHC staff often discussed working together and being flexible in order to “get things done” for clients (coalescing around client needs). Staff members frequently mentioned teamwork as the key component of program and client success, and it was consistently apparent at case staffings. MHC Services: MHCs provided a panoply of services to clients, which ranged from case management and crisis intervention to in-and out-patient treatments in the areas of mental health and substance abuse programming and aftercare. Nearly all MHCs offered clients partial (day) hospitalization, and more than half offered them inpatient hospitalization for substance use disorders and addictions. All the MHCs reported the implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in their programs. The most common EBPs were, in descending order: cognitive behavioral therapy, motivational interviewing, integrative dual disorder treatment, and supportive employment. The least common EBPs were, in descending order: assertive community treatment and illness management and recovery. The most serious challenge to MHCs is the paucity of resources and services, especially in the mental health arena. Recidivism Analyses: Among the three counties selected for an investigation of recidivism, 31% of participants were rearrested for a felony only, while half were rearrested for a felony or misdemeanor offense. The highest number of rearrests occurred within the first year of postMHC entry. Half were rearrested during probation supervision and nearly 40% after probation release (not mutually exclusive groups). These results compare somewhat favorably with those reported in a statewide study of probationers, which found that 38% were rearrested during probation and 39% were rearrested after discharge from probation (not mutually exclusive groups) (cf., Adams, Bostwick, & Campbell, 2011). Clients’ Perceptions: The overwhelming majority of clients reported that their participation in the program benefitted them in several ways. For example, respondents indicated that the program improved their lives by fostering both general and specific improvements in their well-being and functioning. For example, respondents stated that the program encouraged and supported changes that helped them “become better persons” and “get [their lives] back together.” These types of global betterments in their lives were the most commonly reported benefits of MHC participation and are perhaps related to elevations in self-efficacy and selfesteem, as well as alleviations in symptoms. Self-reported specific improvements related to participation in MHC fell mostly into two areas: accessibility to psychiatric care and diversion from incarceration. Specifically, respondents noted that MHC afforded them with the medications and treatments needed to facilitate their recovery from chronic mental illness. In addition, many clients recognized that participation in MHC was a desirable alternative to jail or prison. Details: Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2015. 242p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2017 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/MHC_Report_1015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/MHC_Report_1015.pdf Shelf Number: 146004 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationsMental Health CourtsMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Jesuit Refugee Service Europe Title: From Deprivation to Liberty: Alternatives to detention in Belgium, Germany and the United Kingdom Summary: The negative effects of detention upon various categories of migrants - asylum seekers, the undocumented, families, minors - has been observed and well documented by medical researchers, non-governmental organisations and even policymakers and politicians. Our 2010 study found that detention systematically deteriorates the physical and mental condition of nearly everyone who experiences it. Symptoms related to depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder are common. Prolonged detention deepens the severity of these symptoms, but they are already noticeable in the first weeks of detainment. The financial cost of detention, together with the severe damage it inflicts on migrants, begs a fundamental question: is detention truly worth implementing, considering all of its associated harms? Better yet is the question: are there not more cost-effective and humane ways for states to manage migration flows into their territories? The purpose of this study is to examine alternatives to detention in Belgium, Germany and the United Kingdom through the perspective of those who most closely experience it: migrants themselves. A good deal of research has been done on alternatives from an institutional perspective, namely that of NGOs and governments. The absence of migrant voices in these studies has had less to do with their purposeful exclusion than it has had with the difficult of finding target samples. Far too few European Union member states implement alternatives; for those who do, migrants may be understandably reluctant to speak to researchers given their vulnerable situation. And compared with interviewing migrants in closed detention facilities, it is harder to interview migrants participating in alternatives because they are usually dispersed in communities. Among the reasons we chose to conduct research in Belgium, Germany and the UK is because each has distinct and identifiable alternatives to detention. Belgium operates lieux d'hebergement for undocumented families who have been living in the country, for families who apply for asylum at the border and for families in Dublin Regulation procedures. Families are accommodated in government-designated private housing, and are attached to a case manager. Few restrictions are imposed on families, and they are provided with a range of social services, including food vouchers. We interviewed six families staying in three of the four towns where the houses are located Details: Brussels: Jesuit Refugee Service Europe, 2011. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 22, 2017 at: http://lastradainternational.org/lsidocs/from%20deprivation%20to%20liberty.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Europe URL: http://lastradainternational.org/lsidocs/from%20deprivation%20to%20liberty.pdf Shelf Number: 131734 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationsAsylum SeekersImmigrant DetentionMigrantsPrisons |