Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:54 am
Time: 11:54 am
Results for alternatives to incarceration (u.k.)
9 results foundAuthor: Halsey, Karen Title: Evaluation of the Children in Trouble Programme Summary: The Children in Trouble program is a joint project supported by the Local Government Association and the Howard League for Penal Reform and sets out to encourage, develop and showcase different approaches to reducing the use of custodial sentences for young people. The three approaches included: (1) a floating accommodation support service; (2) restorative justice; and (3) a custody panel (and fusion fostering). This evaluation documents the program's achievements and challenges through interviews with project staff, key partners and young people. These findings and the wider issues associated with the use of custody for young people are discussed in detail. Details: London: Local Government Association, 2010. 36p. Source: Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 118532 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (U.K.)Juvenile Detention (U.K.)Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)Restorative Justice (U.K.) |
Author: Hansbury, Sarah, ed. Title: Evaluation of the Intensive Alternatives to Custody Pilots Summary: The Intensive Alternatives to Custody (IAC) pilot programme ran from 2008/09 to 2010/11 to test the use of intensive community orders in diverting offenders from short-term custodial sentences. The IAC pilots enabled courts to use existing community sentencing options in new ways by combining intensive probation supervision with a mix of demanding requirements and interventions delivered by partner agencies. Seven areas were chosen to pilot the orders: Derbyshire, West Yorkshire, South Wales, Dyfed-Powys, Manchester and Salford, Merseyside, and Humberside. Each area had a degree of flexibility in terms of the approach they took, and there was an emphasis on providing an appropriate intervention package that was both demanding and purposeful, with offenders carrying out unpaid work at an accelerated rate. The pilot areas were very positive about the IAC programme, and they have each investigated ways to either mainstream provision or to expand delivery. At the time of publication, IAC provision had been rolled out and mainstreamed across Wales, while Greater Manchester Probation Trust hoped to include IAC as part of the Transforming Justice pilot which is based on justice reinvestment. This report presents the main findings from a range of research that was undertaken to examine the use of IAC orders as a viable alternative to custody, and to explore the lessons that can be learnt from the pilots. Feedback was gathered from a range of stakeholders, such as offenders, sentencers, court legal staff, project leads, project board members, mentors, offender managers, partner representatives and Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) writers. There were also observations in court and observations of offender manager contact sessions. Quantitative analysis of a range of administrative data sources was also undertaken to get a detailed profile of the individuals and the IAC orders. These sources included the Police National Computer (PNC), Offender Assessment Systems (OASys) data, Pre-Sentence Reports (PSR), and case files. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2011. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Summary 3/11: Accessed July 13, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/intensive-alt-custody-research-summary.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/intensive-alt-custody-research-summary.pdf Shelf Number: 122047 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (U.K.)Community Based Corrections |
Author: Mallender, Jacque Title: Final Report: An Economic Analysis of Alternatives to Short Term Custody Summary: The objective of this research was to generate evidence on the economic benefits of providing Intensive Alternatives to Custody (IAC order) as an alternative to short term custodial sentences. An IAC order is a comprehensive community based intervention which focuses on reducing the risk of reoffending. Typically an IAC order involves a combination of intensive supervision and a variety of requirements such as unpaid work, curfews, mandatory hours of structured activity per week, and enrolment in accredited programmes. The nature of the IAC order varies, however, between recipients and models of delivery. Practitioners of IAC orders maintain a high level of confidence in the programmes they are running and believe they make a measurable impact on reoffending. However, to date no evaluation has been done on the effect of IAC orders on reoffending. In this context, Matrix Evidence was commissioned by Make Justice Work to estimate the economic benefits of providing an IAC order in two pilot sites – Manchester and Bradford – in comparison to providing short term custodial sentences. The report then attempted to take these findings and consider what economic benefits could be generated if the IAC order were rolled out nationally. Specifically the economic benefits are estimated in terms of cost savings due to both reduced intervention costs and reduced reoffending. Details: London: Make Justice Work and Matrix Evidence, 2012. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 5, 2012 at: http://www.matrixknowledge.co.uk/Documents/Matrix%20MJW_updated%20Final%20Report_June%202012%20(2).pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.matrixknowledge.co.uk/Documents/Matrix%20MJW_updated%20Final%20Report_June%202012%20(2).pdf Shelf Number: 125475 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (U.K.)Costs of Criminal JusticeEconomic AnalysisIntensive SupervisionPrisoners |
Author: Wong, Kevin Title: Intensive Alternatives to Custody Process Evaluation of Pilots in Five Areas Summary: A qualitative process evaluation of five Intensive Alternative to Custody (IAC) pioneer areas was undertaken to assess implementation of IAC, identify approaches to implementation and capture the lessons learnt. The findings indicated that many of the persistent offenders (those with at least 29 prior convictions) targeted by pilots were positive about the IAC order. Although intensive, it provided order and stability, allowing them to move away from a criminal lifestyle. Sentencers welcomed the order as a viable alternative to custody. Probation staff and partners were equally positive about its efficacy. Only one in four IAC orders were revoked because requirements were breached, which suggests that the pilots had managed to engage many of the offenders. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2012. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Research Series 12/12: Accessed July 30, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/iac-process-evaluation-pilots-five-areas.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/iac-process-evaluation-pilots-five-areas.pdf Shelf Number: 125793 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (U.K.)Community SupervisionIntensive Community Orders |
Author: Clark, Rebecca Title: Process Evaluation of Manchester and Salford Intensive Alternatives to Custody Pilot Summary: The Intensive Alternatives to Custody (IAC) order was introduced to provide a credible alternative to a short custodial sentence. The order, based on emerging desistance and compliance theories (McNeil, 2009; Bottoms, 2002), was designed to punish and rehabilitate through the application of Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA) order requirements alongside additional services. The Manchester and Salford IAC pilot ran for two years, from April 2009 to March 2011. The order was co-designed and co-commissioned across the public, private and voluntary sectors, and thus offered the opportunity to pilot an innovative approach to local commissioning and integrated service delivery. A co-located, dedicated resource of Offender Managers (OMs) and partner agency staff operated from a site in Manchester City centre. Partner staff included employment focussed mentors (Work Solutions), a family support worker (Partners of Prisoners) and Group 4 Security (G4S) outreach staff to support compliance. The Manchester model was targeted at 18–25 year old men at risk of a short custodial sentence (often due to breach of previous community sentences). Offenders sentenced to an IAC order received a 12 month Community Order with between three and five requirements. During the first three months of the order, contact between the offender and the OM was intensive, with up to four appointments a week. These reduced over the course of the order. The requirements included: Supervision Curfew Community Payback Offending behaviour programmes Attendance centre Activity requirements (to deliver employment and victim awareness interventions, amongst others) The process evaluation of the Manchester and Salford IAC pilot was commissioned by the MoJ in April 2009.1 The key aims were to critically assess: The design and implementation of the IAC order; The process of identifying suitable offenders; The role of pre-sentence reports (PSRs); The views of court stakeholders on the viability of IAC as an alternative to short-term custody; The management and supervision of IAC offenders; The work undertaken to sustain motivation and secure compliance on the IAC order; and, The role of interagency work in the delivery of the IAC order. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2012. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Suimmary 6/12: Accessed July 30, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/process-evaluation-manchester-salford-iac-pilot.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/process-evaluation-manchester-salford-iac-pilot.pdf Shelf Number: 125794 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (U.K.)Community CorrectionsIntensive Supervision |
Author: Wong, Kevin Title: Process Evaluation of Derbyshire Intensive Alternatives to Custody Pilot Summary: The Derbyshire Intensive Alternatives to Custody pilot ran from 2008 to 2011 to test the use of intensive community orders to divert offenders from short-term custodial sentences. The pilot was delivered through dedicated Offender Managers (OMs) in Derby City, and through OMs with wider caseloads in rural Derbyshire county. IAC orders targeted offenders at risk of short-term custody and represented a repackaging of existing and new requirements, which aimed to both punish and rehabilitate. The Derbyshire IAC model consisted of five mandatory requirements: electronic curfew; twice-weekly probation supervision; intensive unpaid work; weekly mentoring contact; and monthly court reviews (for the first three months). In addition, other requirements such as Thinking Skills programmes were sometimes included along with prohibited activity and exclusions requirements.1 Derbyshire was unique among the pilots for including curfews for all IAC offenders and paid mentoring. The order was characterised by three stages, defined by levels of contact and intensity which reduced over the (normally) 12 months order. The process evaluation of the Derbyshire IAC pilot was commissioned by the MoJ in December 2008.2 The key aims were to critically assess: resourcing and staffing; the process of identifying suitable IAC offenders; the role of pre-sentence reports; views of sentencers on the viability of IAC as an alternative to short-term custody; the management and supervision of IAC offenders, including mentors, interventions and activities; and, factors influencing compliance with an IAC order; and the role of inter-agency working in the delivery of the IAC order. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2012. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Summary 7/12: Accessed July 30, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/process-evaluation-derbs-iac-pilot.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/process-evaluation-derbs-iac-pilot.pdf Shelf Number: 125795 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (U.K.)Community CorrectionsIntensive Supervision |
Author: Chana, Rajinder Title: A Local Evaluation of the Intensive Alternative to Custody Pilot in Leeds Summary: This local evaluation aimed to examine the extent to which the Intensive Alternative to Custody (IAC) pilot was implemented in Leeds, capture any issues and areas of good practice, measure whether it was fulfilling its aims, and to measure throughput, compliance, and completion levels. It also sought to capture re-offending rates. There are seven pilots nationally, each aimed at offenders who are on the cusp of custody. The Order is proposed for eligible offenders at the pre-sentence stage and sentencers can select from a range of punitive and rehabilitative requirements to create a tailored community-based intervention with intensive management. There are five enforceable weekly contacts for a minimum of the first 16 weeks. Post-16 week intensive appointments are at the offender manager’s discretion based on progress made. Thereafter, the Order reverts to a Community Order. The Leeds IAC is co-located with two voluntary partnership organisations; Crime Reduction Initiative (CRI) and Developing Initiatives Supporting Communities (DISC). Along with these and the Together Women Project, outreach work and interventions are offered alongside punitive elements such as a curfew or community payback requirement. Restorative Justice (RJ) is another element of the Order. Data was obtained from questionnaires administered to offenders during the Order; a data monitoring spreadsheet; CRAMS and OASys systems; Police re-offending systems; gatekeeping forms; and from interviews with offenders and stakeholders including the project manager. The purpose of this data collection and analysis was to answer the following questions. 1. Was the project delivered as planned? What were the barriers to delivery and how could they be overcome? 2. What are the views of project stakeholders (including offenders, their family, and victims) and how well do they think the project has been implemented? What impact do they think it may have had? 3. What are the views of offenders who fail to complete the Order? Details: Wakefield, UK: West Yorkshire Probation Trust, 2011. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2013 at: http://www.westyorksprobation.org.uk/documentlist.php?type=1&year=2011 Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.westyorksprobation.org.uk/documentlist.php?type=1&year=2011 Shelf Number: 128266 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (U.K.)Community-based CorrectionsIntensive Supervision |
Author: Ashworth, Andrew Title: What if Imprisonment were Abolished for Property Offences? Summary: As part of our 'What if?' series, Professor Andrew Ashworth, Vinerian Professor of English Law at All Souls College, Oxford University, asks 'What if imprisonment were abolished for property offences?' He argues that deprivation of liberty is a disproportionate response for an offence that deprives people of their property. The paper considers both fines and community sentences as alternative sentencing options. In essence, the paper argues for fair and proportional sentencing, which, if the proposal were adopted, would have far-reaching consequences for the penal system, and a significant impact on the size of the prison population in England and Wales. Details: London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2013. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 28, 2013 at: http://www.howardleague.org/propertyoffences/ Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.howardleague.org/propertyoffences/ Shelf Number: 131491 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (U.K.)Community Based CorrectionsFines |
Author: Centre for Social Justice Title: Sentences in the Community: Reforms to restore credibility, protect the public and cut crime Summary: Community sentences have a particularly important role in ensuring social justice. They are the most commonly used sentence for serious crimes and have the potential to be the most powerful tool for addressing the root causes of offending behaviour. By carrying out sentences in the community, rather than prison, it is far easier and cheaper to provide support that addresses underlying issues, such as drug and alcohol addiction. Yet despite community sentences' potential, they are proving largely ineffective at changing lives. A third of offenders are caught reoffending within a year of being sentenced, committing around 150,000 further crimes. Instead of stopping offending in its tracks, community sentences have become a stepping stone on the path to prison. This was highlighted by shocking Ministry of Justice figures which showed that 37,019 (35 per cent) of those sentenced to custody in 2012 had received at least five previous community sentences. It is not difficult to see why they are failing. Offenders are not held properly to account for complying with their sentence, and our main weapon against drug addiction - the drug rehabilitation requirement (DRR) - is more likely to sanction people for whether they attend meetings than whether they come off drugs. Despite clear evidence of the importance of a positive family influence in persuading offenders to leave a life of crime, families are too often shut out from the rehabilitative process. Our proposals come at a time of significant change to the way offenders are managed in the community. The probation service has drifted from providing innovative, bespoke support for offenders to a risk-adverse, box-ticking approach. Up to three-quarters of their time is spent on work not directly engaging with offenders.8 In response the Coalition Government is implementing the Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) Programme to tackle bureaucracy and introduce innovation to the delivery of probation services. This paper seeks to contribute towards the success of these reforms by setting out the current challenges facing community sentences, and presenting ideas on how to make them more effectively at reducing reoffending. The research was informed by a large number of interviews with magistrates and judges, probation staff, private and voluntary organisations delivering community sentences, and offenders themselves. The CSJ also held a roundtable of expert witnesses in late 2013, analysed official data and conducted a number of Freedom of Information requests. Community sentences need to improve if they are to have any meaningful impact on reoffending rates. The reforms set out in this paper are a roadmap for how we can make community sentences a powerful crime-fighting tool that stops offending behaviour in its tracks and keeps communities safe. Details: London: Centre for Social Justice, 2014. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 25, 2014 at: http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/UserStorage/pdf/Pdf%20reports/CSJ_Community_Sentencing_Report_WEB-final.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/UserStorage/pdf/Pdf%20reports/CSJ_Community_Sentencing_Report_WEB-final.pdf Shelf Number: 133131 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (U.K.)Community Based CorrectionsCommunity SentencesOffender Supervision |