Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:58 pm
Time: 8:58 pm
Results for community orders
7 results foundAuthor: Wood, Martin Title: Offender Management Community Cohort Study (OMCCS) Baseline Technical Report Summary: The Offender Management Community Cohort Study (OMCCS) was a longitudinal study that brought together a wide range of data to describe the cohort of offenders aged 18 and over who started Community Orders between October 2009 and December 2010. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) commissioned NatCen Social Research and Get the Data (GtD) to carry out the OMCCS. The broad aims of the study were: to assess the effectiveness of interventions in reducing offending behaviour; and to evaluate aspects of offender management. In its initial conception, the OMCCS comprised three main stages: Baseline (Wave 1) – which would describe the commencement of Community Orders and offenders’ position at an early stage in their sentence; Mid-order (Wave 2) – which would describe the implementation of Community Orders, including what was delivered and to whom, and; End of Order (Wave 3) – a final stage that would explore the outcomes for the cohort, particularly in relation to breach of the Community Orders and reoffending. Although there were changes to the design as the study progressed, this remained the basic approach. This is the first of three technical reports on the OMCCS and it focuses on the baseline stage. Research design The OMCCS used a dataset based on three data sources: A longitudinal survey of a representative sample of 2,919 offenders, drawn from ten Probation Areas. This provides information on their perceptions and experiences of Community Orders, their backgrounds, attitudes and needs, and how these change over time. The first survey (the baseline survey) was carried out around three months after the start of the offender’s Community Order, with subsequent surveys carried out seven months, on average, into the sentence and following its expected end point. Central administrative records for all those offenders starting a Community Order during the period (144,407 offenders) describing the sentence received, offences and the risks and needs of offenders as assessed by practitioners. This includes: FORM 20 data detailing Community Order commencements and terminations; Offender Assessment System (OASys) data, containing details of the needs and risks that offenders present with; and Interim Accredited Programmes System (IAPS) data on offenders’ attendance on accredited programmes. Local administrative records from the same ten Probation Areas selected for the survey (covering 48,943 offenders), which describe how offender management operates and how offenders complete or breach their sentences. The survey and administrative data sources were combined to form a ‘Universal Dataset’. Structure of the report This technical report covers the baseline data collection, comprising the first survey interview and the initial round of data collection from the central and local administrative data sources. Many of the same processes were followed for the subsequent stages of the study, and further details about these later stages will be included in future technical reports on the OMCCS. Following this introductory chapter, the structure of this report is as follows: chapter 2 discusses the sample design and selection for the survey, and the coverage of the administrative data collection; chapter 3 describes the fieldwork for the face-to-face survey of offenders; chapter 4 sets out the response to the survey and the challenges faced; chapter 5 details the administrative data collection; chapter 6 deals with the weights that were developed for the survey to deal with differences in selection probabilities and to correct for non-response bias; chapter 7 describes the approach to a ‘Universal Dataset’ that brought the different data sources together for the cohort. The report does not contain results from the study; the Assessment and Sentence Planning report, which describes the characteristics of the whole cohort of offenders on Community Orders, their sentences, assessments of their needs and their sentence plans, is available on Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2013. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 18, 2013 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/206735/omccs-baseline-technical-report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/206735/omccs-baseline-technical-report.pdf Shelf Number: 129035 Keywords: Community OrdersCommunity SentencesOffender Management (U.K.)ProbationRecidivism |
Author: Cattell, Jack Title: Results from the Offender Management Community Cohort Study (OMCCS): Assessment and sentence planning Summary: This report uses the Ministry of Justice’s Offender Management Community Cohort Study (OMCCS), a longitudinal cohort study of offenders who started Community Orders between October 2009 and December 2010. This is the first, baseline, report from the study, and explores which offenders are sentenced to Community Orders, which offenders on Community Orders have their needs assessed, and what their needs are; and sentence planning and how sentences are tailored for these offenders. Community Orders, for offenders aged 18 and over, were introduced in England and Wales in 2005 to enable judges and magistrates to tailor sentences according to the particular nature of the offence and the offender. Community Orders comprise a ‘menu’ of possible requirements, such as unpaid work or treatment for drug problems, which can be imposed by the courts individually or combined.1 Offenders serving sentences in the community are assessed to identify the risk of harm that they pose to the community. A proportion of them also go through a formal process to identify the needs they have that may lead to further offending. Identifying needs associated with an offender’s risk of reoffending2 allows resources to be directed towards those needs, optimising the reduction of harm. This assessment is the first step in the National Offender Management Model (NOMM). The role and effectiveness of Community Orders have come under renewed scrutiny recently. The Ministry of Justice consultation ‘Punishment and Reform: effective community sentences’ (MoJ, 2012) proposed that there was a lack of public confidence in Community Orders that might be addressed by increasing their punitive content. This has led to changes to ensure that every Community Order contains a punitive requirement unless there are exceptional circumstances. A subsequent consultation, ‘Transforming Rehabilitation: A revolution in the way we manage offenders’ (MoJ, 2013), set out proposals for reforming 1 At the time the OMCCS was carried out there were 12 requirements. This has now been increased to 14 requirements under The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. 2 Known as ‘criminogenic’ needs; these are needs which are known to influence offending behaviour for an individual. the provision of services in the community to reduce reoffending and deliver improved value for money. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2013. 109p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series: Accessed June 21, 2013 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/206734/results-omccs.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/206734/results-omccs.pdf Shelf Number: 129036 Keywords: Community OrdersCommunity SentencesOffender Management (U.K.)ProbationRecidivismSentencing |
Author: Cattell, Jack Title: Implementation of Community Orders: Results from the Offender Manager Community Cohort Study Summary: This report uses the Ministry of Justice's (MoJ) Offender Management Community Cohort Study (OMCCS), a longitudinal cohort study of adult offenders who started Community Orders between October 2009 and December 2010. The report describes how Community Orders were implemented by exploring the way sentences were delivered and how this varied for different types of offender. The report also looks at offenders' compliance with their sentence. The findings from this report will be useful in the development of policy and practice of Community Orders and supervision in the community. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2014. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series: Accessed May 8, 2014 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/295658/implementation-of-community-orders.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/295658/implementation-of-community-orders.pdf Shelf Number: 132306 Keywords: Community OrdersCommunity SentencesOffender Management (U.K.)ProbationRecidivismSentencing |
Author: Cattell, Jack Title: Community Orders with punitive requirements: Results from the Offender Management Community Cohort Study Summary: This report uses the OMCCS to describe which offenders received punitive elements as part of a Community Order, the nature of these requirements, offenders' views and the level of compliance and breach. This found that most Community Orders contained a punitive element, with unpaid work being most common, and suggests that breach and non-compliance could be addressed through Offender Managers discussing individual needs with offenders. This report is one of a series summarising findings from the OMCCS. Other reports include details of the characteristics of the whole cohort of offenders on Community Orders and the methodology for the study. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2014. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series: Accessed May 1, 2015 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/295645/community-orders-with-punitive-requirements.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/295645/community-orders-with-punitive-requirements.pdf Shelf Number: 135450 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity OrdersCommunity Sentences (U.K.) |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Enforcement and Recall: A thematic inspection Summary: Introduction -- Good-quality case management should underpin effective decisions on enforcement and recall. We expect responsible officers to be able to assess risk of harm, risk of reoffending and individuals' needs. They should be able to plan work, implement or facilitate structured programmes of work and review the progress of that work. This should all be done in a way that is sensitive to the diverse backgrounds and needs of those under probation supervision, and that builds on identified strengths in a person's life. Evidence from effective practice and desistance theories suggests that these approaches provide the best platform for successful rehabilitation7 Our findings - Community Rehabilitation Companies Community orders and suspended sentence supervision orders Overall, the quality of offender management and consequent enforcement decision-making in our sample of community orders and suspended sentence orders was poor. Assessment was too often deficient. Plans, though timely, were not of good quality. Engagement with the individual in constructive work was insufficient in too many cases. Planned levels of contact were not always adequate to meet the individual's needs. Consequently, CRCs did not always know when enforcement was appropriate. The task of building a competent workforce was constrained by the level of resourcing, with dwindling front-line resources to manage the work. Licence recall We found better work in licence cases. We cannot be definitive about why that is, but we noted that the majority of the individuals were assessed as posing a medium risk of harm to others, and so were more likely to be allocated to an experienced member of staff at probation officer grade. We found that staff were clearer about the process for recall than for community enforcement. Overall, the quality of assessment and planning was sufficient. The programmes of work then delivered should have been better tailored to reducing the risk posed to the public and the likelihood of reoffending, but in almost all cases the level of contact met the requirements of the licence. Recall decision-making was good. Judgements about the acceptability of absences or individual behaviour were generally appropriate. Post-sentence supervision We looked at a small sample of post-sentence supervision cases. Overall, the quality of case management and consequent enforcement decision-making in the sample of post-sentence supervision was poor. We found that CRCs were struggling to provide adequate services for the range of complex needs of this group of individuals. In particular, responsible officers struggled to find ways to engage with them. Enforcement had the effect of compounding rather than lessening the sense of a revolving door between prison and the community. Our findings - National Probation Service Community order and suspended sentence supervision orders Overall, the quality of assessment, supervision planning and consequent enforcement decision-making was good. At the beginning of the community sentence, responsible officers outlined to individuals the consequences of non-compliance, including a return to court. Judgements about the acceptability of absences or individual behaviour were appropriate in most cases. However, better attention should have been paid to engaging individuals in the process of supervision. While staff had a heightened sensitivity to issues of risk, the level of contact set was based on considerations of the risk of harm posed to others in just under two-thirds of cases. Overall, we found a good balance struck between purposeful work and the use of enforcement to re-engage individuals or to apply controls on behaviour when necessary. Licence recall Overall, the quality of case management and consequent enforcement decisionmaking was good. The NPS had an organisation-wide process for managing these cases. This supported engagement and promoted compliance, and enabled staff to take recall action when necessary and appropriate. More needed to be done to ensure that relevant information from the prison is incorporated into the plan of work undertaken in the community. Nevertheless, we considered that judgements about the acceptability of absences or behaviour were appropriate in all but one case. We also found that senior managers had applied sufficient checks and balances to ensure that recall was viewed as a last resort, with action only taken when the risks of continued supervision in the community were unmanageable. Post-sentence supervision We looked at a small sample of post-sentence supervision cases. Overall, the quality of case management and consequent enforcement decision-making was good. Are women treated differently? Within CRCs we found some evidence that staff responded positively to women's needs, but this was far from consistent. The identification of women-specific issues was better at the NPS. However, both had very limited access to appropriate womenonly provision. Details: Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2018. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 14, 2018 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/02/Enforcement-and-Recall-report.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/02/Enforcement-and-Recall-report.pdf Shelf Number: 149480 Keywords: Case ManagementCommunity OrdersCommunity-Based CorrectionsOffender SupervisionProbation OfficersProbationers |
Author: Whitehead, Stephen Title: The Changing Use of Pre-Sentence Reports Summary: Summary As part of our work to understand why the number of community sentences - community orders, suspended sentence orders and other similar disposals - has fallen by 24% over the past ten years in England and Wales, we are examining the relationship between the courts and probationary services, with a particular focus on the National Probation Service's work in courts. In this interim analysis, we present emerging findings from the national data on the use of pre-sentence reports (PSRs) to see whether changes in their use have impacted on the use of community sentences. Sentencers are expected to obtain a PSR before passing any community sentence (other than a stand-alone unpaid work requirement) or any custodial sentence (except one where custody is the only option). We have found that between 2012-13 and 2016-17: - There has been a 22% fall in the number of new PSRs produced. This fall means that there has been an increase in the number of sentences passed (both community sentences and custody) where no new PSR has informed sentencing; - There has been a significant change in how PSRs are delivered to court, with an increasing proportion of PSRs delivered orally rather than in writing; - While the number of PSRs has fallen, where they are used, the likelihood that sentencers follow the recommendations in the report has increased slightly (by 4% since 2012/13); - Because cases with PSRs are more than ten times more likely to receive a community sentence, falling numbers of PSRs is strongly linked to the decline in community sentences; - Our modelling suggests that if the number of PSRs had remained stable that there could have been 33,000 more community sentences a year. These emerging findings open up a range of further questions-- What is driving the fall in new PSRs? How is advice being provided in cases which don't have them? And ultimately, what is making sentencers less likely to use community sentences when they don't have pre-sentence advice? We are exploring these issues with practitioners, in advance of our final report, due in the September 2018, but we invite practitioners and experts to get in touch and help us explore these questions. Details: London, UK: Centre for Justice Innovation, 2018. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 21, 2019 at: http://justiceinnovation.org/portfolio/changing-use-pre-sentence-reports/ Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://justiceinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/CJI-CHANGING-USE-PSR-BRIEFING_WIP-1.pdf Shelf Number: 154330 Keywords: Community OrdersCommunity SentencesJudges Judicial PracticesNational Probation ServicePre-Sentence Reports (PSR)Sentencing |
Author: Davis, Robert C. Title: A synthesis of literature on the effectiveness of community orders Summary: This report presents the findings of a review of the literature on the effectiveness of community orders in reducing re-offending. The National Audit Office (NAO) has begun research on a range of measures used by the government to divert offenders from prison and into community-based treatment and interventions. The NAO commissioned RAND Europe to conduct this review to identify and synthesize international research about the effectiveness of community orders in reducing re-offending. In this report, we review research on ten of the common requirements contained in community orders. Through examining reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses we draw conclusions about the state of research in the areas of unpaid work, mental health treatment, education/skills training, drug treatment, anger management, alcohol treatment, programmes for perpetrators of domestic abuse, regular probation, intensive probation and cognitive/behavioural programming. We also assess the strength of the evidence on whether each of these requirements affects the likelihood of re-offending. We find that the quality of research on the effectiveness of community-based interventions for offenders is extremely variable. However, in two areas - cognitive/behavioural programming and drug treatment - rigorous research exists that points to a reduction in the odds of re-offending. In four other areas - programmes for domestic abuse perpetrators, unpaid work, education and basic skills training and intensive probation - existing studies have not suggested that the programmes have a positive effect on recidivism. Finally, in four areas - anger management, probation, and alcohol and mental health treatment - the question of impact on re-offending remains unsettled. This review highlights the need for more rigorous research - especially randomized trials - into the requirements that constitute community orders. This report will be of particular interest to the NAO and relevant government departments, such as the Ministry of Justice and National Probation Service. It is also relevant for policy makers as well as a wider audience concerned with the challenge of designing and implementing effective and efficient interventions to divert offenders from prison and into the community. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND Europe, 2008. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 14, 2019 at: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2008/RAND_TR518.pdf Year: 2008 Country: International URL: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2008/RAND_TR518.pdf Shelf Number: 113270 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity OrdersCommunity-Based CorrectionsCommunity-Based TreatmentDiversion Programs |