Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:22 pm
Time: 9:22 pm
Results for community sentences
18 results foundAuthor: Mills, Helen Title: The Community Order and the Suspended Sentence Order Three Years On: The Views and Experiences of Probation Officers and Offenders Summary: The introductin of Community Order and the Suspended Order (SSO) in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act, on paper at least, radically reconfigured community sentences in England and Wales. This report assesses the use and impact of these orders since their implementation. Details: London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2009 Source: Community sentences series Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 114752 Keywords: Community SentencesProbation Officers |
Author: Mills, Helen Title: Reducing the numbers in custody: Summary: This is the second and final paper in the Reform Sector Strategies project funded by the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation. The two papers produced as part of this work intend to generate debate among those committed to reducing the prison population on how to tackle prison expansion in England and Wales and bring about a reduction in the prison population in the longer term. The first paper in the series, Community Sentences: a solution to penal excess?, was published earlier this year. The paper reflected on the limitations of attempts to reduce prison numbers by reforming community sentences, one of the major interventions undertaken by those opposing the high numbers imprisoned in England and Wales in the period since the late 1990s. The paper concluded that attempts to reduce the numbers in prison to below 80/85,000 would require looking for solutions outside the confines of a debate about more and better community sentences. This second paper moves from ‘looking back’ to ‘looking forward’ to what might inform a debate about how to reduce the use of custody in the future. Its main aim is to contribute to such a debate by considering the potential of a perspective which suggests that the challenge of addressing prison numbers can be assessed rather differently than it is in many campaign strategies challenging the use of imprisonment, that of socio-economic explanations for the numbers we imprison. The term ‘socio-economic explanations’ is used to describe an account that locates answers to the question of why we imprison the numbers we do in a wider set of social arrangements and conditions. Its innovation is in bringing together two fields typically regarded as peripheral or even of separate concern to each other: wider socio-economic circumstances and the use of imprisonment. The intention here is to consider a perspective that locates prison and criminal justice system as institutions among a wider set of social and economic arrangements. Socio-economic explanations are also applied to questions about those caught up in the criminal justice system, such as why some people are more (so called) ‘criminal’ than others or why some individuals and not others end up in the criminal justice system. These are not the questions explored here. Locating the challenges for criminal justice change in a wider social context is something the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (CCJS) has had an interest in for a number of years. This paper is a further conntribution to understanding this perspective and focuses on the new question of what the implications of this perspective are for those engaged in work to reduce the use of custody. Details: London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2012. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 29, 2012 at http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1899/Reducingthenumbersincustody.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1899/Reducingthenumbersincustody.pdf Shelf Number: 123880 Keywords: Community SentencesPrison OvercrowdingPrison Population (U.K.)Prison Sentences |
Author: Mahoney, Barry Title: The Seattle Community Court: Start-up, Initial Implementation, and Recommendations Concerning Future Development Summary: In June 2006, a group of urban court administrators and presiding judges from large urban trial courts in the United States met in Seattle, Washington, hosted by the Seattle Municipal Court. The program for the meeting, which was organized by The Justice Management Institute (JMI) as part of its Urban Court Managers Network project, included opportunity to observe a session of the Seattle Community Court. Following the court session, participants at the meeting had an opportunity to speak informally with three justice system leaders—Presiding Judge Fred Bonner, City Attorney Tom Carr, and Dave Chapman, Director of Associated Counsel for the Accused, the lead indigent defense agency serving the Municipal Court—who had participated actively in the session. During the informal discussion following the session, everyone present learned about the origins of the Community Court and the remarkable commitment to innovation and system improvement that these three leaders had forged. All of the court administrators and presiding judges present at the meeting recognized the difficulty of the challenge that the Community Court leaders had taken on. Every community of any size faces problems of the sort that Seattle has faced with a population of individuals charged repeatedly with minor “quality of life” offenses. It has become increasingly clear that traditional criminal sanctions—such as jail, probation, or fines—rarely have any deterrent effect on these individuals. It has also become apparent that the roots of their behavior lie much deeper. The individuals who repeatedly commit these offenses are very likely to have a host of other problems: substance abuse or addiction, mental illness, lack of employment or stable housing, and physical disabilities of varying severity. In addition to cycling repeatedly through the criminal justice system, they also turn up repeatedly at hospital emergency rooms, homeless shelters, and other publicly supported facilities. Few jurisdictions have developed effective ways of handling the problems they pose. The Seattle approach struck most everyone at the meeting as innovative and promising. It involved the use of the authority of the court to impose a short sentence of community service rather than a jail term, coupled with requirements that the defendant make at least initial linkages with social services and treatment agencies. The Seattle justice system leaders were candid in acknowledging that their objectives for the program were modest: they hoped to begin to turn around the lives of some of the participants, but they had no illusions of 100% success. Simply getting as many as 30 percent of the defendants to complete their sentence obligations could be regarded as a major accomplishment. However, even modest success would be better than continued adherence to traditional practices that were demonstrably ineffective in changing behaviors, though expensive in the use of jail space.The main objectives of this report are to describe how and why the Seattle Community Court program got started, summarize the experience of the first two years of the program, and provide recommendations for further expansion of the Community Court. Details: Denver, CO: Justice Management Institute, 2007. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 20, 2012 at: http://www.jmijustice.org/publications/the-seattle-community-court-start-up-and-implementation Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.jmijustice.org/publications/the-seattle-community-court-start-up-and-implementation Shelf Number: 125700 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity Courts (Seattle)Community SentencesCommunity Service |
Author: Henry, Kelli Title: Community Courts: The Research Literature A Review of Findings Summary: The first community court opened in Midtown Manhattan in 1993. Focusing on quality-of-life offenses, such as drug possession, shoplifting, vandalism, and prostitution, the Midtown Community Court sought to combine punishment and help, sentencing low-level offenders to perform visible community restitution, receive onsite social services, including drug treatment, counseling, and job training. There are currently more than 60 community court projects in operation worldwide. In the United States alone there are 33 while there are 17 in South Africa, 13 in England and Wales, and one each in Australia and Canada. Community courts seek to achieve a variety of goals, such as reduced crime, increased engagement between citizens and the courts, improved perceptions of neighborhood safety, greater accountability for lowlevel, “quality-of-life” offenders, speedier and more meaningful case resolutions, and cost savings. In advancing these goals, community courts generally make greater use of community-based sanctions than traditional courts (Hakuta, Soroushian, and Kralstein, 2008; Katz, 2009; Sviridoff et al., 2000; Weidner and Davis, 2000). Among a sample of 25 community courts surveyed in 2007, 92 percent routinely use community service mandates, and 84 percent routinely use social services mandates (Karafin, 2008). This paper reviews the research literature to date about community courts. Community court studies have employed a number of different research methods, reflecting the variation in community court models. Table 1, below, summarizes the major evaluations to date. Thus far, there have been 19 notable community court evaluations focusing on 11 community courts. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2011. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 12, 2012 at http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Community%20Courts%20Research%20Lit.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Community%20Courts%20Research%20Lit.pdf Shelf Number: 126917 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CourtsCommunity SentencesCommunity ServiceMeta-Analysis |
Author: Klingele, Cecelia M. Title: Rethinking the Use of Community Supervision Summary: Community supervision, whether in the form of probation or post-release supervision, is ordinarily framed as an alternative to incarceration. For this reason, legal reformers intent on reducing America's disproportionately high incarceration rates often urge lawmakers to expand the use of community supervision, confident that diverting offenders to the community will significantly reduce over-reliance on incarceration. Yet, on any given day, a significant percentage of new prisoners arrive at the prison gates not as a result of sentencing for a new crime, but because they have been revoked from probation or parole. It is therefore fair to say that in many cases community supervision is not an alternative to imprisonment, but only a delayed form of it. This Article examines the reasons why community supervision so often fails, and challenges popular assumptions about the role community supervision should play in efforts to reduce over-reliance on imprisonment. While probation and post-release supervision serve important purposes in many cases, they are often imposed on the wrong people, and executed in ways that predictably lead to revocation. To decrease the overuse of imprisonment, sentencing and correctional practices should therefore limit, rather than expand, the use of community supervision in three important ways. First, terms of community supervision should be imposed in fewer cases, with alternatives ranging from fines to unconditional discharge to short jail terms imposed instead. Second, conditions of probation and post-release supervision should be imposed sparingly, and only when they directly correspond to a risk of re-offense. Finally, terms of community supervision should be limited in duration, extending only long enough to facilitate a period of structured re-integration after sentencing or following a term of incarceration. Details: Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Law School, 2013. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Univ. of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1220 : Accessed March 30, 2013 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2232078 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2232078 Shelf Number: 128179 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SentencesOffender Supervision (U.S.) Community Based CorrecParoleesProbationersRevocation |
Author: 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: New Zealand. Department of Corrections. Strategic Analysis and Research Title: Community Sentence Patterns in New Zealand: An International Comparative Analysis Summary: Community sentences are sentences other than imprisonment or monetary penalties, that have conditions that are served or performed in the community, and which involve regular oversight or management by a corrections official (Ministry of Justice 1999). There are relatively high volumes of offenders on community sentences in New Zealand compared with other jurisdictions. This feature has become even more pronounced since the introduction of new community sentencing options in late 2007. This paper investigates the reasons for the disparity by comparing criminal justice statistics from New Zealand to other jurisdictions, including England/Wales, Australia, Scotland and the United States. Despite difficulties in comparing the statistics from different criminal justice systems, a number of key findings emerge from the analysis. Evidence, although somewhat circumstantial, suggests that New Zealand's high rate of community sentencing can be largely attributed to differences in sentencing practice. New Zealand courts are more likely to impose community sentences rather than monetary penalties or other forms of non-custodial sanctions. This holds true when considering other factors such as the use of pre-sentencing disposals, the makeup of offending in each jurisdiction, or differences in legislation. This preference towards community sentences has progressively been embedded over three decades of legislative change. Details: Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Department of Corrections, 2012. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 13, 2013 at: http://www.corrections.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/672768/nz-community-sentence-patterns-april2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.corrections.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/672768/nz-community-sentence-patterns-april2012.pdf Shelf Number: 131641 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SentencesSentencing (New Zealand) |
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: 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 |
Author: Radcliffe, Polly Title: Imagining penal policy for women: The case for Women's Community Services Summary: The Women's Community Services (WCSs) established in 2009 in England and Wales were based on the model of one-stop-shop, women-only provision endorsed by the 2007 Corston report. In this paper we discuss the development of WCSs as part of a governmental/voluntary sector initiative that was arguably an attempt to re-imagine penal policy for women offenders in the community, and explore themes emerging from interviews carried out with 30 women attending six WCSs between April 2011-2012. We argue that WCSs have filled a gap in provision for low risk women offenders by providing a range of social capital opportunities that are not available in mainstream, mixed-gender community punishment provision. We highlight the gendered processes of desistance; the understanding of which, we argue, is vital in making provision for women offenders in the new contracting landscape. Details: London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2014. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Howard League 'What is Justice?' Working Papers 4/2014: Accessed September 27, 2014 at: http://www.icpr.org.uk/media/37856/HLWP_4_2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.icpr.org.uk/media/37856/HLWP_4_2014.pdf Shelf Number: 133459 Keywords: Alternative to IncarcerationCommunity SentencesFemale Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Wood, Martin Title: Re-offending by offenders on Community Orders: Results from the Offender Management Community Cohort Study Summary: This report is one of a series summarising findings from the Offender Management Community Cohort Study (OMCCS), a longitudinal cohort study of offenders aged 18 and over, who started Community Orders between October 2009 and December 2010. The report focuses on re-offending by these offenders, using a measure of proven re-offending. Proven re-offending is defined as any offence committed in the 12 months following the start of the Community Order that received a court conviction or caution in that 12 months or within a further six month waiting period. It examines the factors associated with re-offending, such as offenders' needs, attitudes and their relationship with their Offender Manager. The report will help inform policy makers and providers about the key characteristics of this group of offenders and will be useful in the development of practice in the delivery of Community Orders and supervision in the community. Preliminary findings on re-offending levels among offenders on Community Orders from the OMCCS were published in July 2013 (Wood et al., 2013a) using incomplete re-offending data. This report presents updated analysis on levels of re-offending and therefore findings may vary from those previously published. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2015. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series: Accessed January 29, 2015 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/399388/reoffending-by-offenders-on-community-orders.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/399388/reoffending-by-offenders-on-community-orders.pdf Shelf Number: 134492 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SentencesOffender Supervision (U.K.)RecidivismReoffending |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Young people returning to sentenced youth justice supervision 2015 Summary: The rate of return to sentenced youth justice supervision is an indicator of the effectiveness of the services provided to young people serving supervised sentences. Around 20% of those aged 10-16 when released from sentenced community-based supervision in 2012-13 returned to sentenced supervision in 6 months, and 44% returned within 12 months. The rate of return was higher for those released from sentenced detention: 50% returned to sentenced supervision within 6 months and 76% returned within 12 months Details: Canberra: AIHW, 2015. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Series No. 18: Accessed July 29, 2015 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129551648 Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129551648 Shelf Number: 136243 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SentencesCommunity-Based CorrectionsJuvenile OffendersRecidivism |
Author: Victoria. Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Community Correction Orders Second Monitoring Report. (Pre-Guideline Judgment) Summary: The community correction order (CCO) is a recently created and important sentencing option for Victorian criminal courts. The CCO allows courts to combine a range of punitive and therapeutic conditions in a sentence that an offender serves in the community. With the recent abolition of suspended sentences of imprisonment in Victoria, the CCO is now, for some offending, the only alternative sentence to imprisonment. This report examines changes in the use of CCOs, and sentencing practices more generally, by Victorian courts during the period from January 2012 to December 2014. One of the aims of this report is to assess the effects on sentencing practices of major sentencing reforms, including the phase-out of suspended sentences and the changes adopted in September 2014 to the way CCOs may be combined with sentences of imprisonment. This report does not assess the effects on sentencing practices of the Court of Appeal's guideline judgment, which was issued at the end of this report's reference period. The guideline judgment will be the subject of future research by the Sentencing Advisory Council (the 'Council'). Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2015. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2015 at: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Community%20Correction%20Orders%20Second%20Monitoring%20Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Community%20Correction%20Orders%20Second%20Monitoring%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 136859 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SentencesCommunity-Based CorrectionsSentencing Reform |
Author: Heard, Catherine Title: Community sentences since 2000: How they work - and why they have not cut prisoner numbers Summary: Over the past decade, the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies has been charting developments in community sanctions and calling for a more ambitious approach to criminal justice policy, informed by principles of social justice. Our research has shown that the UK's increased use of community sentences has not led to any overall reduction in the number of people in prison. At best, it may have controlled the growth of short-term prison sentences. At worst, it has simply expanded the net of criminalisation and punishment, exacerbating rather than resolving social harms. This report offers a unique review of the range of alternatives to custody in the UK, from bail, through community sanctions and probation, to early release from prison. It gives an overview of how governments have attempted to control the staggering rise in prisoner numbers since 2000 by the use of so-called 'alternatives' - and largely failed to do so. The key measures are explained in Appendix 1, with supporting statistical and financial data for the separate jurisdictions of England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland in Appendix 3. Probation practices under the three systems are described in Appendix 2. Details: London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2015. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2015 at: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/Community%20sentences%20since%202000%20CCJS%20Sept%202015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/Community%20sentences%20since%202000%20CCJS%20Sept%202015.pdf Shelf Number: 136926 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SentencesProbation |
Author: Dryden, Ruth Title: Evaluation of sixteen women's community justice services in Scotland Summary: In 2013-15, the Scottish Government funded 16 projects proposed by criminal justice partners across Scotland to develop community services for women who offend. Developments were based on existing service provision and to ensure changes could be sustained locally at the end of the funding. Funding varied in amount and timeframes. Most of the projects were undertaken by local authority criminal justice social work (CJSW) departments with partner providers, including public and third sector agencies. The national evaluation examined how the 16 women's community justice services (WCJSs) were implemented and to what extent they contributed towards positive outcomes for women. A further aim was to build local capacity for self-evaluation in WCJSs. Findings were drawn from two phases of interviews with practitioners and women, secondary documents, and quantitative data for 1,778 women who were in the WCJSs between April and December 2014. This included outcomes data for 406 women. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Government, 2015. 137p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 24, 2015 at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0048/00484398.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0048/00484398.pdf Shelf Number: 137319 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SentencesCommunity ServiceCommunity-Based CorrectionsFemale Offenders |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: The work of probation services in courts Summary: Probation services have for many years provided advice and information to courts to help judges and magistrates decide on the right sentence. Under the government's Transforming Rehabilitation programme, probation services changed. In June 2014, they were divided into a new public sector National Probation Service (NPS) and 21 new privately owned Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). The NPS assumed responsibility for all advice and information provided to courts. Alongside Transforming Rehabilitation, the Ministry of Justice is modernising the criminal justice system. Historically, courts adjourned for three weeks or more so that pre-sentence advice could be assembled. New expectations are that most advice to court can be given on the day in cases where a defendant pleads guilty, to allow for an immediate sentence decision. In response, the NPS implemented nationwide arrangements for a speedier approach. Court Workload The inspection report sets out the volume of work undertaken by the NPS in court: 158,305 Pre-sentence reports prepared for magistrates' and Crown Courts (July 2015 to June 2016) 100% - The percentage of pre-sentence reports completed by the NPS within the timescales set by the court, including remands in custody (April to September 2016) 31,342 (29%) Community sentences enforced in court due to failure to comply, further offences or other reasons (October 2015 to September 2016) 71% Of community sentences ran their full course successfully or were finished early for good progress (October 2015 to September 2016) 48% Decline in commencements of accredited programmes (2009/2010 to 2015/2016) 44% Percentage increase in the use of rehabilitation activity requirements for community orders during the period of April-June 2015 to April-June 2016 Findings Inspectors found strong arrangements between the NPS and the courts, though working arrangements with CRCs were less well developed. Pre-sentence oral reports delivered on the day were well regarded by sentencers. Inspectors found satisfactory (or better) arrangements to obtain information regarding child protection and domestic abuse. Worryingly, accredited programmes to prevent reoffending were recommended by the NPS relatively infrequently, despite clear evidence to support their use. Short written reports were not always sufficiently thorough in their assessments of the risks an individual could pose. NPS enforcement work was of a high quality, but many sentencers expressed concern about cases where CRCs allowed an individual too many absences before breaching them and taking them back before the court. NPS hardware and software were dated, making staff less efficient, but inspectors did see the effective use of video link in some courts. Details: Manchester: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2017. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 23, 2017 at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/06/The-work-of-probation-services-in-courts-report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/06/The-work-of-probation-services-in-courts-report.pdf Shelf Number: 146351 Keywords: Community SentencesCriminal Justice ReformProbationProbationersSentencing |
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 |