Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:07 pm
Time: 9:07 pm
Results for community service
11 results foundAuthor: Rice, Linda Title: Conditional Cautions: Lessons Learnt from the Unpaid Reparative Work Pilot Implementation Summary: A pilot testing the implementation of the unpaid reparative work conditional caution (RWC), a type of out-of-court disposal, took place between December 2006 and September 2007. The purpose of the RWC was to enable offenders to make good any damage they had caused by carrying out up to 20 hours of specified work. The report describes the research that was carried out to explore the reasons for the low take-up of the RWC and to identify the lessons learnt from the pilot implementation process. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2010. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Summary 5/10: Accessed September 2, 2010 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/conditional-cautions-unpaid-reparative-work-pilot.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/conditional-cautions-unpaid-reparative-work-pilot.pdf Shelf Number: 119732 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity Based CorrectionsCommunity ServiceSentencing |
Author: Aebi, Marcelo F. Title: SPACE II: Non-Custodial Sanctions and Measures Served in 2009 Summary: SPACE II collects information on persons serving non-custodial and semi-custodial sanctions and measures. Such sanctions and measures are frequently referred to as alternatives to imprisonment. The survey is not designed to cover all the existing non-custodial and semi-custodial sanctions and measures. The ones included are basically those suggested by the Council of Europe in Rule 15 of Recommendation No R (99)22 on prison overcrowding and prison population inflation, in Recommendation No R (2000)22 on improving the implementation of the European rules on community sanctions and measures, and in Recommendation CM/Rec (2010)1 on the Council of Europe Probation Rules. Most –but not all– of them are community sanctions and measures (CSM) as defined by the Council of Europe. According to Recommendation No R (92)16 and Recommendation CM/Rec (2010)1, CSM are to be understood as "sanctions and measures which maintain offenders in the community and involve some restrictions on their liberty through the imposition of conditions and/or obligations. The term designates any sanction imposed by a judicial or administrative authority, and any measure taken before or instead of a decision on a sanction, as well as ways of enforcing a sentence of imprisonment outside a prison establishment". Persons serving a CSM are usually referred to as persons on probation, and are normally placed under the supervision of a probation agency. In accordance with Recommendation CM/Rec (2010)1, the term probation “relates to the implementation in the community of sanctions and measures, defined by law and imposed on an offender. It includes a range of activities and interventions, which involve supervision, guidance and assistance aiming at the social inclusion of an offender, as well as at contributing to community safety”. Also according to the same Recommendation, probation agency “means any body designated by law to implement the above tasks and responsibilities. Depending on the national system, the work of a probation agency may also include providing information and advice to judicial and other deciding authorities to help them reach informed and just decisions; providing guidance and support to offenders while in custody in order to prepare their release and resettlement; monitoring and assistance to persons subject to early release; restorative justice interventions; and offering assistance to victims of crime.” SPACE II covers the number of persons who have been under a community sanction or measure. This information is divided in two sections: figures of stock (the number of persons under CSM on 31 December 2009), and figures of flow (the number of persons having started the execution of CSM during 2009). SPACE II does not cover post-prison supervisory or probation measures applied to offenders after they have served their sentence. SPACE II does not cover sanctions and measures imposed by the juvenile criminal law or applicable only to juveniles. The goal of the survey is to gather and compare, in a reliable way, the information provided by Member States of the Council of Europe. In order to allow comparisons at the European level, States were asked to adapt their national categories to the categories proposed by SPACE II. Moreover, in order to improve the validity of such comparisons, the questionnaire used for the survey included questions on the particularities of the sanctions and measures used in each country and had enough room for comments. Details: Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2011. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 2, 2011 at: http://www3.unil.ch/wpmu/space/files/2011/02/Council-of-Europe_SPACE-II-2009-E.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Europe URL: http://www3.unil.ch/wpmu/space/files/2011/02/Council-of-Europe_SPACE-II-2009-E.pdf Shelf Number: 121959 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity Based Corrections (Europe)Community SanctionsCommunity ServiceProbation |
Author: Froundigoun, Liz Title: Evaluation of the Turnaround Service Summary: This research was commissioned to evaluate Turnaround, a new criminal justice service, which provides a community intervention service as an alternative to short term prison sentences for young men, aged 16-30, who are persistent low tariff offenders with drug and/or alcohol addictions and other issues, and have failed or are failing in other community-based alternatives. Turnaround is a partnership service, managed by Turning Point Scotland and delivered with Apex and the Venture Trust, which aims to provide a holistic approach to tackling the complex needs of this service group through a range of interventions to stabilise their addictions, reduce their offending, and through a range of programmes to increase their social and employability skills. It operates from four community bases in Irvine, Kilmarnock, Greenock and Dumbarton and since July, 2009, a 10 bed residential unit in Gleniffer Braes, Paisley. Methodology There were three stages to the research. Stage one involved a review of the existing academic and Turnaround literature, and introductory visits to the service to establish context and background. Stage two involved interviews with all staff in each of the four community day centres, all staff who were available to be interviewed at the residential unit and a sample of service users. All members of the advisory group were invited to participate in a telephone interview to clarify and expand on issues that arose either from our meeting with them or in the evaluation process. In stage three an analysis of statistical data provided by Turnaround from their data base was undertaken. This report documents and analyses the experience and views of the development of the service from the perspective of those strategically involved in its delivery through to frontline staff and service users. It is based on data obtained from interviews carried out in each of the five locations: Greenock, Dumbarton, Irvine, Kilmarnock, and the residential unit in Gleniffer Braes. Of particular interest to this study are the young men’s experiences and perceptions of the service. The research was conducted in line with the ethical guidelines of the British Sociological Association, The British Society of Criminology and Glasgow Caledonian University. Summary Findings 1. The service provided by Turnaround is much needed to support this service user group in desisting from offending and addiction behaviour. 2. All staff were well trained and committed in their belief of community-based person-centred interventions as an effective approach in dealing with these service users. 3. Service users are particularly enthusiastic in their appraisal of the service. In total 1306 referrals have been made to the service with 474 (36%) actively engaging in the programme through the community bases (see Table 2). This includes some service users who have had more than one period of engagement with the service. 4. The person-centred approach, they report, enables them to make effective transitions to recovery from a life of crime and addiction by addressing their most pressing needs. 5. All service users interviewed reported improvements in their quality of life: reduced offending, stabilisation of their addictions, improved family relationships including re-establishing contact with their children, access to training and skill building in readiness for employment. 6 Turnaround, where it is used as an alternative to short-term custodial sentences, is likely to produce significant financial savings and, as stated above, more likely to impact positively on the lifestyle, addiction and offending behaviours of their clients. Good Practice 7. Turnaround should be commended in five main areas: Partnership working with APEX and the Venture Trust in service delivery has allowed for a more holistic service to be provided. The person-centred approach to service delivery is unique in that its flexibility allows for clients to individualise their recovery programme. Flexibility and an open door policy were stressed by service users as invaluable. Staff training and induction are comprehensive and undertaken prior to working in either the community bases or residential unit. Turnaround’s data base is centrally maintained and contains extensive clients’ records; however, it has limited applicability for monitoring their progress. Lessons Learned 8 Delivering such a service is a lengthy process from identifying and defining the concept through to locating suitable premises, furnishing offices, training staff and opening the doors to service users. 9 Filling staff vacancies quickly is central to maintaining staff morale and ensuring the continued development of the service. 10 Time-limited funding is an issue for the development of new services and would appear to have been a contributing factor to staff moving on from Turnaround in the last year. 11 Meeting the requirement imposed by funders should be reviewed, as their expectations of ‘hard’ evidence cannot always be realised. 12 Developing links with referring agencies such as the Courts, Reliance and CJSW needs to be pro-active in order to establish an identity and awareness of Turnaround’s services. Areas for Development 13 A clear protocol for sharing of information across agencies is essential to ensure the smooth transition of service users between Turnaround and other service providers. 14 Opportunities to develop peer support should be considered. 15 Service users would like to see more support or a staged programme to exit using all drugs and/or alcohol rather than being on a stabilisation programme of methadone. 16 Service users would also like to see more day activities – swimming walking, canoeing, and abseiling - provided by Venture Trust rather than the 3-day or week long programmes that they have been able to access thus far. Outcomes 17 Where Turnaround is used as an alternative to the traditional, costly short-term custodial sentences so characteristic of the service users’ history, this is likely to provide significant financial savings. 18 The programme is impacting positively on the lives of its service users’ and on their offending behaviours and addiction issues, and in supporting them into stable lifestyle patterns, as well as improving social and employability skills. 19 The community bases are well established and despite the geographical difficulties of the Irvine base it is running well. All were found to be very effective and supportive from the service users’ point of view. 20 The service is not always running at its capacity especially at the residential unit; however there was little evidence to suggest that this was impacting on the quality of the service and as it develops the perception is that service user participation will increase. 21 While the service is delivered by highly qualified and committed staff some of the services delivered were compromised due to staffing shortages. 22 The majority of service users have been referred to Turnaround from the Courts, Reliance and CJSW. However, referrals from the Courts and Reliance show a lower uptake of Turnaround’s services than those referred from CJSW. Recommendations 1 Funding should be secured for another 3, preferably 5, year period, to allow the service to develop its potential without struggling with a constant turnover of staff. 2 Funding streams should be re-examined to see if there is any way of negotiating a staged or staggered approach to extending the funding period with the Scottish Government and the various charitable organisations currently supporting this project. 3 Referral routes and processes should be re-examined especially in relation to the Courts, Reliance and CJSW. The provision of clearer guidelines or criteria for selection of young offenders for referral to Turnaround may help to reduce the lower up-take of referrals from the Courts and Reliance. 4 The role of APEX workers should be reviewed. Currently they are working as support or project workers but as the service develops it is important that their role as Employment Development Advisors is retained. 5 The role of the Venture Trust should be re-examined. It is felt, amongst service users and staff, that there is considerable scope to develop their involvement to the benefit of the service and enhance the service users’ experience and skills. 6 There is the desire for more physical activities amongst the service users, for example, swimming, canoeing, abseiling, walking, football, and in the residential unit for supervised access to the gym. Consideration should be given as to the best way to provide these activities in ways which allow service users to develop and build on their inter-personal, communication and team-work skills. 7 Consideration should be given to extending the age range to 16-40 and also to including girls and young women in service provision. While this may be problematic, staff experiences suggest that there is an unmet demand from girls and women and from older men whom they currently cannot accommodate. Suggestions proffered by staff included splitting the service delivery into two categories - a young person service 16-25, with another to focus on the older group 25-40. 8 Communication strategies should also be reviewed. In relation to staffing, morale and identity of the service, a clear communications strategy and more all-staff meetings are needed to encourage a homogenised service and the exchange of good practice between the various community bases and the residential unit. 9 Exit procedures should also be reviewed and protocols set in place with partnership agencies to ensure a smooth transition between support services for service users. 10 Peer support opportunities should be considered to widen the service range. Some service users report that contact with ex-service users is helpful and indeed some of the current service users feel they could offer peer support to those who have just come to Turnaround. Details: Glasgow: Glasgow Caledonian University, 2011. 95p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2011 at: www.turningpointscotland.com/documents/6618 Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 123312 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity Corrections (Scotland)Community ServiceCommunity-based Corrections |
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: Bazemore, Gordon Title: A Civic Justice Corps: Community Service as a Means of Reintegration Summary: Rarely considered in re-entry programs is the role of community service as a means of reintegration. We argue for the creation of a “Civic Justice Corps”; a program for parolees to return to the community in the spirit of service. A CJC would benefit both offenders and communities by allowing for “earned redemption”—enabling offenders to repair the harm caused by their crimes and regain community trust. Service may foster positive identity change leading to reduced recidivism and civic commitment, while also providing an opportunity for parolees to reestablish community social ties, leading to permanent housing and employment. We make the case for a CJC as well as review the research on the correctional use of community service. Details: Unpublished paper, 2005. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 11, 2012 at: http://www.cjcj.org/files/bazemore.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/bazemore.pdf Shelf Number: 125987 Keywords: Community ServiceOffender ReintegrationPrisoner Reentry (U.S.) |
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: Irish Prison Service Title: Community Return: A Unique Opportunity. A descriptive evaluation of the first twenty six months (2011 - 2013) Summary: In October 2011, the Probation Service, in partnership with the Irish Prison Service, commenced a pilot Community Return Programme. The Community Return Programme is an incentivised early release scheme introduced in line with the recommendations of the Thornton Hall Project Review Group. All participants have demonstrated their willingness and ability to co-operate with the prison regime and to engage with the therapeutic services available. Community Return is a novel and unique initiative combining unpaid work for the benefit of the community with early release and resettlement support. In its development, no equivalent or similar initiative could be identified anywhere in the world and none had been reported in academic reviews or criminal justice literature. In the Community Return Programme, qualifying prisoners may be released early from their custodial sentences, with a period of unpaid community work as a condition of their incentivised, structured and reviewable temporary release. The Community Return Programme pilot, between October 2011 and April 2012, proved to be very successful in assessed compliance with the conditions of the release and behaviour, and in terms of the very low level of reconviction of participants. The success of the pilot led to the programme being mainstreamed. The aim of this research study is to assess the operation, impact, and effectiveness of the Community Return programme through a piece of descriptive and evaluative research. The study cohort comprised all 761 Community Return Programme participants between October 2011 and December 31st 2013. A mixed methods approach was used in the study, as well as analysis of anonymised pre-existing data on participants held by the Irish Prison Service. Questionnaires were completed by relevant Irish Prison Service and Probation Service personnel. The Community Return Programme participants were predominantly male, with females comprising approximately 6% of the population on the programme. 77% of the population were aged between 21 and 40, with the greatest concentration in both genders (43%) in the ten year age group between 21 and 30 years. - 62% of Community Return Programme participants were from Leinster. 43% of all participants were from Dublin. Of the total population who commenced the Community Return Programme, approximately 53% were located in three major urban areas (Dublin, Cork and Limerick). - Of the 761 offenders who commenced the Community Return Programme, (90%) were serving custodial sentences of less than six years. 45% were serving sentences of between two and four years imprisonment. The average sentence length was 3.2 years - 40% of Community Return Programme participants had been convicted on drug offences. 16% had been convicted in respect of offences including assaults and related offending. 9% were convicted of offences including robbery and related offences. - 38% of participants were released from open prisons, Shelton Abbey and Loughan House, while Mountjoy Prison was the closed prison with the highest release rate at 11%. The high percentage of prisoners released onto the Community Return programme from open prisons reflects the Irish Prison Service Incentivised Regime policy in practice and the pre-release role of open prisons. - Of the 761 participants who had commenced the Community Return Programme between October 2011 and December 31st 2013, 548 had completed it and 108 were still in progress. 88, approximately 11%, breached conditions of the Community Return Programme and were returned to custody. Almost 89% had either successfully completed their Community Return Programme or were still working on the Programme. Of those participants (n =233) released during the first year of the programme, 91% had not been committed to prison on a new custodial sentence in the period up to the end of 2013. - 9,580 weeks of Community Return Programme work, comprising 201,056 hours unpaid work, was completed by participants. Based on the national minimum wage in 2014 for an adult worker of L8.65 per hour, this represents L1,739,135 worth of unpaid work completed for the community by Community Return participants. - The most common types of work undertaken by Community Return Programme participants were landscaping/gardening, painting/decorating and renovation, with participants preferring work which allowed them to see 'a job through from beginning to end rather than constant switching between jobs'. Supervisors reported that Community Return Programme participants performed positively in their work and displayed a positive attitude towards the work. - Over 80% of community based Probation Officers attributed Community Return Programme participant compliance primarily to a desire to avoid returning to prison. In some cases this was complemented by secondary motivational factors such as participant enjoyment of the work experience, appreciation of their early release or, a sense of commitment to the Community Return contract. - Access to social protection entitlements ('social welfare') was the single biggest difficulty faced by Community Return participants involved in this study following their release, affecting one third of participants. According to participant feedback, difficulties appear to have stemmed from an apparent lack of a shared understanding regarding access to income maintenance payments by Community Return participants. - The Community Return Programme participants identified particular benefits in the Programme, including the structure and routine which aided re-integration, the work ethic and self-esteem developed, their positive profile in working in the community and the learning of work skills transferable to employment. Challenges included coping with the strictness and frequency of the signing-on conditions, difficulties accessing entitlements and payments, and time and costs in travelling to worksites. - The Community Return Programme helped participants stay out of trouble according to some of them, by keeping them occupied, providing positive supports and a starting point to build on, particularly in the early stages after release, when, according to research here and abroad, newly released prisoners are particularly vulnerable to relapse to anti-social behaviour, companions and offending. The Community Return Programme has potential for further expansion and detailed recommendations are outlined in Chapter 7. Details: Longford, IE: Irish Prisons Service; Dublin: Irish Probation Service, 2014. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Probation Service Research Report 5: Accessed February 12, 2015 at: http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Community_Return_Study_Report_v3_9.pdf/Files/Community_Return_Study_Report_v3_9.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Ireland URL: http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Community_Return_Study_Report_v3_9.pdf/Files/Community_Return_Study_Report_v3_9.pdf Shelf Number: 134613 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (Ireland)Community ServiceEarly ReleaseProbationProbationsWork Programs |
Author: Andersen, Signe Hald Title: Serving time or serving the community? Exploiting a policy reform to assess the causal effects of community service on income, social benefit dependency and recidivism Summary: There is a widespread belief among criminologists, judges and the like that criminals are better off serving non-custodial sentences instead of going to prison. However, empirical evidence of the effects of community service is scarce. This paper exploits a policy reform that implemented the use of community service as punishment among specific groups of criminals in order to assess the causal effect of community service on post-sentence income, dependency on social benefits, and crime. Details: Copenhagen, Denmark: Rockwool Foundation Research Unit and University Press of Southern Denmark, 2012. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Study Paper No. 37: Accessed September 21, 2015 at: http://www.rockwoolfonden.dk/publications/law+of+the+land/publication?id=1603 Year: 2012 Country: Denmark URL: http://www.rockwoolfonden.dk/publications/law+of+the+land/publication?id=1603 Shelf Number: 124696 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsCommunity ServiceCommunity-Based CorrectionsRecidivism |
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: Aebi, Marcelo Title: Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics SPACE II Survey 2016. Persons Serving Non-Custodial Sanctions and Measures in 2016 Summary: Key points of SPACE II 2016 - The participation rate in the 2016 SPACE II Survey was very satisfying: 47 out of the 52 probation services of the 47 Council of Europe Member States answered the questionnaire. - About 75% of the probation services of the responding countries are placed under the authority of the national Ministry of Justice. This authority is shared with the Prison Administration in around 33% of these cases. - During the year 2016, 2,169,077 persons entered into supervision by the probation services, and 1,365,006 left that supervision. This represents an average rate of 258 entries and 188 exits per 100,000 inhabitants. As a comparison, in 2015, there 228 entries per 100,000 inhabitants (+13.2% in 2016) and 167 exits per 100,000 inhabitants (+12.6% in 2016). - On 31st December 2016, there were 1,628,626 persons under the supervision or care of the probation services of the responding countries. This represents an average rate of 219 probationers per 100,000 inhabitants, which is 12.3% higher than one year before (there were 195 probationers per 100,000 inhabitant on 31stDecember 2015). If we restrict the comparison to countries with more than one million inhabitants, the 2016 rate is 225 per 100,000, which is 3.9% higher than in 2015 (when the rate was 216.4 per 100,000 inhabitants) - Non-custodial sanctions and measures are seldom used as an alternative to pre-trial detention: Roughly, only 9.8% of the probation population corresponds to persons placed under supervision before trial. - On average, on 31st December 2016, female probation clients represented 12.9% of the total probation population. The proportion of minors and foreigners was 3.9% and 16.8% respectively. - On average, there are 5.8 probation staff members per 100,000 inhabitants, with great individual variation among the responding countries. - On average, each probation staff member across Europe is in charge of 4.9 pre-sentence reports. - In 20 countries, probation is used for all kind of criminal offenses. - The average length of probation for persons sentenced for violence against persons and robbery are 17.3 months and 17.5 months respectively. - The longer length of probation is, on average, 21.6 months, and corresponds to persons sentenced for sexual offenses. Details: Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2017. 99p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 10, 2018 at: http://wp.unil.ch/space/files/2018/03/SPACE_II_report_2016_Final_100320.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Europe URL: http://wp.unil.ch/space/files/2018/03/SPACE_II_report_2016_Final_100320.pdf Shelf Number: 149752 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity Based CorrectionsCommunity SanctionsCommunity ServiceProbation |
Author: Matrix Consulting Group Title: Phase 2 Study of the Community Corrections Division: Orange County, Florida Summary: The objective of this study was to evaluate the management, staffing and operations of various alternatives to incarceration programs operating in Orange County's Department of Corrections' Community Corrections Division. The Phase 1 project examined to Home Confinement Program. In this phase of the study the project team examined the other programs in the Division, namely: - Pre-Trial Release - Pre-Trial Division - Alternative Community Service Program - County Probation - Work Release Program - Central Intake Specific objectives of the Phase 2 study of the Community Corrections Division, then, included the following: 1. Evaluate statutes and administrative orders pertinent to the programs. 2. Review of the organizational structures, program policies and procedures, staff authority and supervisory oversight to determine program effectiveness. 3. Conduct a survey of other corrections alternatives' programs in operation in Florida and elsewhere around the country to compare operational and programmatic features which could be utilized in Orange County. 4. Analyze and assess staffing levels and caseloads of the programs. 5. Assess and analyze the programs' use of technology and its effectiveness as well as opportunities to enhance the technology in use. 6. Evaluate the feasibility of privatizing the programs. 7. Analysis of the potential of discontinuing the programs and the impacts of such closure on the criminal justice system within Orange County. The review also included examining electronic monitoring with other Community Corrections Division programs. Details: Mountain View, CA: Matrix, 2013. 130p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 11, 2018 at: https://www.matrixcg.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Orange-County-Phase-2-FR.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.matrixcg.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Orange-County-Phase-2-FR.pdf Shelf Number: 149788 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCommunity ServiceElectronic MonitoringOffender SupervisionPretrial ReleaseProbationWork Release |