Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:09 pm
Time: 8:09 pm
Results for offender supervision (u.k.)
3 results foundAuthor: Great Britain. National Audit Office Title: Restructuring of the National Offender Management Service Summary: The U.K. National Offender Management Service, an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Justice, faces substantial financial and operational challenges, including a vulnerability to unexpected changes in the prison population, and will find it more difficult to meet its savings targets following decisions to drop some sentencing reforms designed to reduce the size of the prison population. The National Offender Management Service achieved value for money in 2011-12, as it hit its savings target of £230 million while restructuring its headquarters and it has broadly maintained its performance, such as in reducing reoffending. As a result of some sentencing reforms not going ahead, the Ministry of Justice lost around £130 million of savings. Given the loss of these reforms, the prison population is now unlikely to fall significantly over the next few years. This limits the Agency’s plans to close older, more expensive, prisons and bring down costs. The Agency’s savings target for 2012-13 of a further £246 million is challenging and it currently projects it will spend £32 million more than its budget. Its cumulative annual savings target increases to over £880 million by 2014-15. The Agency currently has a £66 million shortfall in the £122 million needed over the next two years to fund early staff departures aimed at bringing long-term reductions in its payroll bill. The Agency has restructured its headquarters, reducing staff numbers by around 650 from around 2,400. Despite having fewer staff at its headquarters, prison governors, probation trust chief executives and other stakeholders consulted by the NAO generally regarded the restructure positively, considering it produced a more efficient organization with greater clarity on accountability. The Agency relies on the probation profession to deliver reforms and to reduce costs, but there are some tensions in the relationship. The NAO found that the Agency has done much to ensure knowledge of probation is captured at its headquarters but has recommended the Agency continue to engage with probation trusts to address their perception it lacks understanding of probation issues. The Agency’s responsibility for offenders means that its core business is managing risk. It has strong risk management mechanisms at its headquarters and in the oversight of prisons. However, there are gaps in how the Agency consolidates the recording of risks from prisons at a regional level, meaning the Agency may be unaware of risks in different areas. Details: London: The Stationery Office, 2012. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: HC: 593, 2012-2013; Accessed September 29, 2012 at: http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1213/restructuring_noms.aspx Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1213/restructuring_noms.aspx Shelf Number: 126489 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeExpenditures in Criminal JusticeOffender Supervision (U.K.)ProbationProbationers |
Author: Great Britain. HMI Probation Title: Transitions: An Inspection of the Transitions Arrangements from Youth to Adult Services in the Criminal Justice System Summary: This inspection of the quality of the work undertaken to promote effective transition of young people from youth-based services to adult-based provision was agreed by the Criminal Justice Chief Inspectors’ Group, following consultation with key stakeholders, as part of the Joint Inspection Business Plan 2010-2012(1). The process of transition from youth to adult services is important because when managed well it can promote continuity in service provison and lead to the delivery of more effective services. The involved visits to Youth Offending Teams and Probation Trusts in six areas of England and Wales, and four Young Offenders Institutions, to establish what practitioners did to help young people in custody and under community supervision make an effective transition, at or around the age of 18. We gauged the quality of front line practice by speaking to young people (those aged under-18) and young adults (those aged 18 and over) about their experiences, as well as inspecting case records. We also held discussions with practitioners and managers from criminal justice agencies, and others, such as health and education, training and employment who worked in partnership with them to provide interventions. During the inspection we were looking for evidence that young people had experienced consistency and continuity in their work with youth-based and adult-based services; and that the achievement made in youth-based services had been consolidated after transfer. For these outcomes to be achieved, practitioners needed to keep young people informed; prepare young people for work throughout the whole sentence; share information with other services about ongoing needs and risks; ensure that offending-related factors identified in youth-based services continued to be addressed in adult-based services, and be responsive to the needs of the individual young person at a time of change. Although we found examples of individual good practice, work to promote effective transition of young people from youth-based to adult-based services did not always receive sufficient attention. In the community, some young people were not identified as eligible for transfer and, in those cases which were identified, transfer was often undertaken as a procedural task. Young people were not as informed or involved as they should have been. Overall, there was insufficient timely sharing of information between the youth-based and adult-based services to enable sentence plans to be delivered without interruption. The situation was similar in custody, where insufficient forward planning and communication led to a hiatus in sentence planning and delivery of interventions after young people had transferred to an over-18 YOI/prison. Positively, there were examples of local written arrangements for transition in the community although they needed to be better understood and used by practitioners. There was little sharing of information between education, training and employment staff in YOTs and their counterparts in Probation Trusts. Although health staff had not been heavily involved in transfers of young people between YOTs and Probation Trusts there were indications that local policies encouraging greater attention to the transition of young people were starting to have a positive impact on practice. Details: London: Criminal Jsutice Joint Inspection, 2012. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 19, 2012 at: http://www.hmcpsi.gov.uk/documents/reports/CJJI_THM/OFFM/cjji-transitions-thematic.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.hmcpsi.gov.uk/documents/reports/CJJI_THM/OFFM/cjji-transitions-thematic.pdf Shelf Number: 126750 Keywords: Juvenile Justice ServicesJuvenile OffendersOffender Supervision (U.K.)Young Adult Offenders |
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 |