Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 11:58 pm
Time: 11:58 pm
Results for probation (u.k.)
8 results foundAuthor: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Probation Title: A Joined-Up Sentence? Offender Management in Prisons in 2009/2010 Summary: This report is the first to be published from our joint Prison Offender Management Inspection programme and reflects our findings from the first 13 establishments inspected. In these inspections we have examined how well prisoners are being managed under Phases II and III of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) Offender Management Model. We have also examined a number of cases which fell outside the model. Although in this report we have aggregated our findings, we found that practice varied widely. This is perhaps inevitable given the different nature of the establishments, and it is worth adding here that these 13 were not necessarily representative of all the prison establishments in England and Wales. Nevertheless, some common themes emerged. • The NOMS model envisaged that offender managers in the community would be responsible for assessing the prisoner and for driving the management of the case. In practice we found that this was rarely happening. Offender supervisors were often expected to take on this role but some lacked the appropriate training and little guidance was available. For those who were prison officers, other operational duties sometimes took priority. • Some prisons had worked hard to ensure that all relevant prisoners had an OASys assessment, even where these should have been prepared by the offender manager. The quality of these assessments varied, and they were rarely seen as a key document within the establishment. Sentence planning was often driven more by the availability of activities than by the assessment. Objectives were rarely outcome-focused and this meant that progress was measured by the completion of activities rather than by evidence of change. • We were disappointed to find that few establishments made strategic use of the OASys database to identify and provide for key areas of need in the prisoner population. • Information about prisoners was held in different locations within the establishment. Worryingly, public protection information was sometimes kept separate from offender management. The fragmentation of records impeded the safe and effective management of prisoners. P-NOMIS had the potential to act as an integrated recording system, but implementation had been delayed and there needed to be a culture shift to ensure that it was used routinely to record significant events and contact with prisoners. • Despite these criticisms, we found some Offender Management Units which were well integrated into the establishment and where core custodial functions sat effectively alongside offender management. However, there needs to be considerable progress across the custodial estate before the NOMS vision of a ‘joined up sentence’ is realised and Offender Management Units operate as a hub within the establishment. Details: London: Criminal Justice Joint Inspection: 2011. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Prison Offender Management Inspection 2: Accessed March 16, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-probation/docs/A_Joined_Up_Sentence-rps.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-probation/docs/A_Joined_Up_Sentence-rps.pdf Shelf Number: 121039 Keywords: Prison AdministrationPrisonersProbation (U.K.) |
Author: Shapland, Joanna Title: The Quality of Probation Supervision -- A Literature Review Summary: This review focuses on what research has revealed is seen as ‘quality’ in probation supervision. It is written to assist the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) and to link into their Offender Engagement Programme, so it is principally concerned with England and Wales, but literature from other countries has also been searched and is included to compare and contrast with the experience in England and Wales. Ideas as to what is ‘quality’ depend of course on what the key purposes for probation and for supervision within probation are thought to be. These have changed over time and with ideas of what the criminal justice system as a whole is intended to do, and they are also affected by the deep-seated legal cultural traditions of that country and the history of its probation service. As we shall see, research has only rarely addressed ‘quality’ per se, whether from the perspective of those managing the service, those supervising or those being supervised. However, ideas of ‘quality’ are intrinsically tied up with ideas of ‘effectiveness’, ‘best practice’ and the often deeply felt, but rarely articulated views about ‘what we are really here to do’. We have, therefore, cast our net wide in terms of what to include, though we try to bring the discussion back to ‘quality’ and what it is at each point. The review follows on from the review by McNeill and Weaver (2010), also for NOMS, which looked at the literature on desistance, or what affects offenders1 stopping offending, and so we have not repeated those lessons here. This review is though very much influenced by the desistance literature, because current views about quality in probation generally are strongly influenced by what is linked to helping to stop offenders offending. The research indicates that desistance is affected by offenders’ own agency (decisions on desistance and offending), their personal and social context, and being able to surmount practical obstacles to successfully leading a non-offending life in the community (obtaining money legitimately, having somewhere to live, growing social ties to prosocial others). Some of the literature on surmounting practical obstacles stems from areas outside criminology, such as dealing with people with multiple social problems, what helps in getting people generally into work or housing the homeless, or referring people to other agencies. We have deliberately sought to bring together these studies into the review, even if they have not been used in probation previously, but have tried to link them into what may be helpful in probation practice at the end of each section. Details: Sheffield, UK: University of Sheffield, Centre for Criminological Research, 2012. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: Occasional Paper 3; Accessed October 19, 2012 at: http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.159010!/file/QualityofProbationSupervision.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.159010!/file/QualityofProbationSupervision.pdf Shelf Number: 126761 Keywords: Offender SupervisionProbation (U.K.) |
Author: Rennison, Claire Title: ViP- Volunteering in Probation Evaluation of the Kirklees Mentoring Project Summary: The Kirklees Mentoring Project was a 12 month pilot partnership between West Yorkshire Probation Trust and Foundation. Its aim was to improve the successful completion rates of Community Orders in Kirklees, to break down barriers to compliance and assist offenders to build pro-social links within the community. It also aimed to provide positive role models from members of the local community some of whom are ex-offenders themselves. This report is an evaluation of the partnership. Data was collected and analysed via pre and post mentoring questionnaires, file reads of mentee case files and interviews with offenders, Offender Managers, volunteers and Foundation representatives. The report presents the findings gained from this information and recommendations for practice. Details: Wakefield, UK: West Yorkshire Probation Trust, 2011. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2013 at: http://www.westyorksprobation.org.uk/documentlist.php?type=1&year=2011 Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.westyorksprobation.org.uk/documentlist.php?type=1&year=2011 Shelf Number: 128267 Keywords: MentoringPartnershipsProbation (U.K.)ProbationersVolunteers |
Author: Robinson, Emma Title: One-to-One Process Evaluation Summary: This evaluation sought to look at the implementation and delivery of One to One in four research areas: West Yorkshire, Northants, West Mercia and Cambridgeshire. The main aim of the research was to highlight how the programme is being implemented, in what circumstances it is used, and the types of offenders it is being targeted at. Method The research has used both quantitative and qualitative data sources to address this aims. Briefly the three main samples comprised: an IAPS data extract of referrals in each of the areas between 06/01/05 and 31/05/06 (n=237); interviews with 14 OTO delivery staff and a further 8 interviews with offenders at varying stages of the programme. Background information was gathered from each of the Areas in order to provide information on referral processes, delivery and staffing. There were differences between the areas in how the programme is implemented and delivered. In West Yorkshire OTO is only delivered in hostels by Residential Officers who have undertaken the tutor training. Two areas (West Mercia and Northants) deliver across a widely dispersed area and reported having had significant waiting lists for the programme. Cambridgeshire felt that their referral process was rather more ‘ad-hoc’ with tutors identifying appropriate participants whenever they have space to deliver the programme. Throughput Results The throughput data from IAPS appeared to correlate with the above background information. Referral rates were much higher in Northants (n=81) and West Mercia (n=122). Cambridgeshire had 32 referrals but as there were only two tutors delivering the programme in this time period their commencement rate was very low (22%). There were only 2 cases in the IAPS extract for West Yorkshire and these were both lost between the referral and assessment stage. There was little difference in the type of offenders being referred between areas, with the exception that Cambridgeshire had almost a 50/50 split of male and female referrals to the programme. West Mercia and Northants had higher proportions of Male referrals (88% and 78% respectively). Proportions of offenders from different ethnic groups were roughly similar in each area and overall, Offenders referred to the programme were predominantly ‘White:British’ (n=225, 95). Across the 4 areas, the completion rate was 35%, suggesting that offenders referred to OTO might be one of the most difficult client groups to engage and motivate. This was confirmed by feedback from tutors who commented that OTO offenders tend to have more inherent problems compared to other offender groups (e.g. mental health issues). An interesting finding from the IAPS extract was with regards to the average number of sessions completed by offenders who commenced the programme. The average across the four areas was 13 sessions. Feedback from both tutors and offenders suggested that it was the latter stages of the programme (sessions 13-20) that needed the most improvement. It was commented that these sessions can be very repetitive and in some cases unnecessary. These figures appear to suggest, when considered alongside the interview feedback, that the programme could perhaps be shortened. Feedback from Staff and Offenders The majority of tutors felt that referrals to the programme are made appropriately though there was some feeling that a minority of cases are referred to OTO purely because they are unsuitable for any other programme and don’t necessarily fit any of the other referral criteria for POTO. Northamptonshire area felt that their referral process had been greatly improved by introducing a Single Point of Contact (SPOC). All potential referrals have to be talked through with the SPOC before they are instigated and this was seen to have improved targeting and reduce the waiting lists in this area. Tutor feedback suggested that OTO is less well promoted in areas than other Accredited Programmes, and is often seen as the ‘quiet’ programme, poorly advertised with few staff outside of programmes teams aware of it’s value. This seems unfortunate given the wealth of comments from tutors and offenders on the value of the programme, and the examples given where OTO has had a significant impact on offenders Tutors also felt that it would be worthwhile looking at reconviction data for those who have been through the programme as it was felt that these cases had not gone on to re-offend. The programme was seen as needing a large amount of preparation time and tutors reported having to juggle their time as best as possible, especially if they had responsibility for delivering other programmes. The two hostel tutors in West Yorkshire found it particularly difficult to fit in OTO delivery alongside running the hostel and dealing with their normal caseloads. There was also some suggestion that at times, the tutor role can encroach onto more of an Offender Management role due to the difficult client group that they are dealing with. All Areas had tried to maintain an effective support network between tutors following the initial tutor training, with some having introduced ‘development days’ where tutors could discuss cases and share good practice. However, it appeared that not many Areas are not keeping these going as regularly as originally intended despite that fact that they are considered very useful, particularly for those tutors who work in very dispersed areas and can feel more isolated, not having another tutor nearby to ‘debrief’ with. There was some agreement between tutors and offenders as to which parts of the programme are more successful. The Offence Analysis work was considered to be particularly useful, especially as this was an area that offenders felt they would have difficulty discussing in a group situation. The role play/role rotation exercises were explicitly mentioned several times as an area of the programme that offenders dislike and is difficult for tutors to deliver. It was also felt that parts of the programme manual are quite badly written and difficult for tutors to understand and then translate into a programme session. Motivation of offenders on the programme appears to be tied to several factors. Rapport with the programme tutor appears to be one of the more important elements but also some buy-in to the programme appears to come from the fact that the programme is structured in such a way as to allow participants to see how far they have progressed. Details: Wakefield, UK: West Yorkshire Probation Service, 2007. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2013 at: http://www.westyorksprobation.org.uk/documentlist.php?type=1&year=2007 Year: 2007 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.westyorksprobation.org.uk/documentlist.php?type=1&year=2007 Shelf Number: 128271 Keywords: Probation (U.K.)Probation OfficersProbationers |
Author: Robinson, Emma Title: Added Value? HIMMAT in Halifax Evaluation Report Summary: Currently Himmat are contracted to work with South Asian offenders in Halifax. This evaluation forms part of a best value review and investigates whether the Himmat service adds value over and above the standard offender management practice. Specifically the evaluation looks at whether Himmat helps to improve order compliance and completions, whether it reduces the likelihood of breach and if offenders value the service. This study combined quantitative and qualitative approaches in order to address the question of whether the HIMMAT service adds value above that of standard offender management practice in Halifax. The aims of the research where to assess whether HIMMAT helps to improve order completions and compliance, whether it reduces instances of breach and whether the offenders themselves value the service. Quantitative data was obtained from CRAMS and Performance Information packs for West Yorkshire. A file-read was also conducted on the first 34 cases who had contact with the HIMMAT service. Interviews were also conducted with Offender Management staff (n=5) who have worked with HIMMAT in producing SDRs on their cases, and offenders (n=5) who had been in contact with HIMMAT for at least 6 months. Compliance and breach figures were analysed for the first 6 months (26 weeks) of the order/licence for each offender, this matching the process which is used for area auditing on these measures. Data was obtained for 2006/7 and 2007/8 on the number of National Standards appointments kept and instances of breach. The file-read results were very positive and revealed an average compliance rate of 90% for offenders in the sample. Only 3 cases (9%) had any breach action recorded in the first 26 weeks of their order. A total of 21 offenders (88%) went on to complete their order successfully. When compared to data for Calderdale (61%) and Area figures (61%), these results were statistically significant. These results were compared to those for Asian offenders in other districts and offenders across the area as a whole by using Nsmart data held by the Performance Information team. The results for 2006/7 showed that overall, Asian offenders in Calderdale have performed better on compliance with National Standards appointments and matched the results from the file read with a 90% compliance rate. The overall compliance rate for offenders in Calderdale was 79% in 2006/7, which showed that offenders in Calderdale are only slightly more compliant then the total caseload (76%), thus suggesting that there is indeed a high rate of compliance amongst Asian offenders in this district rather than the results being a product of Calderdale being a more compliant district in itself. The figures for 2007/8 were much closer between the districts. Although Calderdale has maintained a high compliance rate, it appears that the other districts have drive up their compliance during this period, thus they are now more on a par with Calderdale. Breach is also monitored for the first 26 weeks of an offender’s order/licence. Results are recorded by means of a ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ for each individual. The breach data was less conclusive with regards to the impact of HIMMAT when looking at results for Asian offenders in other districts. The percentage success rate for Asian offenders was fairly consistent across West Yorkshire districts in 2006/7. Data for this year showed that the average success rate for Asian offenders was 68% (compared to 63%) for the total caseload, suggesting that Asian offenders performed better on breach measures. Data for 2007/8 showed that there had been improvements across the area on breach for Asian offenders (now ranging from 75% to 87%). The average rate for Asian offenders in this time period was 80%, an improvement of 12% on the previous year. This is likely to be, in part, a result of performance improvement projects that were implemented across the area in order to improve compliance figures. However, there were some significant findings when comparing results for the HIMMAT offenders against area figures. In 2006/7 the pass rate for breach was 65% for the area (1590/2447). When compared to the HIMMAT sample results, Chi Square testing showed the better performance of the HIMMAT sample to be a statistically significant result (p=0.003). In 2007/8 the rate was 67% (1528/2267) for the area compared to the 91% for HIMMAT offenders. Again, this was a statistically significant result (p=0.007). All offenders interviewed spoke positively about the value of HIMMAT both in terms of the flexibility offered around appointments and also the way in which HIMMAT staff can help them to address often multiple issues which may have cultural implications. Offender Managers also talked about the value of HIMMAT to the offenders they supervise. Overall comments appeared to be linked to they way in which HIMMAT can assist Asian offenders in dealing with issues linked to relationships, employment, family and health whilst taking into account the offenders culture. Offender managers talked about the value of HIMMAT in terms of being able to have someone they can consult with regarding a case but also someone who can challenge offenders on things that they might not feel confident approaching themselves. Some staff members gave examples of where HIMMAT had challenged an individual in the early stages of their order and this had impacted positively on engaging that individual in supervision. There were few suggestions as to how the service could be improved. Where suggestions were made these tended to relate to whether the service could be expanded out to other districts or whether HIMMAT could offer a wider range of services (i.e. whether HIMMAT could offer support to drug misusing offenders). Offender Management staff also felt that the service could be used more by their own colleagues as it was considered that use of the service could be variable at present. Details: Wakefield, UK: West Yorkshire Probation Service, 2008. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2013 at: http://www.westyorksprobation.org.uk/documentlist.php?type=1&year=2008 Year: 2008 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.westyorksprobation.org.uk/documentlist.php?type=1&year=2008 Shelf Number: 128273 Keywords: Asian OffendersProbation (U.K.)Probation OfficersProbationers |
Author: McPhillips, Stuart Title: "I Wanted to Make it Work" - Knowledge and Experience from Probation Practice Changes Summary: The years from 1998 to 2010 were a prolific period for policy initiatives in community corrections. From ‘what works’ initiatives to intensive supervision schemes, performance targets to ‘modernisation’, major policy initiatives sought to reshape practice. What was their real impact on practice? How did probation staff experience those changes? What contributed to success or failure? In this initial study, the team focussed on the experience of three key ‘communities of practice’– practice staff, middle and senior managers in six Probation Trusts. Their accounts, analysed using qualitative research methodology, provide fascinating insights into the real world experience of management and practice. Their learning is relevant to all involved in policy development and implementation in community corrections. Key points from the report include: 1. Successful change strategies engage and mobilise the contribution of positive staff. A devolved approach to national changes enables local leadership and high staff engagement. 2. Tensions for practitioners and managers arose from resource and cost awareness and management which were not well developed. 3. Probation staff who were directly involved with partners were positive about that experience and worked through differences - cultural, ethical or arising from different ‘ways of working’. 4. Performance targets focus attention and priority but sometimes impact negatively on practice. For only a minority of developments were the fundamentals of sound project management in place. 5. Most changes were not subject to research or evaluation, robust monitoring or capture of lessons learned – key features of evidence-informed practice. Many staff did offer positive evidence of the impact of the work and were keen to share learning and experience. Details: Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Hallam University, Hallam Centre for Community Justice, 2012. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 18, 2013 at: http://www.cjp.org.uk/publications/academic/i-wanted-to-make-it-work-knowledge-and-experience-from-probation-practice-changes/ Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cjp.org.uk/publications/academic/i-wanted-to-make-it-work-knowledge-and-experience-from-probation-practice-changes/ Shelf Number: 129027 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCriminal Justice PolicyProbation (U.K.)Probation Officers |
Author: Centre for Social Justice Title: The New Probation Landscape: Why the voluntary sector matters if we are going to reduce reoffending Summary: The Ministry of Justice is in the process of implementing an extensive programme of reform for the delivery of probation services across England and Wales. As part of this agenda, which is designed to reduce 'stubbornly high rates of reoffending', work with approximately 236,000 low- and medium-risk offenders will be contracted out to private and voluntary organisations and statutory support will be extended to prisoners on short sentences. If these reforms are to be successful they will need to consist of strong and resilient partnerships between the private and voluntary sectors. This paper is designed to inform those partnerships and sets the nature of the organisations that make-up the sector; why they're important; and what they think about the reforms. Details: London: Centre for Social Justice, 2013. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2013 at: http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/UserStorage/pdf/Pdf%20reports/landscape.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/UserStorage/pdf/Pdf%20reports/landscape.pdf Shelf Number: 131625 Keywords: PartnershipsPrivatizationProbation (U.K.)Voluntary and Community Organizations |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Probation Title: An Inspection of the work of Probation Trusts and Youth Offending Teams to protect children and young people Summary: This inspection was undertaken by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation in response to the findings from our mainstream inspection programmes of probation and youth offending work practice which suggested that work to protect children and young people carried out by Probation Trusts and Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) was not being consistently delivered well enough. The inspection focused on the work to identify those children and young people at risk of harm and to take appropriate action where necessary. We visited six Probation Trusts and YOTs to assess the quality of the work by inspecting cases and interviewing offender/case managers. In all we inspected: - 58 orders held by Probation Trusts and 83 orders held by YOTs which had commenced in the three month period prior to the inspection - 42 cases in Probation Trusts and 36 cases in YOTs where a child protection plan was or had been in place at some point during the course of the order - 48 referrals to children's social care services made by Probation Trusts and 37 made by YOTs. We also interviewed key managers, staff and partners at local and national level involved in work to protect children. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2014. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 26, 2015 at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/08/Protecting-Children-Thematic-Report1.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/08/Protecting-Children-Thematic-Report1.pdf Shelf Number: 134708 Keywords: Offender SupervisionProbation (U.K.)ProbationersYouthful Offenders |