Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 2:36 am
Time: 2:36 am
Results for probation caseloads
5 results foundAuthor: Cox, Stephen M. Title: The Final Report of the Evaluation of the Court Support Services Division's Probation Transition Program Summary: The Judicial Branch's Court Support Services Division (CSSD) began accepting probationers into the Probation Transition Program (PTP) on October 1, 2004 in five probation offices. The PTP targeted inmates who had probation sentences that followed their prison sentence and subsequent release from the Department of Correction (DOC). The overarching goal was to reduce the technical violation rate of split sentence probationers by helping them re-enter their community following prison release. In theory, the lower caseloads would allow PTP officers to spend more time assessing probationers, helping them find appropriate services, and monitoring their behavior. Legislative funding to the Judicial Branch to hire more probation officers led to the statewide expansion of the PTP in February of 2007. Faculty from the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice from Central Connecticut State University were contracted to evaluate the PTP expansion. The following report summarizes the findings and conclusions of this evaluation. Details: New Britain, CT: Central Connecticut State University, 2010. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 15, 2014 at: http://www.ccsu.edu/uploaded/departments/AcademicDepartments/Criminology__criminal_justice/Cox/Probation_Transition_Program_Final_Report_(2010).pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.ccsu.edu/uploaded/departments/AcademicDepartments/Criminology__criminal_justice/Cox/Probation_Transition_Program_Final_Report_(2010).pdf Shelf Number: 132366 Keywords: Prisoner ReentryProbation CaseloadsProbationers (Connecticut) |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Quality & Impact inspection: The effectiveness of probation work in the north of London Summary: This is our first inspection of adult probation services in the capital for some time. It is not yet comprehensive – in that on this occasion we inspected in eight boroughs in the north of London, and will return to inspect other London quadrants next year and beyond. Meanwhile we hope that our findings are of value to those responsible for probation services throughout the city. Delivering probation services in the capital is particularly challenging. The city has a diverse, mobile and relatively young population, living in 32 boroughs that each differ in the way they work with offenders. The work is unrelenting, with some 17% of all those under probation supervision nationally living in London . Probation services in London have long struggled with high workloads, and workload pressures have been a regular feature in the most notorious of cases where a supervised individual has committed a Serious Further Offence. We found the quality of work by the Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) poor. There was some welcome good practice by individual officers and first-line managers but generally, practice was well below standard, with the public exposed unduly to the risk of harm in some cases despite lessons from the past. That is plainly not acceptable. A combination of unmanageable caseloads, inexperienced officers, extremely poor oversight and a lack of senior management focus and control meant some service users were not seen for weeks or months, and some were lost in the system altogether – something we alerted managers to early on in our inspection. This simple lack of management attention to basic attendance and supervision was the most striking and surprising finding, and again, not acceptable. Sadly and despite the heroic efforts of some staff, we found that there had been little or no likely impact on reducing reoffending. Staff were sometimes working long hours and were often 'fire-fighting' rather than enabled to deliver a professional service consistently or sufficiently well. We found the National Probation Service (NPS) delivering services better, but with plenty of room for improvement. The quality of work was mixed, but we were pleased to find that public protection work was satisfactory overall. The delivery of court services has been a rubbing point in the 'new world', and we found it stubbornly problematic here. Managers must resolve tensions between the two organisations, to improve court services. Details: Manchester: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2016. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 20, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/12/North-of-London-QI-Report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/12/North-of-London-QI-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 147781 Keywords: Offender ManagementProbationProbation CaseloadsProbation OfficersProbationers |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Quality & Impact inspection: The effectiveness of probation work in York & North Yorkshire Summary: This inspection was the second in our new Quality & Impact inspection programme, designed to assess the effectiveness of work undertaken locally by probation services with people who have offended, to implement orders of the court, reduce reoffending, protect the public and safeguard the vulnerable. We found much to be commended and, indeed, it is a pleasure to present this report. Both the local Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) and the National Probation Service (NPS) region had gone through significant change as a consequence of the government's national Transforming Rehabilitation programme. Nonetheless, staff had maintained a pragmatic approach to the day-to-day work, focusing on responding to risks of harm posed and supporting individuals to change their lives for the better. In effect, we saw 'business as usual', with less obvious evidence of the dissonance we have seen elsewhere. That said, there was also a real sense of innovation evident across both organisations. Staff showed initiative and persistence, with the CRC introducing new innovations to aid their working practice and extend available services for offenders. Managers were frustrated, however, by not being able to judge whether probation work was making a difference, since local reoffending data was not yet available to them, albeit the quality of work we saw boded well for successful outcomes. The organisations were working well together in the face of the long-standing challenge of delivering services across a large geographical area. Working arrangements between both organisations were generally effective, supported by open and cooperative relationships between staff at all levels of both organisations. The quality of much of the work we saw was good, save that the CRC's work to manage risk of harm was not sufficiently focused, in part due to the lack of routine management oversight of practitioners' work. In contrast, the NPS was managing risk of harm with rigour. The presence of a very large army barracks at Catterick created an unusual offender group of serving and former military personnel and their families. Although probation staff were experienced in managing such cases, poor information provision by the army to probation staff in cases led to confusion as to any interventions delivered by the army, and ongoing risks. We were surprised to find no formal communications process, given that the garrison was longstanding Details: Manchester: The Inspectorate, 2016. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 20, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/08/York-North-Yorkshire-QI-170816.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/08/York-North-Yorkshire-QI-170816.pdf Shelf Number: 146001 Keywords: Offender Management Probation Probation CaseloadsProbation Officers Probationers |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Quality & Impact Inspection: The effectiveness of probation work in Kent Summary: In our March 2014 inspection of Kent we found much room for improvement in certain areas of practice, most notably assessment. Within the CRC in this inspection, we saw clear signs of improvement in some of the areas we had identified in the former Probation Trust as weak. The quality of practice overall was encouraging and (with the exception of the delivery of unpaid work) progress was noteworthy. In contrast, the quality of NPS work was mixed. Court work was being delivered to an acceptable standard, and court staff and sentencers we spoke with were content with the services being delivered. Despite this, we found an unacceptable level of cases being misallocated, meaning that offenders were too often supervised by the wrong organisation. The quality of assessments within the NPS was generally good, although subsequent work was too often insufficiently focused on addressing factors linked to risk of harm issues, and so risks to the public were not sufficiently well managed. Protecting the public CRC effectiveness We found that the assessment of the risk of serious harm individuals posed to others was generally undertaken to an acceptable standard. We found, however, that some staff managing cases that had the potential to cause significant harm did not have sufficient experience, training or managerial oversight. There had been severe and unacceptable delays in the delivery of some interventions, including the Building Better Relationships programme, designed to tackle domestic abuse. As a result, too many service users did not have an effective challenge to their behaviour quickly enough, to reduce promptly the risk of harm they posed. The situation was improving. NPS effectiveness At the pre-sentence stage, cases were generally assessed to an acceptable standard, with no noticeable difference between cases to be managed by the CRC or the NPS. There were clearly many staff with the necessary skills to work with the risk of harm NPS offenders posed, although not all staff were sufficiently alert to or focused on managing risk of harm. Nearly half of the responsible officers we interviewed felt that they had not had sufficient training to manage the cases for which they were responsible. We thought this proportion too high. Shortages in first-line managers compounded the problem, as responsible officers were not always receiving sufficient guidance or support. The CRC and NPS working together The CRC and NPS were generally working together well. There was a danger, however, that information was being lost due to insufficient NPS recording and/or onward communication of relevant information from court reports, particularly oral reports. Reducing reoffending CRC effectiveness Assessments of service users’ needs in relation to their offending behaviour were delivered to an acceptable standard in a high proportion of cases. Planning to address these needs was also sufficient in most cases. The CRC’s performance in reviewing cases, however, was poor. The organisation’s operating model necessitated the transfer of service users between two teams: the assessment team and the rehabilitation team. This could, in certain circumstances, have acted as a barrier to rehabilitation although staff were generally working hard to mitigate this possibility. Conversely, within resettlement teams the same teams of officers maintained contact with service users as they moved from custody into the community. Despite the fact there is no hard evidence of effectiveness as yet, we thought this practice looked promising. We found that there had been sufficient progress in delivering the necessary interventions within the first six months of the order in approximately half of the cases we inspected. The CRC acknowledged that not enough staff were trained to deliver programmes, and we found examples of unacceptably long waiting times for some programmes. Waiting times had reduced significantly in recent months. Substance misuse services in the county were in a state of flux at the time of the inspection. For the sample of cases we inspected, most individuals with drug or alcohol misuse needs could access an effective service. There were reasonable concerns, however, that this might not be so in future. NPS effectiveness Most pre-sentence reports were of an acceptable standard, although the lack of suitable IT equipment hindered the development of efficient practices. Feedback from sentencers and court staff indicated that those NPS staff working in courts were held in high regard. There was a problem, however, with the allocation of cases. We found several examples where staff had either not understood the complexities of the allocation procedure, or for some other reason had made errors of judgement. Overall, for cases managed by the NPS, we found that the assessment of individual offending-related needs was acceptable in a reasonable proportion of cases. Plans to tackle offending were usually sufficient. The delivery of interventions was more problematic; too many cases were being transferred between insufficiently trained temporary or inexperienced staff. This problem was compounded by a lack of oversight from middle managers who were themselves overstretched. The CRC and NPS working together Working relationships between CRC and NPS staff were generally positive. The CRC had produced high quality information leaflets about their services for courts, although NPS staff felt that there was a need for a more dynamic approach to the provision of information, so as to keep them abreast of developments within the CRC. Abiding by the sentence CRC effectiveness CRC effectiveness was mixed, but improving. The CRC had impressive arrangements to make sure that they listened to the needs of service users, captured their views and took seriously the feedback they received. There was also evidence that in most cases responsible officers had taken the time to engage offenders carefully, to establish what they wanted to achieve from probation, and to deliver interventions in ways that met their diverse individual needs. There was still work to be done, however, to better understand and deliver rehabilitation activity requirement days as intended by legislation, a common issue nationally. Most significantly, we found very poor performance with regard to the delivery of unpaid work. Despite the efforts that had been made, there had been insufficient progress on the recruitment of supervisors, leading to a totally unacceptable rate of ‘stand downs’. Consequently, offenders were sometimes prevented from abiding by the requirements of their sentence. As mentioned earlier, there were also delays in starting accredited programmes. NPS effectiveness NPS performance was acceptable. Assessments and plans drawn up by responsible officers were usually done in consultation with offenders and took account of their diverse needs. In most cases, there were good levels of contact offered and, where problems with compliance arose, these were usually dealt with effectively. The CRC and NPS working together Working relationships between CRC and NPS staff were generally positive. There was good communication between staff, and swift action taken to resolve any difficulties. Practitioners from both organisations worked together to solve problems, for example, in relation to the quality of breach reports. The problems the CRC had delivering unpaid work caused some tensions, as did the ‘fee for service’ arrangements where the CRC delivered interventions for NPS cases. Recommendations The Community Rehabilitation Company and National Probation Service should: 1. improve the exchange of information about sentencing options by supplementing the high quality information leaflets produced with other methods agreed locally 2. prepare a joint response to the health service commissioners of substance misuse services on the impact of changes in treatment opportunities. The Community Rehabilitation Company should: 3. make sure that the rate at which service users are ‘stood down’ from unpaid work placements is significantly reduced 4. monitor the waiting list for access to accredited programmes and make further progress in reducing waiting times 5. improve the availability of specialist provision for enhancing the educational, training and employment opportunities for service users 6. increase the management oversight of probation services officers, particularly during their initial training, so as to support their management of service users posing a medium risk of harm to others. The National Probation Service should: 7. seek a solution to the problems of the insufficient staff complement, recruitment and retention issues in Kent 8. make sure that the level of mis-allocations is reduced significantly 9. improve the quality of IT equipment available for use by court staff, and provide computer hardware and software that enables local staff to more easily access national online training packages 10. make sure that all new staff, whether employed directly or via an agency, have access to sufficient training to enable them to undertake the work they are given. Details: Manchester: The Inspectorate, 2016. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 21, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/10/Kent-QI.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/10/Kent-QI.pdf Shelf Number: 147794 Keywords: Offender Management Probation Probation CaseloadsProbation Officers Probationers |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Quality & Impact inspection: The effectiveness of probation work in Greater Manchester Summary: The two organisations providing probation services in Greater Manchester were working well in some respects, but needed to do more to reduce reoffending, said Dame Glenys Stacey, HM Chief Inspector of Probation. The Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) also needed to do more to protect the public, she added. Today she published the report of a recent inspection of probation work in Greater Manchester. The inspection looked at the quality of probation work carried out by the CRC and the National Probation Service (NPS) and assessed the effectiveness of work undertaken locally with people who have offended. Overall, the quality of the Cheshire and Greater Manchester's CRC's work was mixed. The CRC is applying the same innovative way of working in each of the five CRCs it owns, based on solid research into what makes people turn away from crime. Despite this, leaders were finding it hard to embed in practice. Public protection work was not good enough because policies and procedures, though commendable, were not being applied consistently enough by frontline staff to protect actual or potential victims from the risk of harm. Sickness absence rates were high in the CRC and individual caseloads had been large in the months before the inspection. This led to cases moving from one Responsible Officer to another, making it difficult to keep hold of the meaningful relationships so central to good rehabilitative work and reducing reoffending. Extra staff had recently been recruited, which should improve the quality of work and staff morale. The CRC was delivering impressive services for women, supported by additional funding from the Police and Crime Commissioner. In common with other regions, the NPS had experienced less change and was more settled. Staff morale was relatively high and good core work to protect the public was carried out, though there was more to do on delivering rehabilitation work consistently. Inspectors made recommendations which included the NPS accessing the range of accredited and non-accredited programmes and services on offer from the CRC to reduce reoffending, and the CRC providing all staff, and especially new staff, with regular supervision and training. The CRC should also improve the effectiveness of the management of unpaid work. Details: Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2016. 77p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 16, 2017 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/02/Greater-Manchester-QI-report-final2.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/02/Greater-Manchester-QI-report-final2.pdf Shelf Number: 146276 Keywords: Offender Management Probation Probation CaseloadsProbation Officers Probationers |