Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 11:59 pm
Time: 11:59 pm
Results for probation supervision (u.k.)
1 results foundAuthor: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Probation Title: Aggregate Report: Offender Management Inspection 2009-2012 Summary: • This report provides aggregate findings across the nine English Regions and Wales from HMI Probation’s second round of Offender Management Inspections (OMI 2) which was completed in November 2012. The findings in this report cover the 36 Probation Trust areas1 inspected in the programme and are based on close scrutiny of representative samples of cases in each area. • Overall, these findings indicate that a great deal of good work is being undertaken with adult offenders, but that there remains scope for further improvement in specific aspects. • On the main “headline” elements of work inspected in OMI 2: o on average, HMI Probation judged that 75% of work to keep each offender’s risk of harm to others to a minimum was of a sufficiently high level of quality o on average, HMI Probation judged that 74% of work to make each individual less likely to reoffend was of a sufficiently high level of quality o on average, HMI Probation judged that 79% of compliance and enforcement work (aimed at ensuring that each individual offender serves their sentence) was of a sufficiently high level of quality For each of these elements there were considerable gaps between the highest and lowest scores between individual Trust areas, but no Trust received a score which required a reinspection. • In 74% of all cases (and in 79% of high risk of harm cases) all reasonable action was taken to keep risk of harm to others to a minimum. • In 66% of all cases (but in 79% of high risk of harm cases), risk of harm to identifiable, or potentially identifiable, victims was effectively managed. • In only 51% of all cases (but in 71% of high risk of harm cases) was there management involvement in child safeguarding issues. • In 81% of all cases, interventions were delivered according to the requirements of the sentence. • In 76% of all cases, constructive interventions encouraged and challenged the offender to take responsibility for their actions and decisions related to offending, while in the community. • In 85% of all cases, effective action had, where necessary, been taken to secure compliance with all interventions. • In 76% of all cases (and in 84% of high risk of harm cases), breach action or recall was instigated on all occasions when required. • In general, the quality of work with cases assessed as high risk of harm was better than that for all cases as a whole. • When analysed by diversity characteristics, there was no evidence of any major difference in quality of work by gender, ethnicity, or reported disability. However, where there were differences, in respect of age, there was evidence that some aspects of work were done sufficiently well with older offenders somewhat more often than with younger adult offenders. Details: London: HM IOnspectorate of Probation, 2013. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 26, 2013 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprobation/adult-inspection-reports/omi2/omi2-aggregate-findings-feb-2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprobation/adult-inspection-reports/omi2/omi2-aggregate-findings-feb-2013.pdf Shelf Number: 127718 Keywords: Offender ManagementOffender SupervisionProbation Supervision (U.K.)Probationers |