Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:11 pm
Time: 10:11 pm
Results for resettlement
15 results foundAuthor: Howard League for Penal Reform Title: Young, Adult and No Support: The Entitlements of Young Adults to Care in the Community Summary: Since 2002 the Howard League has provided a legal service to children in prison. In 2007 the Howard League expanded its service to provide the only dedicated legal service for young adults in prison. ‘Young adults’ are defined by the prison service as a prisoner between the ages of 18 and 20 years. This report is produced by the Howard League’s young adult legal team based on the experience and evidence from our casework. Our young adult team undertake groundbreaking work which begins to assert and clarify the rights and entitlements of this neglected and ignored group. A considerable part of our work has focused on ensuring that there is an appropriate and detailed plan for the young person when she or he returns to the community. This transition is known as ‘resettlement’ and the right plan can be critical to obtaining release from custody and a safe return to the community. This publication is intended to be a guide for any practitioners who work with vulnerable young adults. We hope that this will be a useful guide for people to understand the rights and entitlements of young adults and assist in enabling practitioners to promote access to suitable support for young adults. Details: London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2010. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 27, 2012 at: http://www.t2a.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Howard-League-Young-Adult-and-No-support.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.t2a.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Howard-League-Young-Adult-and-No-support.pdf Shelf Number: 126121 Keywords: HomelessnessHousingPrisoner ReentryResettlementYoung Adult Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: ARCS (UK) Ltd, Title: RESET Evaluation -- Final Report Summary: RESET was an ESF EQUAL (European) funded programme aiming to establish a best practice model of resettlement of young offenders in England. It was designed to challenge the lack of integration and cohesion between the agencies involved. It ran for 2 years from July 2005, with an initial setting-up phase before this date. It was led by the charity Rainer, with over 50 partner organisations contributing assistance, expertise and match funding. The partners included Government departments, Regional Government offices, the Prison Service, YJB, Metropolitan Police, Commission for Racial Equality, Connexions, housing providers and voluntary organisations working with young people. The Programme had international partners in Holland, Poland, and Spain, although the programmes in these countries differed significantly from that in England. The project was initiated as a response to research, policy and practice recognition of the need for better resettlement for young offenders. As an early RESET document noted: A previous evaluation of Detention and Training Orders (DTOs) for young people, which included researchers from this evaluation (Hazel, Hagell, Liddle, Archer, Grimshaw and King, 2002), identified several problems with “throughcare” for young people in England and Wales. These problems began even before release, when there was found to be little preparation for release, and minimal communication between prison and community agencies. After release, there was little involvement of agencies other than youth offending teams (YOTs). There was only limited education, training and organised leisure, with problems also identified in relation to accommodation. Good practice, based on research in the USA and the UK, is considered to contain the following elements (Hagell, 2004): continuous case management from the start of sentence (or earlier) to the end of the community supervision period (or longer?), with direct links between custody and the community; commitment and continuity of staff; preparation for release while in custody; a highly structured and assisted transition to the community; both surveillance and enhanced service delivery in the community, with a balance of incentives and graduated consequences for behaviour; services to meet a range of the needs, with sufficient numbers of qualified staff in both the institution and the community; the intensity of the programme tailored to the level of risk of reoffending; and effective links between services, staff and teams in both settings. RESET was intended to explore ways in which this research knowledge could be integrated into policy and practice in England and Wales in order to address problems such as those identified in the DTO evaluation. The specific aims of the evaluation (with relevance to this report) were: to assess the effectiveness of the RESET programme in improving outcomes for young offenders sentenced to custody (including reduced offending behaviour and engagement in a positive lifestyle); to assess the detailed activities and achievements of the programme, in order to identify the key elements that contributed to the outcomes; to assess the direct and indirect costs of RESET, distinguishing between the ‘one-off’ transitional costs and the continuing costs of running the programme (since carried out and published separately by Judith Renshaw); to assess the effectiveness of the RESET programme on particular groups of young offenders, including young women and refugees/asylum seekers/foreign nationals, and to draw some conclusions about the overall contribution of the RESET approach and programme, including its impact on national policy and practice, its ability to be transferred to the mainstream and the effectiveness of the management partnership. Details: Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 28, 2012 at: http://www.commonwealhousing.org.uk/data/files/reset__final_report_final_version.pdf Year: 0 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.commonwealhousing.org.uk/data/files/reset__final_report_final_version.pdf Shelf Number: 126167 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)ReentryResettlement |
Author: Phillips, Liz Title: Evaluation of the YJB Pilot Resettlement Support Panel Scheme Summary: The Youth Justice Board (YJB) made funding available in July 2009 to enable six selected Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) in Wales to expand resettlement for young people aged 12 to 17 who are leaving custody. The funding is also aimed at preventing young people from entering custody in the first place. The pilot resettlement schemes are a new approach to addressing the issues faced by young people in custody. They fit in with the priorities of the All- Wales Youth Offending Strategy (AWYOS) Delivery Plan, in particular, reducing reoffending and the use of custodial sentences, and increasing effective resettlement. The pilot resettlement schemes are a new approach to addressing the issues faced by young people in custody. They fit in with the priorities of the All- Wales Youth Offending Strategy (AWYOS) Delivery Plan, in particular, reducing reoffending and the use of custodial sentences, and increasing effective resettlement. The RSPs’ main objective is to coordinate multi-agency support for the resettlement of young people through addressing substance misuse, accommodation problems, mental health and education issues. The Panels also assist young people in accessing education, employment and training opportunities, mediate with families and peers, and encourage more appropriate use of leisure time. Developing young people’s life skills, budget management, healthy living, and raising their self-esteem and confidence to facilitate positive decision-making are also RSP objectives. RSPs typically have membership from social services, education, health (particularly Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), the police, local authority housing department, housing providers, careers advisers, YOT personnel, Young Offenders’ Institutions (YOIs), and Youth Services. The six Welsh LAs who took part in the evaluation were Bridgend, Caerphilly and Blaenau Gwent, Conwy and Denbighshire, Gwynedd and Ynys Mon, Merthyr Tydfil and Wrexham. All RSPs are required to review the delivery of resettlement support plans and outcomes for participating children and young people. Bridgend and Wrexham, however, have an enhanced review function. This means that they are required to scrutinise individual cases to ascertain whether resettlement support could have been delivered differently to offer a more effective community-based alternative to custody. The aims of the evaluation are to conduct a: Process evaluation which examines: • the setting up and functioning of the RSPs particularly with regard to ‘buy in’ from member agencies, and working together • the role and impact of the resettlement support worker and the supervision support worker • the role and effectiveness of the review body, and an: Outcome evaluation to determine: • the effectiveness of the scheme in improving outcomes for young offenders • the extent to which partners commit resources to resettlement support plans. Recommendations for more effective implementation of the scheme based on the conclusions are also included. Details: Cardiff, Wales: Welsh Government Social Research, 2012. 149p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 12, 2012 at: http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/WYJT01/WYJT01.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/WYJT01/WYJT01.pdf Shelf Number: 126318 Keywords: At-risk YouthJuvenile Offenders (Wales, UK)Juvenile ReentryRehabilitationReoffendingResettlementYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: Edgar, Kimmett Title: Out For Good: Taking Responsibility for Resettlement Summary: Enabling prisoners to take responsibility for their own resettlement is key to helping them address the challenges they will face on release and reduce their risk of reoffending, according to a new report by the Prison Reform Trust. Effective resettlement - the successful re-integration of people after prison - is a linchpin for reducing reoffending and a key element of the Coalition Government’s rehabilitation revolution. However, while prisoners hope to be out for good, almost half of adults released from prison are reconvicted within one year of release; the rate is 57% for those serving sentences of less than 12 months. Factors linked to re-offending help to explain these high rates: •79% of offenders who are homeless at the time they go to prison are reconvicted, compared to 47% who have accommodation •Over half of prisoners report that their drug-taking is a factor in acquisitive offences such as shoplifting, vehicle crime and theft •Only 36% of people leaving prison go into a job, educational course or training •48% of prisoners are at, or below, the level expected of an 11 year old in reading, 65% in numeracy and 82% in writing Drawing on the views and experiences of prisoners, along with prison governors and staff and voluntary sector providers, the Prison Reform Trust, supported by the Pilgrim Trust, conducted applied research to determine what makes for effective resettlement. The reports’ authors visited nine prisons, held discussion groups with about 40 prisoners and 30 staff, and interviewed 34 individual prisoners, and a wide range of staff from the prison service and the voluntary sector. Out for Good: taking responsibility for resettlement, also draws on data provided by the Prisoners Education Trust, from its Inside Time survey of 532 prisoners on their plans for resettlement. Key to effective resettlement was a commitment by prison staff to work closely with the prisoner not just to do things to, or for them. Alongside controlling risk and managing cases, prison staff and support services needed to share responsibility with the person preparing for his or her resettlement. Prison staff should enable offenders to make choices about the practical challenges they will face on release, and support those choices with appropriate help and advice. The prisoners interviewed as part of the study advocated a new set of priorities for resettlement work while in prison. These include: • An individual approach to each prisoner • Provision of information prisoners need to make reasoned decisions • Enhanced communication with the outside • Extended use of Release on Temporary Licence • Training focused on employable skills • Improved contact with family and involvement of families in preparation for release Most of the solutions to effective resettlement do not lie behind bars. The report recommends that the Ministry of Justice should work across government departments and local authorities to put in place housing, employment, health and social care and family support which are pivotal to successful rehabilitation. The report also recommends that prison managers should place the concept of sharing responsibility for resettlement between staff members and individual prisoners at the heart of their resettlement strategy. Every resettlement team should develop links to community-based organisations with the expertise prisoners need, including housing, finance and debt, family support and employment. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust, 2012. 99p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 13, 2012 at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/OutforGood.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/OutforGood.pdf Shelf Number: 126332 Keywords: Ex-OffendersPrisoner Reentry (U.K.)RehabilitationResettlement |
Author: Bateman, Tim Title: Resettlement of Young People Leaving Custody: Lessons from the literature Summary: This literature review aims to set out the research and practice evidence about effective resettlement services for children and young adults and can be used to inform future policy and practice to ensure service delivery is evidence based. The findings of the review will help to steer the focus of Beyond Youth Custody’s research over the duration of the programme and act as a baseline to assess how our understanding has advanced in terms of what works in facilitating the transition from youth custody to the community and beyond. In addition, the review highlights some examples of good practice, as well as the emerging key principles of effective resettlement provision. This literature review presents the findings of an analysis of research and practice literature about resettlement services for young people when they leave custody. It will act as a baseline to assess how the Youth in Focus delivery projects have advanced our knowledge of what works within youth resettlement following custody. The review also highlights some emerging principles of effective practice that will be useful for practitioners, policymakers and commissioners to ensure resettlement services are designed and delivered in a way which meets the needs of young people and consequently which reduces reoffending. The headline findings of the literature review are: •Custodial sentences have the highest reconviction rates, but more effective and better coordinated resettlement provision and planning can significantly reduce offending and public costs. •The reduction of numbers in custody has brought additional challenges in relation to resettling these remaining young people. •The transition from custody to community is an opportunity for positive change for young people, but is impeded by system failures in joint working between community stakeholders and the institution. •Key principles to inform effective practice include: ensuring continuity between custody and community; adequate preparation for release; ensuring support immediately on release; proactive engagement and collaboration with the young person; and a focus on co-ordinating partnerships of stakeholders across sectors. •Priority issues for further exploration include: continuity across the transition to adulthood; sustained engagement to and beyond the end of the licence; ensuring support without increasing licence requirements; meeting diversity in the custodial population; managing an exit from support; extending resettlement provision to the remand population; and critical consideration of alternative aims and measures for long-term resettlement success. Details: London: Beyond Youth Custody, 2013. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2013 at: http://www.beyondyouthcustody.net/resources/publications/lessons-from-the-literature/ Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.beyondyouthcustody.net/resources/publications/lessons-from-the-literature/ Shelf Number: 128679 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)ReentryReintegrationResettlement |
Author: Durnescu, Ioan Title: Resettlement Research and Practices. An International Perspective. Summary: This report provides a comprehensive account of resettlement practices and research around the world. The main focus is around the questions: what are the initiatives that have been found effective by research and how are they implemented into real life settings. An adapted version of the framework provided by Taxman (2004) is instrumental in structuring the presentation. Therefore, research findings and practices are divided into three different stages: institutional stage, pre-release stage and the post-custody stage. A summary of the existing theoretical models available is also provided. In this part, Risk-Needs-Responsivity model and the Desistance paradigm receive a more extended account since they are the dominant ones and are already considered effective by the empirical studies. A few messages are important to retrieve from this section. First, it is essential that prisoners are treated fair and just and the quality of the professional relationship is carefully observed. Second, programs based on cognitive restructuring, motivating offenders and developing human and social capital seem to be the most effective in triggering and supporting change. As for the institutional stage a number of ideas stood up as important learning points: programs should start as soon as possible after the sentence and are organized from the release perspective, programs should be designed and delivered by motivated and professional staff that strongly believe in change, programs such as vocational training, education, drug rehabilitation and therapeutic - community are acknowledged in systematic reviews as effective in preventing reoffending. At the pre-release stage concepts such as continuity, coherence and consistency are important for describing effective programs. Two programs – FOR...A Change and Reducing the Risk of Reoffending – seem to incorporate these concepts and produced promising results. Programs dealing with transition from inside to the outside world and also with employment produced also useful conclusions. In the post-release stage it is important to continue the programs started inside the prison and overcome the reintegration barriers while supporting hope and motivation within released people. Issues like employment, stigma, financial aid, community and family are discussed in some depth. Some of the conclusions refer to the fact that research already produced some important hard data that can be used in real life settings. More has to be done to promote prison and probation organisations to become true learning organisation. Research on penology issues should employ more sensitive and credible methodologies such as quasi-experimental or experimental designs. In the same time qualitative insights should be pursued in order to understand better what, with whom and in what context change is possible. In the final part of the report the author suggests an European project structured in three directions: develop a trans-theoretical model for resettlement, pilot the model and evaluate it. Details: Utrecht, The Netherlands: European Organisation for Probation, 2011. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 17, 2013 at: http://www.cepprobation.org/uploaded_files/Durnescu-CEP-Resettlement-research-and-practice-final.pdf Year: 2011 Country: International URL: http://www.cepprobation.org/uploaded_files/Durnescu-CEP-Resettlement-research-and-practice-final.pdf Shelf Number: 129431 Keywords: Correctional Treatment ProgramsOffenders Treatment ProgramsPrisoner RehabilitationProbationProbationersReentryResettlement |
Author: Howard League for Penal Reform Title: Life Outside: Collective Identity, Collection Exclusion Summary: Much of the subsequent debate has singled out the involvement of children and young people in the looting and violence, although in reality the age range and backgrounds of those convicted in the courts have been considerably more diverse than was initially suspected. The debate has split in part over an emphasis on the criminal justice response to be made, and partly over an emphasis on causes. While not developed with these terrible events in mind, Life Outside makes a contribution to both aspects of this debate. Life Outside is the second substantive policy report to be produced from participation with children and young people in the criminal justice system as part of U R Boss, a five year project supported by the Big Lottery Fund. The first report, Life Inside, explored the experience of teenage boys in prison. This report picks up the story after children and young people leave custody. Taken together, the two reports spell out the failures of our current approach to youth justice. The youth justice system, dealing with children under the age of 18, has received a great deal of investment and the last Labour government introduced a network of youth offending teams up and down the country, as well as sentencing innovations such as the Detention and Training Order. Child custody numbers duly exploded and interventions previously rooted in the welfare system became increasingly punitive and linked to a culture of compliance and control that pays little heed to the chaotic nature of these young people’s lives, and which has little or no purchase over the deep and complex social problems which form the underlying causes of youth crime. Unsurprisingly, reoffending rates among children remain the highest of any age group in the penal system. The young people we spoke to make clear why the various stages of life after custody are all too often opportunities to fail, rather than a sure pathway to success. Much of what they told us confirmed the Howard League’s longstanding view that the funding directed into the youth justice system would be better directed into a welfare approach, and that downward pressure should be exerted on the system through measures such as raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility. What the young people we spoke to particularly emphasised, however, was the issue of identity and the way in which the current system sets out to reinforce the feelings of disenfranchisement and detachment from society that erodes these children’s hopes of a positive future. At its very foundation, the youth justice system is predicated on mistaken assumptions that doom those within its ambit from the very start. And the relevance of this to the public debate now raging? The collective exclusion that young people feel may well have played its part in why disorder flared on the streets of London and elsewhere this summer. But we would be wise to think twice before perpetuating responses that simply serve to exacerbate that exclusion and which fail to unpick the reasons why young people commit crime in the first place. Details: London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2011. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2013 at: http://www.urboss.org.uk/downloads/publications/HL_Life_outside.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.urboss.org.uk/downloads/publications/HL_Life_outside.pdf Shelf Number: 129464 Keywords: Juvenile AftercareJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile ReentryRecidivismRehabilitationReintegrationResettlement |
Author: Feasey, Simon Title: The Resettlement of Offenders and ex-Offenders in Doncaster: Developing an Integrated Framework Summary: The Hallam Centre for Community Justice (HCCJ) was commissioned by Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (DMBC), to undertake an evaluation of the existing processes and arrangements that underpin the delivery of services to offenders and ex-offenders within the district. From this evaluation a needs and gap analysis has been completed which informs the identification of a set of key proposals which underpin the development of an Integrated Framework for Resettlement. In order to progress this piece of research the HCCJ developed a four component methodology which included a range of evaluation methods which were designed to ensure that both quantitative and qualitative data sources from a broad range of agencies were analysed to ensure that diverse and divergent perspectives were identified and discussed. This Final Report includes the analysis of data across the four components which included: • An analysis of current provision and service and offender needs; • A Gap Analysis that identifies the gap between offender needs and the provision of services; • A Directory of Services to provide an information bank for service providers; • An Integrated Framework for Multi-agency Delivery. Within these four components were specified a number of approaches including: • Focus groups with offenders within custodial and community settings; • Semi-structured interviews with key managers, practitioners and policy makers; • An on-line survey across the community justice sector with the district; • The analysis of desk top materials including strategy documents and statistical data; • The completion of three Consultative Workshops to debate and explore emerging themes and proposals. Details: Sheffield, UK: Hallam Centre for Community Justice, Sheffield Hallam University, 2008. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 5, 2013 at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/998/1/fulltext.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/998/1/fulltext.pdf Shelf Number: 129544 Keywords: Ex-OffendersPrisoner Reentry (U.K.)Resettlement |
Author: Losel, Friedrich Title: Risk and protective factors in the resettlement of imprisoned fathers with their families Summary: Parental imprisonment can be one of the most critical life events for families. It can disrupt marital and family relationships, have negative outcomes for children, and aggravate material and social problems. Furthermore, adjusting to life after prison is challenging for ex-prisoners and their families. Approximately one-half of prisoners are fathers of children under the age of 18, yet prisoners' children and families seem to be an 'invisible group' in our society (Ministry of Justice/Department for Schools, Children and Families, 2007). How families adjust to the return of an imprisoned partner or parent, the stress these events place on parents and children, and the support systems and coping mechanisms of family members have been rarely addressed in research. Most of past research has focused on parental imprisonment as a risk factor in the development of families and, in particular, the children (e.g., Murray & Farrington, 2008). On the other hand, families with strong ties can also be 'a resource, which is part of the solution' (Ministry of Justice, 2007, p. 17). Such relationships may help to protect the children of prisoners from negative outcomes and enable ex-prisoners to desist from further offending. To provide more detailed knowledge on both risk and protective factors and processes, the present study has been carried out in a collaboration between Ormiston Children and Families Trust and the Institute of Criminology at the University of Cambridge (funded by a grant from the Big Lottery Fund). The project is the first prospective longitudinal study in the United Kingdom and Europe to investigate risk and protective factors in the resettlement of imprisoned fathers and their families that gathered data from family sets of parents and children. It has addressed the quality of family relationships, contact during imprisonment, communication and problem solving, parenting and care-giving, informal social support, experiences of stigmatisation, finances, employment, accommodation, participation in support programmes, health issues, social behaviour, resilience and other factors that may be linked to positive or negative outcomes for parents and children. The research has been undertaken not only to increase our knowledge of such processes, but also to assist the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) and third sector organisations working to support families to develop more effective interventions for imprisoned fathers, their (ex)partners and their children. Details: Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge, 2012. 125p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 5, 2015 at: http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/research/fathers_in_prison/final_report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/research/fathers_in_prison/final_report.pdf Shelf Number: 134544 Keywords: Children of PrisonersFamilies of Inmates (U.K.)ReentryResettlement |
Author: Day, Mark Title: Release on temporary licence and its role in promoting effective resettlement and rehabilitation Summary: Release on temporary licence (ROTL) is a pivotal part of the process of resettlement and rehabilitation. For many people in prison, particularly those who are serving long sentences, the chance to experience ROTL and open prison conditions are a vital stage in the preparation for their safe release. They enable people to sort out jobs, housing and establish contact with families which help them to reduce their risk of reoffending. Less than 1% of releases on temporary licence fail and, of these, only 6.1% involve an arrestable offence. This is the equivalent of five arrests per 100,000 releases. The government has conducted a review into ROTL following three tragic incidents involving people on temporary release in the summer of 2013 and a small number of high profile absconds from open prisons in 2014. Interim measures have been put in place and a revised policy is expected to be introduced in February 2015. Since the start of the review, people in prison in contact with the Prison Reform Trust have reported increasing delays in obtaining access to open conditions and permission for temporary release and mounting frustration at being denied opportunities to progress their sentences. The latest Ministry of Justice statistics show that the number of releases on temporary licence has decreased by nearly one quarter since 2013. This briefing highlights the importance of ROTL for reducing reoffending and calls for a review of the government's changes to the scheme to ensure fairness and proportionality. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust, 2015. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 26, 2015 at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/InsideOutfinal.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/InsideOutfinal.pdf Shelf Number: 134720 Keywords: Prisoner Reentry (U.K.)Prisoner RehabilitationResettlementTemporary Release |
Author: Owens, Elizabeth Title: Exploring the experiences of Minority Ethnic Women in Resettlement: What role, if any, does ethnic culture play in the resettlement of Black (African-Caribbean) women offenders in the UK? Summary: The aim of this research project was to explore the experiences of black and minority ethnic women in resettlement in order to form a picture of resettlement from their perspective and to determine what, if any, role ethnic culture played in resettlement. Four questions were formed as guidance to achieve this aim: 1. What are the resettlement needs of minority ethnic women? 2. What role does ethnic culture play in the resettlement of African, Caribbean, Black and mixed (within these groups) women in the UK? 3. How do minority ethnic women access and understand resettlement services? Is this influenced by their ethnic culture? If yes, to what degree, and how? 4. How are some providers successfully engaging these women? What are the 'challenging' areas to work on in making services accessible and meaningful to these women? Current literature on the topic is focused on the experiences of minority ethnic women in the criminal justice system and resettlement is largely neglected. There is a lack of data on minority ethnic women in the criminal justice system in general, but particularly in regard to resettlement. Official reports and consultations stress the need for identification and evidence of minority ethnic women's experiences. Through semi‐ structured interviews with minority ethnic women in resettlement and service providers providing resettlement support to minority ethnic women, participants were asked to share their experiences. Ethnic culture was not identified by the sample as a primary concern in resettlement. Rather, both women in resettlement and service providers were more concerned with meeting 'general primary needs' that are broadly shared by individuals in resettlement, such as housing, income and child issues. In spite of this, all the participants felt that minority ethnic women had unique and different needs in resettlement than those of their white counterparts. Details: London: The Griffins Society, 2010. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Paper 2010/01: Accessed May 27, 2015 at: http://www.thegriffinssociety.org/documents/Research_Paper_2010_01.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.thegriffinssociety.org/documents/Research_Paper_2010_01.pdf Shelf Number: 129826 Keywords: Ethnic GroupsFemale OffendersMinority GroupsReentryResettlement |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: An Inspection of Through the Gate Resettlement Services for Prisoners Serving 12 Months or More Summary: Until 2014, probation services in England and Wales were delivered by local Probation Trusts. Reoffending rates for released prisoners were high. It was recognised that issues including homelessness, unemployment, mental health and substance misuse contributed to reoffending. The government's Transforming Rehabilitation strategy aimed to reduce reoffending rates by opening up the probation market to new providers, encouraging innovation and creativity. A new National Probation Service and 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies were set up on 01 June 2014. Cases allocated to the NPS included high risk of serious harm offenders and those subject to Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements. CRCs were to manage most other medium and low risk of serious harm offenders, and were to be given: 'flexibility to do what works and freedom from bureaucracy' (Ministry of Justice, 2013). The Transforming Rehabilitation programme introduced Through the Gate resettlement services into prisons in England and Wales. Through the Gate services were intended to be delivered by the local CRC to help prisoners maintain or find accommodation; provide assistance with finance, benefits and debt; and to support them to enter education, training and employment. Additional support was to be provided for those prisoners who had been sex workers or had experienced domestic abuse. These services had existed in prisons previously, but in a more fragmented way. The aim of Through the Gate was to provide a seamless transition between prison and the community. Through the Gate arrangements The prison estate was reorganised in November 2014, with 89 of the 120 prisons in England and Wales designated as resettlement prisons. All female prisons were so designated. The aim is for 80% of prisoners to be moved to a resettlement prison local to their home area at least three months before release. Prison staff screen all new prisoners to discover what needs they have, and CRCs are expected to plan to meet any immediate resettlement needs at the start of sentence, and then to review the plan 12 weeks before release putting in place assistance required at that point. CRCs have Through the Gate resettlement teams located within all designated resettlement prisons, consisting either of direct CRC employees or staff working for organisations in a contractual arrangement with the CRC. CRCs receive a 'fee for service' for providing core Through the Gate services, which should include assistance to maintain or find accommodation; assistance with finance, benefits and debt; education, training and employment; release coordination; and support for those who have been sex workers or have experienced domestic abuse. When CRCs bid for the contracts, they set out their broad intentions about how they would deliver Through the Gate services, but the detailed content is not specified. Through the Gate services are available to all prisoners, irrespective of whether their cases are to be managed upon release by a CRC or the NPS. The CRC contracts are managed by HMPPS, and the only performance target for CRCs relating to Through the Gate is to complete resettlement plans in the prescribed timescale. There is no contractual obligation to address the needs that have been identified. We visited nine prisons, where Through the Gate services were being delivered by eight different CRCs with seven different corporate owners. We looked at the cases of 98 prisoners, before and after release. What prisoners need to help them resettle We found, as anticipated, that many prisoners needed substantial help before they were released. Finding somewhere to live was a common problem, along with finding work or making a benefits claim, and getting assistance with substance misuse or mental health problems. We found that many of these needs were not recognised when prisoners first went into custody. Problems that should have been obvious to prison staff were not identified. Where problems were picked up, they were not well-recorded, so that Through the Gate staff did not have enough information to make a good plan about what help was needed. If urgent issues were identified at the start of a sentence, the speed with which prisoners were transferred to other prisons meant that they were unlikely to receive early help, for example to sort out debts or maintain accommodation. There was then a time delay until they could access Through the Gate services, 12 weeks before release. Most prisoners did have plans drawn up for them before release, though not always in the required timescale. The quality of the plans was variable. Necessary actions were not always identified. Moreover, many of the actions in plans consisted of no more than referring the prisoner on to other services, with little or no follow-up. The delays in completing plans sometimes meant there was not enough time left to deal with issues that arose. Outcomes for prisoners receiving Through the Gate services Too many prisoners (more than one in seven) were released not knowing where they would sleep that night. Only two prisoners were found accommodation via Through the Gate arrangements. Three more were placed in short-term accommodation provided by HMPPS for home detention curfew. Work that could and should have been done by Through the Gate services in prison was left for responsible officers to pick up after release. Five prisoners only found accommodation on their day of release. This increased the anxiety of those prisoners and placed a heavy burden on staff in the community trying to make arrangements for housing on the day of release. The rate of homelessness varied from prison to prison, but ten of the cases we looked at started off their licence period with no fixed address. The impact of Through the Gate services on education, training and employment was minimal. No prisoners were helped by Through the Gate services to enter education, training or employment after release. All except one of the prisons we visited were able to set bank accounts up for prisoners, but even where this service was available, some prisoners were still released without bank accounts. Other work on finance, benefits and debt was not being delivered to any great extent. When Through the Gate was introduced there was much talk about the use of mentors to provide intensive support to prisoners around the time of release. The use of mentors had not been developed as anticipated, and only one prisoner had received support through a mentor scheme introduced under Through the Gate. After release, all of the prisoners in our sample would be supervised for at least 12 months. We thought it was important that their responsible officers in the community received full information at the point of release, about the prisoner's behaviour and experience in prison. Ideally this would include details of all handover arrangements, including appointments made at Jobcentre Plus, and with drug treatment and mental health services. This could be done either by prison staff or Through the Gate workers, but in many prisons communication and information sharing was poor. Public protection Public protection is the business of everyone working with the prisoner. Most of the Through the Gate staff we met were ill-informed about public protection issues in the cases they were working with. We observed shortcomings in the work of prison staff, and of responsible officers in the CRCs and in the NPS. Too many prisoners had inadequate assessment of their potential to cause harm, and too little was done to mitigate these risks. Poor communication was often a factor, and there was not enough evidence of a 'whole system' approach to managing risk of harm. Design and evaluation of Through the Gate services Prison places are not evenly distributed across the country, so layering Through the Gate onto the prison footprint was never going to be straightforward. Other pressures in the prison system mean that the catchment areas for some resettlement prisons are very wide. We only saw a few prisons where there was a clear benefit from having the 'local' CRC delivering Through the Gate services. No clear guidance has been given on how Through the Gate services should align with sentence planning arrangements. For many prisoners, no sentence planning takes place at all because of operational difficulties within prisons, while others only receive a risk assessment due to the current Offender Assessment System prioritisation policy. The Through the Gate resettlement plan may be the only record of work that needs to be done with them, and it is not sufficient for that purpose. The complexity and incompatibility of the IT systems used by staff in preparing prisoners for release were major obstacles to effective working. Either staff waste time entering the same information in multiple places, or they just record in one or two places, with the consequence that others are not able to find out about relevant work. While many CRCs have contracted well-respected voluntary organisations to deliver Through the Gate services, the focus has been on completion of resettlement plans and so the potential for these more diverse providers to improve the overall quality of resettlement work is not being realised. The few examples of innovation we saw were on a very small scale, so are likely to have no more than a negligible impact on reducing reoffending. The CRC contracts incentivise the completion of resettlement plans, not the improvement of prisoners' situations. CRCs are generally struggling financially and it is not surprising, then, that most have invested little in services beyond the minimum contractual expectation. Those that are doing more - Durham Tees Valley CRC for example - told us that they are doing so at a loss. It is hard to see any impact of the prospect of future payment by results for reducing reoffending rates. The consequence is that Through the Gate services as delivered now are not likely to reduce rates of reoffending. For technical and legal reasons it is impossible for CRCs to track any difference Through the Gate has made for the prisoners they have worked with, such as finding accommodation or work. This makes it hard for them to evaluate the impact of their work. The staff we met in prisons working for Through the Gate were keen and committed, and were clearly very busy writing resettlement plans to meet contractual targets. Many of them, and some of their managers, were unaware that the work they were doing was having little or no impact on the eventual resettlement of prisoners. Details: Manchester: Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation, 2017. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 23, 2017 at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/cjji/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/06/Through-the-Gate-phase-2-report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/cjji/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/06/Through-the-Gate-phase-2-report.pdf Shelf Number: 146349 Keywords: Prisoner ReentryProbationProbationersRe-offendingRecidivismResettlement |
Author: Northern Ireland Criminal Justice Inspection Title: Resettlement: An Inspection of Resettlement in the Northern Ireland Prison Service Summary: A core function of the prison service was to reduce reoffending and provide resettlement services for prisoners being released back into the community. The Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) could not deliver resettlement alone - prisons had a duty to accept people committed by the courts and many had chronic mental health and learning difficulties, drug and alcohol addictions and chaotic lifestyles. The NIPS and the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI) had to work with the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust (SEHSCT), addiction services and other social and voluntary and community service partners to help prisoners address these problems during the time they were incarcerated. There had been a significant change in the NIPS since the publication of the Prison Review Team (PRT) Report in 2011, including to resettlement practice. The offender management model was based on the PRT recommendation and was delivered through the Prisoner Development Model (PDM). This was a structured framework, and provided the individual prisoner focus, to identify and assess a prisoner's risks, needs and strengths. A Prisoner Development Plan (PDP) was developed with the prisoner to support his/ her resettlement back into the community. This defined the purpose of work, actions taken and support provided for an individual to: - reduce their risk of harm; - reduce their likelihood of reoffending; and - prepare them for return to the community. This work included interventions to address offending behaviour, maintain family contact, gain skills and qualifications to help access employment, together with practical assistance and support with housing, finance and debt, health and addictions. The PDM was jointly delivered by the NIPS and the PBNI. CJI would be very supportive of this collaborative working model as having the potential to produce the best outcomes for prisoners. However a change in working practices had reduced joint working and impacted on the operational delivery of the model, and Inspectors were concerned that it was not operating as effectively as it could. Working practices between the NIPS and the PBNI needed to adapt to address prisoner need and increase the effectiveness of joint delivery. There were significant resources deployed to provide resettlement services for prisoners. The PDM had been in place since 2015 and there was a broad provision of specialist support by voluntary and community sector (VCS) and statutory organisations to support prisoner need. The NIPS, PBNI and VCS staff worked hard to provide support, sometimes for very difficult prisoners, many of whom had complex and multiple needs. Inspectors were impressed by the attitude, knowledge and commitment of many of the prison and probation officers and VCS staff that we met during the inspection. There was an effective system to measure resettlement processes and activities, but measurement of the impact of these on outcomes for prisoners was less well developed. CJI saw a need for meaningful performance measures of outcomes, over the longer-term, to allow both the NIPS and the PBNI management to assess the effectiveness of resettlement provision, and to allow planning for future delivery and resourcing. Previous reports have highlighted the need for a more integrated psychology provision across the criminal justice agencies, and whilst work had been progressed there was a need for the outstanding work to be completed. The PDM was a comprehensive process which covered the prisoner's journey from committal to release, and recent prison inspections have found this to be the area where the NIPS performed most strongly. Inspectors would be of the view that implementation of the model could be improved in a number of areas and have recommended the introduction of a system of supervision for NIPS staff in their casework with individual prisoners. The NIPS also needed to do more to fully integrate the important role of residential officers to contribute to the PDM and successful prisoner resettlement. The NIPS recognised that there had been limitations in the prisoner assessment process and this had led to an internal review which Inspectors welcomed as an opportunity to reexamine its effectiveness. For prisoners to address their offending behaviour was crucial to successful resettlement and to reduce the reoffending and recall rate. Inspectors were concerned that the schedule for the delivery of programmes significantly underestimated the needs of the prison population and the demand for interventions. Programmes should be delivered on the basis of need with suitable interventions for short-term prisoners, a streamlined process for referral and assessment, and the ability to fast-track and prioritise prolific offenders. There was also a need to assess the outcomes of programme delivery to inform future provision. There was some good work to target and provide support for the wider needs of prisoners serving short-sentences and the NIPS should take action to target resources to reduce the reoffending rates for this group. The transfer of prisoners between Maghaberry and Magilligan could be disruptive and unsettling for prisoners and their families, and were primarily for population management rather than to further prisoners' resettlement prospects. It was the view of Inspectors that the NIPS should review its transfer policy to prioritise resettlement opportunities. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspection, 2018. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 31, 2018 at: http://cjini.org/getattachment/1ded7a6c-034e-4a62-bf02-96ee30584645/picture.aspx Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://cjini.org/getattachment/1ded7a6c-034e-4a62-bf02-96ee30584645/picture.aspx Shelf Number: 150416 Keywords: Correctional ProgramsPrisoner ReentryPrisoner RehabilitationPrisoner ResettlementResettlement |
Author: Youth Justice Board (New York City) Title: How to Make Resettlement Constructive Summary: Introduction Resettlement and transitions between services is a current strategic priority for the Youth Justice Board. Despite several resettlement support initiatives, outcomes for children leaving custody remain poor. Recent research into why difficulties continue to prevail suggests that a likely explanation is the lack of a definitive resettlement 'theory of change' and aim. The research concludes that the aim of resettlement should be to support a child to shift their identity from pro offending to pro social. Only by doing so can we achieve long term desistance from offending and a child moving towards a positive future. This document introduces Constructive Resettlement as an approach to help the sector apply this research evidence across policy and practice. It will enable all agencies to adopt a common framework and set of principles necessary to improve resettlement outcomes. In the concluding section, we outline the steps the YJB is taking to enable both custody and community agencies to implement this new approach. We recognise that it represents a fundamental change of culture across the youth justice system. Consequently, we are working both strategically and operationally to support this change. To support the sector in delivering Constructive Resettlement we want identify barriers to its effective implementation, and are committed to working to overcome these. In turn, we are keen to support innovative application of this approach to drive improvement. We also want to explore with the sector how this approach can help support a child successfully navigate other transitions in youth justice. This constructive, strengths-based and future-focused approach is in line with the YJB's guiding principle of "Child First, Offender Second". In publishing this document, we invite you to join with us to develop resettlement practice that will ensure children who leave custody live a safe and crime-free life and make a positive contribution to society. Details: London, UK: Youth Justice Board, 2018. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 10, 2019 at: https://yjresourcehub.uk/yjb-effective-practice/youth-justice-kits/item/610-how-to-make-resettlement-constructive-yjb-document.html?platform=hootsuite Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://yjresourcehub.uk/yjb-effective-practice/youth-justice-kits/item/610-how-to-make-resettlement-constructive-yjb-document.html?platform=hootsuite Shelf Number: 154129 Keywords: Constructive ResettlementCustodyResettlementYouth Justice Board |
Author: The Social Innovation Partnership Title: The Wire (Women's Information and Resettlement for Ex-Offenders) Evaluation Report Summary: Summary of findings - Reconviction rates: The reconviction rate for the eligible 104 engaged WIRE partcipants (out of a total of 342 referred women) was 42%, against 51% for the national average for women offenders and 88% for prolific offenders. Whilst there are issues around how this is evidenced, our additional qualitative analysis broadly supports that the WIRE is a valued service. - Desistance: The average number of offences per participant halved for the 12 months at liberty after the programme as compared to the 12 months before (at 2 offences as compared to 4 previously). Again, there are similar evidencing issues, although we seek to address these through our additional analysis (e.g. interviews). - OASys:Using OGRS3 categories, roughly half of WIRE participants in "high" and "very high" risk of reoffending categories had not reoffended after 12 months (which is half the standard OGRS3 period), which appears to be an encouraging result. However, these results will need to be confirmed after two years post-conviction. - Continuing success: Resourcing issues could affect the ongoing success of the WIRE programme, limiting staff's ability to (i) give dedicated personal support and (ii) perform a sufficient amount of ongoing reporting to improve performance as measured by both Stage 1 and Stage 2 indicators, and also to evidence successes and support fundraising. - Programme Strategy: Evidence suggests that WIRE outcomes are more likely to be achieved at the early stage (Stage 1) of WIRE interventions. - People (resourcing): The project struggled to match staffing levels with demand (principally due to funding constraints), despite this the team were able to meet housing and meet at the gates targets. - Administration: There were a number of issues identified with reporting strategies. The evaluators worked with the WIRE team to identify and implement solutions. - People: The complex nature and motivation of clients to change has the potential to impact the success of the project, clients need to want to engage for success to be achieved. The staff are also a key component of the success of the project, the workers need to possess a unique blend of tenaciousness to achieve outcomes and empathy to understand the women's experiences. - Outcomes: Housing outcomes are a strength of the WIRE and it is from this solid foundation that the workers are able to support the women in desisting from crime. - Process: The individualised nature of the service requires staff have skills and that enable them to dedicate the time needed to support women through this intense period. High demand for the service and funding constraints mean staff numbers are such that they have been focusing on Stage 1 as opposed to stage 2. Recommendations and Next Steps - Evidence practices: A number of reporting and evidence practices have been improved in the course of this evaluation. These improvements should be endorsed and maintained, within the WIRE and beyond, as a way of improving services, ensuring value for money and potentially assisting with future fundraising activities. - Staff and resourcing: Sufficient staff and resources should be allocated to the WIRE, including administrative support, to allow the core team to focus on delivery. To improve Stage 2 outcomes, the programme should be seen as sufficiently distinct (WIRE Plus) to require smaller case loads - Process refinements and stakeholder engagement: Work should be done with prisons to restore an appropriate prison presence, even if just once a week, for WIRE staff. Awareness of the WIRE and its full range of work (i.e. beyond housing) should also be raised amongst other key organisations, along with the evidence of the WIRE's work with clients. Details: London, UK: The Social Innovation Partnership, 2012. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 16, 2019 at: https://www.stgilestrust.org.uk/misc/Support%20for%20vulnerable%20women%20leaving%20prison%20full%20report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.stgilestrust.org.uk/misc/Support%20for%20vulnerable%20women%20leaving%20prison%20full%20report.pdf Shelf Number: 154216 Keywords: DesistanceEx-OffendersFemale OffendersGenderHousingPost ConvictionPrisonerPrisoner-Release ProgramsPrisonsReoffendingResettlementWomen Offenders |