Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:46 am
Time: 3:46 am
Results for volunteer agencies
1 results foundAuthor: Northern Ireland. Criminal Justice Inspection Title: A Review of the Voluntary and Community Sector’s Involvement in the Northern Ireland Criminal Justice System Summary: This review examined the Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) organisations’ contribution to the Northern Ireland criminal justice system. It concentrated on organisations that received or administered core funding for a criminal justice purpose - Community Restorative Justice Ireland (CRJI), Extern, NIACRO, Northern Ireland Alternatives (NIA), Quaker Service, Victim Support Northern Ireland (VSNI), the Department of Justice (DoJ), Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE), Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS), Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI) and Youth Justice Agency (YJA) – but also sought and received helpful views from a range of other organisations. Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland’s (CJI) last review in 20061 found ‘a well-developed voluntary and community sector…’ The situation here compared favourably with elsewhere in the United Kingdom (UK), and while there were tensions, these were mostly healthy. There have been some important contextual changes since we last reported. These include: • justice powers were devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly in April 2010, and local politicians have become more engaged in formulating policy and in overseeing the criminal justice system than previously; • much of the Northern Ireland Office had been restructured into the new DoJ. The internal structures are different from its predecessor and new liaison arrangements were reported as positive for most of the VCS organisations that the DoJ sponsored; • the recession and changes to funding arrangements (there was more competitive tendering and less grant-inaid) were having an impact; • the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland had been established. While it had yet to become fully operational, organisations were gearing up to meet the governance requirements which it will superintend; and • Government policy in England and Wales envisaged a greater role for the private sector and VCS organisations in delivering criminal justice services. This was being tested by initiatives such as Payment by Results and Social Impact Bonds (SIBs). Some positive features from our 2006 review were still evident. The VCS continued to attract substantial monies from other sources to supplement local statutory funding; it could provide flexibility and innovation; and volunteering was a useful way of engaging ordinary citizens in the criminal justice system. There had also been improvements which included: • the involvement of VCS organisations with formal criminal justice structures was better than when we last inspected, not only in helping reduce offending, but also in improving access to justice, and examples were provided of VCS participation in relevant consultations and working parties; • the DoJ had protected its sponsored VCS organisations from financial cuts. Whereas statutory criminal justice agencies were subject to 5% cuts, the Minister of Justice had requested that cuts to the VCS be limited to 1.5% as he was keen to minimise the impact on them; and • restorative justice schemes had become more secure and had developed good relationships with operational agencies. Individual members of restorative projects and other VCS organisations were represented on relevant bodies such as Policing and Community Safety Partnerships (PCSPs), where they were considered to be making a valuable contribution. Not everything was positive. The existence of a wide variety of funding streams and methodologies created practical problems for VCS organisations as well as anxiety for funding bodies about possible duplicate funding. Short-term and piecemeal funding remained problematic, and some organisations had to manage without letters of offer for up to six months into a new financial year. These features mitigated against any possible centralised monitoring of total amounts paid out and there was no consistent measure of the impact and contribution of the VCS to the criminal justice system. An agreement known as the ’Concordat‘ had been put in place in 2011 to regulate engagement between Government and the VCS, and there was a Joint Forum to oversee operation of the Concordat. While the model of engagement was well designed and reported as working effectively in most sectors, several VCS organisations were less positive about its benefits in the criminal justice environment. There were mixed views about other Government departments’ contribution to justice issues. Devolution had helped and the DoJ was involved in areas such as health and education. However there was no statutory duty on all departments to enhance community safety which was considered a missed opportunity to deliver a truly cross-cutting approach. There were lots of relevant strategies, but not always action plans to support their delivery and it was hard to assess their progress. There were also logistical difficulties for operational justice organisations in being aware of, and where necessary able to influence, the funding decisions of other departments that affected them. Some VCS organisations were struggling for survival as philanthropic funding declined and pressures on Government expenditure increased. The option of providing lots of small grants was attractive for funders as it could purchase local goodwill, though some recipients did not really grasp the criminal justice rationale for the funding they received and it was impossible to assess the long-term impact of providing such monies. The accountability arrangements that were applied to VCS organisations varied considerably, depending on who allocated the monies. They mainly comprised measurement of inputs and activities to provide assurance to funders. Large organisations were by now well-used to extensive and varying levels of demand for feedback about their finances and practice and they had systems in place to deliver these. However there was scope for a more proportionate response, particularly with lower risk organisations. Likewise the requirement for VCS organisations to commission evaluations of programmes seemed excessive when many of these programmes were already extensively audited. Less compliance for its own sake would enable a reduction in bureaucracy with consequent savings in Government departments. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspection, 2013. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 30, 2013 at: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/82/8253a731-9fb3-4ca7-81b4-24fabd7b0f8f.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/82/8253a731-9fb3-4ca7-81b4-24fabd7b0f8f.pdf Shelf Number: 128162 Keywords: Criminal Justice Systems (Northern Ireland)Voluntary and Community Organizations (VCOs)Volunteer Agencies |