Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:55 am
Time: 1:55 am
Results for volunteers in criminal justice
4 results foundAuthor: Helyar-Cardwell, Vicki, ed. Title: Delivering Justice The Role of the Public, Private and Voluntary Sectors in Prisons and Probation Summary: The number of people in the criminal justice system has increased extraordinarily over the last two decades. The focus is often on rocketing prison numbers – quite rightly lambasted as one of the worst features of this extraordinary growth. But, so too have the numbers on community sentences increased over the last two decades; the probation service now manages some 230,000 offenders in the community. This huge increase in scope of the justice system come at a significant financial cost. For example, investment in prisons has increased by nearly 40% in real terms between 2003-04 and 2008-09, from £2.52bn to £3.98bn a year. Despite this, capacity has not been able to meet demand, and as a result the prison system is severely overcrowded. So too in the community, the challenge of high probation caseloads is well known. As well as questions about whether the size and scope of our criminal justice system, in particular the custodial estate, is necessary and appropriate, to which the answer is surely no, there is also debate about how the government intends to financially sustain the functions of the justice system whilst maintaining historic low crime rates, and what the respective roles of the private, public and voluntary sectors should be in delivering these functions. Private prisons were first introduced to the UK in the 1990s and represent part of the move from the 1980s onwards towards greater competition across a range of public services. The catalyst for prison privatisation was to address overcrowding, reduce costs and to some degree improve standards. The involvement of private companies in building, financing and operating custodial facilities has been endorsed and expanded by the former Conservative administration, New Labour and now the Coalition government. Despite being strongly against private prisons in their time in opposition in the 1990s, once elected, the Labour government, faced by a spiralling prison population, quickly announced that they would be allowing private companies to bid for the running of new prisons, and that existing private prisons would not be taken back into the public sector. A consensus had now been reached amongst the major parties in support of privately-run prisons. Despite this political consensus, there has been a consistent critique, including from academics (Teague, 2010), the penal reform lobby (Neilson, 2009) and sections of the media (Monbiot, 2009). Following this initial foray in the 1990s, the next major step towards privatization was the establishment of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) in 2004, with the intention of introducing ‘contestability’ throughout the prison and probation services. The review by Patrick Carter (2003), on which the structure of NOMS was based, argued for ‘greater use of competition from private and voluntary providers’ (p.5), and called for this to be extended to existing prisons. It was clear that Carter, and subsequently the Government, envisaged a much greater role for the private and voluntary sector in the criminal justice system, and that the introduction of NOMS was seen as a way of facilitating this. The second important development was the announcement in 2008 that a number of charities were bidding in partnership with private sector companies for prison contracts. While the voluntary sector has long worked in both public sector and privately-run prisons, delivering services to prisoners, this was seen as a significant change in the landscape. There are now charities and private companies running prisons and delivering large-scale payment-by-results contracts within prisons. Perhaps the most significant ‘step change’ has occurred over the last year or so. Although the majority of the UK prison estate is managed by the public sector, there are now currently 14 private or ‘contracted out’ prisons. Last year Birmingham was the first public sector prison transferred to private sector management, and the government is currently tendering out a further nine prisons. At the same time probation services are being radically reshaped. The majority of probation functions are being competed out, with advice to courts and the management of high risk individuals retained in public sector. Probation Trusts will inevitably merge to form fewer, larger entities and become commissioners of services at local level, although it is questionable how ‘local’ this will be. Clearly, cuts in public spending are a significant cause of the current quickening in the pace of the privatisation of the prison estate, based on the (contested) belief that privately-run prisons are cheaper than their public sector equivalents. As NOMS Business Plan 2012-2013 makes clear, the stated aim of government is to drive down prison place costs (MoJ, 2012). The Probation Service has undergone a 19% real terms budget cut since 2008-09, and this pressure on cost is set to continue. While the ongoing debate about competition is sometimes presented as peripheral to the overall future of criminal justice policy, it is in fact highly significant. The issue of who delivers criminal justice services is important, and must be informed by full and accurate analysis of the benefits of different approaches. This collection of essays is intended to be a contribution to this debate. Details: London: Criminal Justice Alliance, 2012. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 16, 2012 at: http://www.criminaljusticealliance.org/delivering_justice.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.criminaljusticealliance.org/delivering_justice.pdf Shelf Number: 125314 Keywords: Criminal Justice Systems (U.K.)PrisonsPrivate PrisonsPrivatizationProbationVolunteers in Criminal Justice |
Author: Nelson-Dusek, Stephanie Title: Look Up and Hope: Final Evaluation Report Summary: Since its founding in 1896, Volunteers of America has supported and empowered America's most vulnerable populations, including those returning from prison. The past several decades have seen a particularly staggering rise in the growth of mothers affected by incarceration. Between 1991 and midyear 2007, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that the number of mothers in federal and state prisons had increased 122 percent. During the same period, the number of children with mothers in prison had more than doubled, rising to almost 150,000 children nationwide. To address this issue, Volunteers of America launched Look Up and Hope, an innovative initiative that works with the whole family - mother, caregiver, and child - to improve the lives of those affected by maternal incarceration. Over the past five years, Wilder Research has evaluated Look Up and Hope to determine the impact that the program has on families. This final evaluation report illustrates the successes and challenges of those participating in the program. Successes - Strengthened families: After participating in Look Up and Hope, families appear to have stronger connections - meaning increased quantity and quality of contact between mothers, children, and caregivers. For example, 61 percent of children were either living with their mother or had increased contact with her, and 60 percent were reported to have an improved relationship with their mother. - Positive school outcomes: The majority of school-aged children (6+ years old) either increased or maintained their grades, attendance, and behavior. Most prominently, nearly four in ten (37%) children had improved their grade point average by their follow-up assessment, according to family coaches. - Healthy children and caregivers: Overall, the children and caregivers served by the program were relatively healthy. The majority of children (61%) were reported to be in good health at both their baseline and follow-up assessments, and family coaches assessed nearly all children (94%) and caregivers (93%) to have their basic needs met. - Improved parenting skills: Nearly all (97%) of the mothers who received parenting education or training showed improved knowledge of parenting skills. - Improved employment status for mothers: The majority of mothers with available follow-up data experienced a change in employment status from baseline to follow-up. For those who did, over four in ten went from unemployment to either full-time or part-time employment. In addition to the annual report, Wilder Research conducted a Social Return on Investment (SROI) study to estimate some of the potential long-term cost savings that the Look Up and Hope program could eventually provide to society. The study found that, even if the only benefits the program produced were improved long-term outcomes for some participating children (e.g., avoidance of out-of-home placements and school failures), the net cost savings to society could be as much as $48,495 per child. This represents a potential return on investment of $14.31 for every dollar invested. The full SROI (including the limitations of the analysis) is appended. Details: St. Paul, MN: Wilder Research, 2016. 144p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2017 at: https://www.wilder.org/Wilder-Research/Publications/Studies/Strengthening%20Families%20Impacted%20by%20Incarceration%20-%20Evaluation%20of%20Volunteers%20of%20America%20Programs/Look%20Up%20and%20Hope%20Final%20Evaluation%20Report,%20Full%20Report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.wilder.org/Wilder-Research/Publications/Studies/Strengthening%20Families%20Impacted%20by%20Incarceration%20-%20Evaluation%20of%20Volunteers%20of%20America%20Programs/Look%20Up%20and%20Hope%20Final%20Evaluation%20R Shelf Number: 146447 Keywords: Children of PrisonersCost-Benefit AnalysisFamilies of InmatesFemale OffendersParentingPrisoner ReentryVolunteers in criminal Justice |
Author: Fair, Helen Title: Peer relations: Review of learning from the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust Prison Reform Fellowships - Part IV Summary: This Briefing is concerned with the broad theme of 'connections'. Its particular focus is on interventions visited by the Churchill Fellows which aim to harness the power of peer relations towards positive goals. - This report looks at the importance of positive peer relations at all stages of the criminal justice programme, specifically: - Peer relations as a tool to support desistance and diversion - Promoting positive peer relations in prison - Peer support on release from prison - Research has long documented the enormous influence of peer pressure - whether positive or negative - on offending behaviour. Positive peer pressure is utilised in work with young fathers and programmes which help to develop youth leadership, while work to reduce gang violence aims to counteract the negative effects of peer pressure. - In England and Wales, the growing use and benefits of peer support across the prison estate have been recognised by inspectors. Mentoring roles encompass the provision of emotional support, advising, and facilitating self-help or learning. - Examples of peer support programmes visited by Fellows include a programme run by ex-prisoners in the US which encourages the peer-led and grassroots education of prisoners; the use of drama to promote positive behaviour in prison in South Africa; and a programme in the US which uses life sentence prisoners as 'social mentors' to help new prisoners to adapt to prison life. - The importance of peer support for those leaving prison and re-entering the community is widely recognised, and is increasingly viewed by the UK government as a key means of ensuring continuity of support for those released from prison. - Examples of such 'through the gate' support was seen in Finland, where former prisoners work with those being released from prison to help them access the services they need to resettle back into the community, and in the US through the Delancey Street Foundation, which is entirely staffed by people who have been through the prison system, and teaches marketable skills to recently released prisoners. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust, 2017. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 1, 2017 at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/WCMT/peer_relations_FINAL.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/WCMT/peer_relations_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 146485 Keywords: Correctional ProgramsInmatesPeer RelationsPeer SupportPrisoner ReentryPrisoner RehabilitationPrisonersVolunteers in Criminal Justice |
Author: Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland Title: Equal Partners: An Inspection of the Voluntary Community and Social Enterprise Sector's Engagement with the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland Summary: What is the Third Sector? The Third Sector is an umbrella term that covers a range of different organisations with different structures and purposes, belonging neither to the public sector (i.e. the state) nor to the private sector (profit-making private enterprise). Other terms are used to describe such organisations - the voluntary sector, non-governmental organisations, non-profit organisations - particularly in public discussions around policy and politics. Third Sector organisations include: - charities; - voluntary and community organisations; - social enterprises and cooperatives; - 'Think tanks' and private research institutes (this does not include universities and colleges); and - some organisations, such as housing associations, have been spun off from government and are considered quasi-third sector groups, even though they deliver public services. In Northern Ireland, the Department for Communities (DfC), is the government agency currently tasked with overseeing and managing the relationship between the Third Sector and the government. What does the Third Sector do? Typically most Third Sector organisations dedicate themselves either to a particular issue which needs solving (e.g. prison reform or homelessness); or to a particular group in society (e.g. ex-offenders or victims of domestic violence) who require support and representation. They may provide services related to these issues (e.g. running a women's shelter, or providing legal advice) in the past due to an absence of public provided services, although now they are often funded by government (86% of Third Sector bodies in Northern Ireland receive some government funding). Some organisations (particularly think tanks and research institutes) may work on a wider range of issues, with a local, national or global focus. As well as delivering direct services, Third Sector groups will commission or carry out research into subjects that affect the groups and issues they deal with. They also aim to raise public awareness shape public policy through public campaigns, lobbying politicians and influencing government officials. Funding landscape -- When compared to the state of the Sector as reported in the 2013 CJI report A review of the Voluntary and Community Sector's involvement in the Northern Ireland criminal justice system. Third Sector Chief Executives in 2018 said financial pressures were the most challenging they had faced with difficult decisions giving rise to redundancies, reduced working hours and consolidation of offices and regional centres. Yet, the demand for services to young people and children, victims of domestic and sexual violence, offenders with substance abuse issues and support for offenders in the community had increased. The latest Ulster Bank and CO3 Third Sector Index showed that nearly 60% of Third Sector leaders expect it to shrink over the next three years with 28% reporting cash flow problems in 2017. According to the Index, more than 75% of leaders say that the lack of a Northern Ireland Executive is harming their organisations, bringing funding issues, a lack of decision-making and uncertainty. Over 70% said they expected the political situation here to become less stable, while two-thirds said they expect the economic situation to deteriorate. Between 2009 and 2014 funding to the Third Sector fell by 33% from L742 million to L574 million with an estimated 6,127 bodies operating in the sector. The mix of funding remained diverse with key contributors being Central Government (34%), statutory bodies and other agencies (34%) and public donations (30%). Funding from the European Union (EU); Big Lottery and philanthropic trusts remained generally stable over this period, although there is uncertainty over EU funding and a major funder Atlantic Philanthropies, has gradually withdrawn. On a positive note, the Third Sector was adept at attracting funding and the diversity of funding sources was a particular strength. The Fresh Start (now known as Tackling Paramilitarism) and Social Investment Fund (SIF) initiatives provided additional resources. At the time of this inspection the Department of Justice (DoJ) was proposing a full cost recovery funding model that would eventually replace the current system whereby certain bodies received core funding as well as project funding. This aimed to achieve better value for money and greater transparency. The DoJ model included a transition phase to cushion organisations against a sudden loss of core funding as well as co-ordinating other departments' funding approaches to create a level playing field. There were some critics of this approach who stated that losing core funding would have a negative impact on the Third Sector's capacity to delivery advocacy, critical challenge and leveraging of additional funding. Details: Belfast: Author, 2019. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2019 at: http://cjini.org/getattachment/10b06492-2ec0-4566-b608-6adabd822563/report.aspx Year: 2019 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://cjini.org/getattachment/10b06492-2ec0-4566-b608-6adabd822563/report.aspx Shelf Number: 155686 Keywords: Charitable TrustsVoluntary AgenciesVoluntary and Community Organizations Volunteers in Criminal Justice |