Download Free Report By The Comptroller And Auditor General Parole Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Report By The Comptroller And Auditor General Parole and write the review.

Covers new ideas and concepts as well as the established probation lexicon, including institutional, legal, political and theoretical terms used in the discipline and importing concepts from the disciplines of sociology, criminology and psychology.
Rehabilitating and Resettling Offenders in the Community is a significant examination of the historical development of work with offenders and their treatment by the state and society. It offers unique perspectives and a wealth of information drawn from numerous interviews with probation staff. Highlights how the work of probation staff has changed over time and the reasons behind these changes Includes discourse with probation staff carried out over many years for a comprehensive, 'insiders' view of the situation Focuses on contemporary issues, including the changes brought in by the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition Written by a leading academic with extensive experience in the probation service
The Parole Board for England and Wales is an independent body that makes decisions on the release of prisoners. The Board works alongside the HM Prison Service and the probation service when deciding on the release of offenders from custody. In the 2006-07 period the Board handled 25,000 cases, a 31 per cent increase from the 2005-06 period. This NAO report, examines the following areas in how the Board works, including: whether the members of the Board are well equipped to make decisions; whether the Board manages its workload in a timely and efficient way; whether the Board has adequate processes for reviewing its performance and learning lessons. The NAO has set out a number of recommendations, including: the Ministry of Justice should, alongside the Parole Board, examine the composition of the Board's membership to consider whether is can be more representative; that the Board should continue to monitor closely the amount of time members are making available for casework; that the Board should introduce a template to record reasons for all parole decisions; that the Ministry of Justice needs to produce more realistic workload forecasts and also introduce a target which covers the entire process of providing information and holding hearings for indeterminate sentenced prisoners (sentences given to prisoners for public protection and life sentences); that the Board should review random samples of some completed cases to assess the quality of the reasons for the decision taken.
The Parole Board (the Board), a Non-Departmental Public Body sponsored by the Ministry of Justice, is responsible for deciding whether an offender is suitable for release from custody on parole. The Board's workload of cases to assess has more than doubled in a five year period. The balance has also shifted from more straightforward paper based hearings to more resource intensive oral hearings, where the offender attends and is questioned. This increase in workload stems from the rising prison population and new sentencing regimes. The Board's administrative performance is undermined by a lack of capacity to hear cases, and it often does not receive the key information required to make their assessment on serious offenders. The Prison and probation services have been unable to provide the timely and complete information necessary for the efficient and effective running of the parole process. There are further problems with the oral hearings: two-thirds of oral hearings have not been held in their planned month and 20 per cent of hearings have been held more than 12 months late. These delays are unacceptable and costly - direct costs of £1 million in 2007-07, and nearly £2 million costs to the Prison Service in keeping offenders who should have been released or transferred to open conditions. These costs are significant when set against the Board's net expenditure in 2007-8 of £7.4 million, and the Board needs to administer hearings more effectively. The Board should also be more independent, and its membership more accurately reflect the composition of society.
This book is a collection of essays by a unique group of authors about the political destruction of the probation service in England and Wales. All of them are probation officers turned academics, with a collective scholarly output that is both prodigious and distinguished. They address the history of probation, its underlying values and working methods, and the way it has been systematically dismantled by successive political administrations. The book offers essential reading for those interested in broadening their understanding of the probation service and its vital role in rehabilitation. In addition it makes a compelling case for the reinstatement of an evidence-based probation service as the primary criminal justice agency concerned with helping people who come before the courts to become contributing citizens. A lively and engrossing read, it is destined to be invaluable to policy makers, social science theorists and commentators, as well as scholars of criminology and the justice system, and all those who work in it.
This NAO report examines sick leave in the National Probation Service, which was running at 12.3 days per person in the 2004-05 period at a cost of £31.6 million. A number of recommendations have been set out as follows. That the National Probation Directorate should agree with the Chief Probation Officer a consistent minimum standard for collecting and reporting sickness absence data in their areas. This in turn could be used to produce comparative analyses, and offer a basis to diagnose the causes of sickness absence. An upgrade in some areas of their information technology systems should occur, so that better management information can be compiled. All probation areas should implement the mandatory elements of the national policy on sickness absence. All Chief Officers should review their action plans for reducing sickness absence. Sickness absence should be managed effectively but sympathetically, by including return to work interviews, along with a means of distinguishing between avoidable and unavoidable sickness absences, and addressing the culture of absenteeism. Long term sickness absence should be reviewed as a matter of urgency. Policies relating to work/life balance should be implemented nationally.