Enforcing Community Sentences

• NCJ Number: 169782
• Author(s): T Ellis; C Hedderman; E Mortimer
• Date Published: 1996
• Length: 86 pages
• Corporate Author: Great Britain Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate
• Sale Source: Great Britain Home Office
• Publication Type: Survey
• Language: English
• Country: United Kingdom
• Note: Home Office Research Study 158

Annotation

Commissioned to discover how probation and community service staff ensured offenders complied with terms of probation or community service orders in England and Wales, this study found probation enforcement practices varied not only between probation areas but also between probation teams and officers.

Abstract

Interviews were carried out between September 1994 and December 1995 in five probation areas with a total of 89 probation and community service staff, 19 magistrates, and 31 police officers. Each probation area was also asked to provide copies of local probation enforcement guidelines. Although interviews took place in two areas after the introduction of revised National Standards for the Probation Service in March 1995, all five areas were still operating under 1992 standards. Despite the introduction of national standards, probation enforcement practices differed within and between areas. Only one of the five areas had produced a comprehensive probation enforcement policy document. Guidelines for preparing and prosecuting breach cases were covered in staff handbooks and manuals in all five areas, but procedures for failures to comply with probation orders tended to be covered in ad hoc memos that were issued as problems arose. Local community service guidelines were more systematized than those for probation, probably because community service requirements were intrinsically simpler than probation requirements. The enforcement of combination orders was considered problematic by most probation officers and community service staff because these orders were sometimes imposed by courts on offenders who were not capable of meeting the additional demands. Contrasts between probation and community service monitoring systems were very noticeable in all five areas. Most probation and community service officers thought the 1992 national standards were helpful in ensuring fair and consistent enforcement practices and allowed them to use discretion when necessary. It was also clear probation officers did not employ the national standards strictly. Implications of the findings for practice are discussed. Annexes provide additional information on the interview process, the enforcement process, community sentence breaches, and offenders sentenced to community penalties. 108 references and 3 tables