Community Service Orders Research Articles

REPAIRING THE DAMAGE

that, in practice, where reparation is used in the service of diversion the victim invariably loses out. As a result, after an initial flicker of enthusiasm, official policy makers appear to have rejected the idea in favour of a more traditional approach. In its 1990 White Paper, Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public (Home Office 1990a), for instance, the only forms of reparation to receive an official seal of approval (compensa tion and community service orders: para 4.26) were those administered by the courts, and after an offender has been prosecuted. In this paper I will argue that it would be quite wrong to consign the idea of pre-trial diversion based on reparation to the dustbin of penal reform. First, the findings referred to above do not provide a sound empirical basis on which to conclude that reparation can never be made to work in the service of diversion. Support for this argument is drawn from the findings of a recently concluded study of an adult diversion scheme based in Kettering, Northamptonshire (Dignan 1991). This differs in a number of significant respects from the other schemes that have been reported on so far and, although not faultless, it does appear to offer a more promising model for future development. Second, there are a number of sound policy reasons for persevering with attempts to develop reparation as a means of diverting offenders from court. And finally, the theoretical arguments in support of the practice have been greatly streng thened by Braithwaite's recent work on reintegrative shaming (Braithwaite 1989). However, this would also have important implications for the way the practice is conducted, and some of these are considered in the final section of the paper.

THE SUDDEN DECLINE IN A COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDER PROGRAMME: A CRITIQUE OF THE PANOPTICAN THESIS

Recently, the panoptican interpretation of social control has dominated discussions on decarceration. In particular, despite the dispersal of social control, community service order programmes administered within private correctional agencies have been interpreted as a contribution to state surveillance.

Social Work Intervention in Community Service

The recently introduced National Standards for Community Service schemes in Scotland recognize that certain offenders on Community Service may experience personal diffi culties that interfere with their ability to comply with the order of the court and recom mend that where necessary advice and help should be provided to assist completion. A study of twelve Scottish Community Service schemes revealed that in spite of their often being accepted for Community Service because of the absence of obvious instability in their lives, many offenders encountered personal difficulties while completing their orders and those who did had a higher incidence of absence from placement. The relatively few instances of intervention by Community Service staff that were found were mainly of a practical nature. Two schemes were, however, identified as offering a more intensive social work service which may have enabled certain offenders who would not otherwise have done so to complete their Community Service Orders. The practical implications of increased intervention by Community Service staff are discussed as is the possibility that such an approach might enable schemes to deal successfully with a higher proportion of offenders who would otherwise have received a custodial sentence.

Community Service Work Placements

Abstract: The attitudes and responses of offenders on community service orders to different types of work have been largely undocumented. A study of Scottish community service schemes revealed that the quality of work placements was more important than the setting in which the work was carried out or the broad nature of the work performed. Placements with certain characteristics were most valued by the offenders and a positive experience of community service was associated with increased compliance with the requirements. The implications are discussed in relation to the National Standards that have been introduced in Scotland and in England and Wales.

REVIEWS

REVIEWS Get access PEASE K. (1985), ‘Community Service Orders’, in M. Tonry and N. Morris , eds., Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research , vol. 6: 51–94. Chicago : University of Chicago Press . KEEPING IN TOUCH: POLICE-VICTIM COMMUNICATION IN TWO AREAS . By TIM NEWBURN and SUSAN MERRY . Home Office Research Study no. 116. ( London : HMSO , 1990 . 52 pp. £4.90.) Mike Maguire Mike Maguire School of Social and Administrative Studies, University of Cardiff Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The British Journal of Criminology, Volume 31, Issue 3, 1991, Pages 310–311, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a048121 Published: 01 September 1991

Impact of the Young Offenders Act on Dispositions in the Juvenile Justice System of Canada

ABSTRACT Following implementation of the Young Offenders Act (YOA) in April 1984, it was believed that a shift had occurred from an emphasis on rehabilitation and indeterminate sentences under the Juvenile Delinquents Act (JDA) to an emphasis on punishment and determinate sentences under the new legislation, and a subsequent increase in frequency and length of custodial dispositions. Research studies suggest that, while the number of youths charged and the number sentenced to probation has remained the same, committals to custody and average length of detention have increased. Furthermore, victim reconciliation and community service orders are being used more often as dispositions under the YOA, consistent with the principle of accountability of young offenders. The present study attempts to determine the impact of the YOA on judicial dispositions for 13 to 15 year old young offenders at the Provincial Court (Family Division), Frontenac County, by attempting to control for the nature of the cases and the ...

The Impact of Historical, Legal and Administrative Differences on a Sanction: Community Service Orders in England and Ontario

Abstract: The authors offer a comparative discussion of community service by offenders (CS). They suggest that in both England and Ontario concern about the social and economic costs of imprisonment, doubts about prison effectiveness, a rising crime rate and interest in community based alternatives to imprisonment form the background to CS. They point to the main differences between the two contexts and the way CS operates. They explain those differences by resort to socio‐historical, legal and administrative factors which, they argue, have been at work since the inception of the sanction in both contexts. In particular, they point out the possible reasons why the English CS is a male dominated partial prison alternative, while in Ontario, women are overrepresented on a sanction which rarely, if ever, functions as an alternative to imprisonment. They also show how the same factors have been instrumental in shaping CS which in England is higher up in the tariff structure than in Ontario.

THE COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDER AS A PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ENTERPRISE

The authors offer a comparative account of the administration of the community service order under two different regimes: as a ‘public service’ in England and Wales, and as a ‘private service’ in Ontario. The paper's comparative focus, its analysis of the similarities and differences between public and private services, and its theoretical and practical suggestions about the possible effects of privatization on the administration and enforcement of the community service order in England and Wales are related to current debates about private-sector involvement in the criminal justice system and directions in penal policy in general.

Creative sentencing: A critical analysis

There is doubt that creative sentencing is efficacious in reducing incarceration levels; but, in the long run, that issue is not as important as whether certain freedoms are unduly abused by alternative sentencing practices. Orders of restitution, without full judicial hearing on the loss, represent an obvious danger of injustice. Less obvious is the danger abiding in community service orders where the awesome power of the state compels “good works.” This article argues that criminal sentencing should not be distorted to serve general social goals (“good works”) no matter how noble the sentencing seems to the judge or how much the judge thinks the community might endorse it. Regardless of whether it is true, we assume that the consensus of society supports the criminal law and its enforcement. We can make no similar assumption in regard to the tremendous number of social causes, ideological perspectives and “good works” which a sentencing judge might directly support through the sentencing power. The foll...

Community Service: Areas of Concern and Suggestions for Change

Abstract: The community service order has been in operation for over a decade. In the course of time the order has seen considerable praise and success. But there have been problems too. In this brief paper, the author summarises the major problems that have been identified in the period and calls for afresh review of the purpose and content of community service. He then selects what he regards to be the most pressing issues that need to be addressed by administrators and policymakers and suggests what possible changes could be introduced to improve matters further.

The Rapid Spread of Community Service Orders in Ontario

The Rapid Spread of Community Service Orders in Ontario

Community Service Orders

Community service orders are penal sanctions in which convicted offenders are placed in unpaid positions with nonprofit or governmental agencies. Proponents typically urge the use of community service as an alternative to imprisonment. Community service programs have been established in many countries. The most extensive and most studied experience is British. Following a 1970 recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Penal System, enabling legislation was passed in 1972 and pilot programs were initiated in 1973 in six probation districts. By the late seventies, community service programs were in place throughout the United Kingdom. In 1982, more than 30,000 orders were imposed on 8 percent of offenders sentenced for serious crimes. A major Home Office evaluation of the British system used four different methods to calculate the extent to which those sentenced to community service would otherwise have been imprisoned. By every method, it appeared that no more than half would have been imprisoned. Research in Great Britain and in several other countries confirms this finding. For community service to be justified as an alternative to incarceration but used as a supplement to nonincarcerative sentences is hypocritical. Offenders who would not have been imprisoned in the absence of orders may find themselves later imprisoned for violation of an order. Among the major problems of implementation are disparities in the extent of imposition of orders, in the length of orders, and in the use of sanctions against offenders who do not comply with orders. There have been few efforts to assess the impact of the use of orders on recidivism, and the results are inconclusive.

Differential Justice: Domestic Labour, Community Service and Female Offenders

Research on women given Community Service Orders in West Yorkshire raises important questions about discrimination against females in the criminal justice system.

A Study on the Community Service Orders

A Study on the Community Service Orders

Reviews : Community Service Orders: A First Decade of Promise KEN PEASE Howard League for Penal Reform, 1981 ; £1.75; pb; pp 76

Reviews : Community Service Orders: A First Decade of Promise KEN PEASE Howard League for Penal Reform, 1981 ; £1.75; pb; pp 76

Social Enquiry Reports and Sentencing

AbstractThis article describes an analysis of the provision of social enquiry reports, the various sentencing outcomes in magistrates' courts and differences in the level of resources in 34 probation areas. It demonstrates that the level of report provision is strongly associated with the use of probation service administered disposals (i.e. probation and community service orders) but has little effect on the use of custodial disposals. The second part reviews the reasons for the apparent absence of influence in reports on the use of custodial sentences and the ways in which probation officers might enhance their impact on sentences via the preparation of reports, especially in relation to the use of tariff sentences.

Juvenile procedures in the Swiss Canton of Vaud

The author is an Inspector in the Metropolitan Police and, as a result of being awarded a bursary, she spent three months in Switzerland in the Canton of Vaud. She made a study of their policing methods and, more specifically, their methods of dealing with juvenile crime and juveniles at risk. The legal system in Vaud is inquisitorial and the police work under examining magistrates who decide in each case whether a person should appear before a court. Figures indicate that proportionately fewer juveniles commit offences in Vaud than in London. The incidence of recidivism is lower. This is probably because Vaud is less urban than London with stronger community ties. The principles used in sentencing are similar but there is less cautioning and more use of community service orders. The emphasis is on education and on ensuring that juveniles are employable

THE POWER TO DEFER SENTENCE

In 1972 courts in England and Wales were glv«n the power to defer sentence (Criminal Justice Act 1972, s. 22) following recommendations made by the Wootton Report (1970). Whereas other proposals implemented at that time, such as community service orders, detoxification centres and bail hostels have received considerable attention from research, deferment of sentence has been little studied, apart from work undertaken in 1973 by the Home Office Research Unit (Simpson, 1975a, b). Since the power was given statutory authority, its use by the courts has grown each year. In 1977,8,171 persons received deferred sentences (Criminal Statistics, 1977), 0-95 per cent, of all persons sentenced for offences other than motoring offences. Within this overall rate are a number of variations. Offenders convicted of indictable offenders are more likely to receive a deferred sentence than motoring offenders (1*53 per cent, compared with 0-06 per cent.). The crown court uses deferment more frequently than the magistrates' court both in respect of indictable offences (2-92 per cent, compared with 1-26 per cent.) and in respect of non-indictable offences, excluding motoring offences (5-09 per cent, compared with 0-17 per cent.). In 1977 the Department of Social Administration and Social Work of the University of York was awarded a grant by the Home Office to study the use made of deferment by courts in West Yorkshire with particular reference to the consequences of use for the probation service. The first phase of this study involved a search of all court records in West Yorkshire to identify all cases in which sentence was deferred in 1977. This was followed by an examination of probation and social service department records in respect of each case.

Community Service Orders— How Different?

Community Service Orders— How Different?

Community Service Orders: A Suitability Check List

Community Service Orders: A Suitability Check List