{"id":1438,"date":"2016-03-15T15:55:09","date_gmt":"2016-03-15T15:55:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/?p=1438"},"modified":"2022-12-19T11:37:08","modified_gmt":"2022-12-19T11:37:08","slug":"community-justice-files-38","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/review\/community-justice-files-38\/","title":{"rendered":"Community Justice Files 38"},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row row_height_percent=”0″ override_padding=”yes” h_padding=”2″ top_padding=”3″ bottom_padding=”2″ overlay_alpha=”50″ equal_height=”yes” gutter_size=”3″ column_width_use_pixel=”yes” shift_y=”0″ z_index=”0″ column_width_pixel=”1000″][vc_column column_width_percent=”100″ position_horizontal=”left” gutter_size=”2″ override_padding=”yes” column_padding=”0″ overlay_alpha=”50″ shift_x=”0″ shift_y=”0″ shift_y_down=”0″ z_index=”0″ medium_width=”0″ align_mobile=”align_left_mobile” mobile_width=”0″ width=”2\/3″][vc_custom_heading text_font=”font-128611″ text_size=”h3″ text_weight=”500″ text_color=”color-210407″]Articles[\/vc_custom_heading][vc_separator sep_color=”color-210407″ el_height=”1px”][vc_custom_heading auto_text=”yes” text_font=”font-128611″ text_size=”h1″ text_weight=”500″ text_color=”accent”]This is a custom heading element.[\/vc_custom_heading][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Published<\/span><\/td>\n15\/03\/2016<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Type<\/td>\nReview<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Author(s)<\/td>\nDr Nick Flynn, Ross Little<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Corresponding Authors<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DOA<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DOI<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

[\/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner column_width_percent=”100″ gutter_size=”3″ overlay_alpha=”50″ shift_x=”0″ shift_y=”0″ shift_y_down=”0″ z_index=”0″ medium_width=”0″ align_mobile=”align_center_mobile” mobile_width=”0″ width=”1\/1″][uncode_share layout=”multiple” bigger=”yes” separator=”yes”][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]COST Action: ‘Offender Supervision in Europe – Bridging Research,\u00a0Policy and Practice’<\/strong>
\nOn 11th-12th March 2016 the final conference of the international research network Cost\u00a0Action (IS1106) on ‘Offender Supervision in Europe’ took place at the Free University of\u00a0Brussels. Against the backdrop of a rapid increase in the numbers of offenders subject to\u00a0supervision across Europe (an increase which cannot be explained by crime rates and\u00a0which has not impacted to any significant extent on the use of imprisonment), this four\u00a0year research collaboration has been guided by a concern that the small amount of\u00a0research undertaken into the rapidly growing numbers of offenders supervised in the\u00a0community has failed to engage with policy and practice. To address this, it has sought to\u00a0develop new research projects and research methods, and more generally to facilitate\u00a0cooperation across European countries between researchers, academics, practitioners and\u00a0policy makers. Six pilot research projects have been developed:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • The Eurobarometer project – a survey instrument to compare across jurisdictions the experience of those subject to supervision<\/li>\n
  • The Supervisible project – the use of photography to represent the experience of supervision<\/li>\n
  • Comparative vignette methodology – the construction of case scenarios to explore decision-making processes related to breach and the management of compliance<\/li>\n
  • Visualising practice – the use of photography to represent and compare supervision<\/li>\n
  • Observing practice – to compare across European countries the practice of conducting first meetings between supervisors and supervisees<\/li>\n
  • Practice diaries – to compare across European countries the professional lives and routine practices of supervisors.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    As described in the final report, the key findings of the project are as follows:<\/p>\n

    \u2022 Although most people who experience supervision find it helpful and affirm the\u00a0support of supervisors, experience varies from country to country especially in\u00a0relation to assistance provided on employment, housing, finances and offending.
    \n\u2022 Supervision hurts, even when it is considered to be constructive and helpful. The\u00a0experience of being supervised is often represented as being painful in a variety of ways. Themes of constraint, losing time, waste, and being condemned to further\u00a0sanctions should they be judged as somehow failing were all common themes\u00a0expressed by people under supervision.
    \n\u2022 There is a lack of research on decision making processes and forms of supervision\u00a0by different agencies across Europe. For example, breach and revocation are\u00a0under-researched in relation to significant variations in procedures and the extent\u00a0to which discretion is exercised. Similarly, there appears to be a blanket decision in\u00a0some countries to exclude certain groups from receiving community sanctions:\u00a0foreigners and mentally ill people for example.
    \n\u2022 Research on the comparative practice of offender supervision is also limited.\u00a0Evidence was found of significant variation in practice but also of a ‘habitus’, or a\u00a0consistent approach and disposition common to practitioners in different\u00a0jurisdictions and settings.<\/p>\n

    Finally, the report presents the implications for future policy, practice and research:<\/p>\n

    \u2022 Since supervision hurts, the principle of proportionality should guide decisions on\u00a0its imposition, length, form and requirements. Unintended and unnecessary pain\u00a0should be avoided.
    \n\u2022 Supervisory sanctions should be made more accessible to marginalised and\u00a0vulnerable groups such as foreign nationals and people with mental health\u00a0problems.
    \n\u2022 Considerable discretion is necessary to maintain the dignity of persons subject to\u00a0supervision in order to fulfill the spirit of the law as well as the letter of the law.
    \n\u2022 Working fairly and helpfully with people under supervision supports constructive\u00a0relationships and encourages desistance.
    \n\u2022 Further research should be carried out on: the experience of supervision, including\u00a0how it relates to families, communities, employers and victims; decision-making;\u00a0the similarities and differences between jurisdictions<\/p>\n

    The blog site for the COST Action: ‘Offender Supervision in Europe network can be found\u00a0at: www.offendersupervision.eu.<\/p>\n

    More details on the six pilot research projects can be found at:\u00a0http:\/\/www.offendersupervision.eu\/documents-and-resources.<\/p>\n

    Electronic Monitoring (revisited)<\/strong>
    \nA project arising out of the Cost Action: Offender Supervision in Europe network has been\u00a0European-funded research into the use of electronic monitoring in EU Member states.\u00a0Running from May 2014-May 2016, the project ‘Creativity and effectiveness in the use of\u00a0electronic monitoring as an alternative to imprisonment in EU member states’ has\u00a0compared the operation of electronic monitoring for adults in five European jurisdictions:\u00a0Belgium, England and Wales, Germany, the Netherlands and Scotland in order to examine\u00a0its effectiveness in providing a humane alternative to custody. Inter alia, the research\u00a0shows that:<\/p>\n

    \u2022 High use of electronic monitoring is linked to high use of imprisonment. For\u00a0example, England and Wales, which has the highest imprisonment rate in Western\u00a0Europe, uses electronic monitoring to a much greater extent than the other four\u00a0jurisdictions. This raises complex questions about the role of electronic monitoring\u00a0to both expand and contract prison populations.
    \n\u2022 An increase in the use of electronic monitoring is associated with a decrease in the\u00a0involvement of the probation service. For example, in England and Wales the lack\u00a0of credibility afforded to probation services has contributed to a policy drive to\u00a0increase the use of electronic monitoring. Therefore, the use of electronic\u00a0monitoring has tended to develop and work in parallel to the probation service.\u00a0Associated with this, private sector involvement in electronic monitoring\u00a0determines the extent to which it is integrated with probation services. In England\u00a0and Wales, pre-trial electronic monitoring, standalone electronic monitoring\u00a0sentencing requirements and Home Detention Curfews require no state agencies\u00a0to be involved unless orders are breached.
    \n\u2022 Although, generally, electronic monitoring is not being used creatively in the five\u00a0jurisdictions, electronic monitoring is being used in diverse ways in the five\u00a0jurisdictions especially in relation to duration and intensity of use and monitoring\u00a0requirements, and so cannot be considered a homogenous penal measure.<\/p>\n

    More information on ‘Creativity and effectiveness in the use of electronic monitoring as an\u00a0alternative to imprisonment in EU member states’ can be found at:\u00a0http:\/\/emeu.leeds.ac.uk.<\/p>\n

    A research briefing Creativity and Effectiveness in the Use of Electronic Monitoring: A case\u00a0study of five European jurisdictions can be found at:
    \nhttp:\/\/www.crimeandjustice.org.uk\/sites\/crimeandjustice.org.uk\/files\/Comparative%20Briefing_English%2008%2002%2016-3.pdf.<\/p>\n

    Probation Institute position paper<\/strong>
    \nThe Probation Institute (PI) has published a ‘position paper’ entitled Penal Reform. This is\u00a0the second in the Institute’s series of sixteen position papers.<\/p>\n

    The paper, published on 4th March following speeches by the Prime Minister and\u00a0Secretary of State for Justice, sets out what the PI considers the key issues that must be\u00a0addressed if reforms are to have an impact on reducing re-offending. In summary, these\u00a0are that:<\/p>\n

    \u2022 The prison population is unsustainably high. The prison population has doubled in\u00a0England and Wales during a time when recorded levels of crime have been falling.\u00a0Many people in prison have not been convicted of violent offences and do not pose\u00a0a danger to others. Many have issues associated with addiction and\/or poor mental\u00a0health.
    \n\u2022 Governor autonomy on its own is not sufficient to reduce re-offending rates. Whilst\u00a0it represents a welcome move away from central control, prison governor\u00a0autonomy is unlikely to have much impact because the numbers of people in the\u00a0system needs to be centrally or regionally controlled. Tying performance on reoffending\u00a0rates to prison based services is problematic. It is also difficult for prison\u00a0governors and staff to acquire the detailed knowledge of the local community into\u00a0which prisoners will be released.
    \n\u2022 ‘Justice Reinvestment’ is required to achieve reductions in re-offending. Reinvesting\u00a0the resources currently deployed to manage an unnecessarily high prison\u00a0population into better resourced and targeted community-based programmes and\u00a0preventative measures is the over-arching strategy most likely to achieve sustained\u00a0reductions in re-offending. Re-offending rates of those supervised in the\u00a0community are consistently lower than those for custody. The difference widens\u00a0when applied to those serving sentences of 12 months and under.<\/p>\n

    The paper concludes that without a wider criminal justice strategy – one that reduces thenumbers in prison and re-invests in the resources thus released in community-based\u00a0sanctions and preventative measures – the effect of current proposed reforms is likely to\u00a0be minimal and any reductions achieved unlikely to be sustainable.<\/p>\n

    To read the position paper in full:\u00a0http:\/\/probation-institute.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/Position-paper-prisonreform-final.pdf<\/p>\n

    Ministry of Justice Departmental Plan 2015-2020<\/strong>
    \nThe Ministry of Justice published its Departmental Plan for 2015 to 2020 on 19th\u00a0February. The Total Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2015-2016 is \u00a36.5 billion. The plan\u00a0includes four objectives:<\/p>\n

    1. Improve public safety and reduce reoffending by reforming prisons, probation and\u00a0youth justice (emphasis added)
    \n2. Build a One Nation justice system by making access to justice swifter and more\u00a0certain for all citizens whatever their background
    \n3. Uphold the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary, safeguard\u00a0essential liberties and restore historic freedoms
    \n4. Delivering efficiently in MOJ: ensure the best possible service for citizens by making\u00a0our department more efficient and more open, with policy driven by evidence.<\/p>\n

    The first objective is most relevant to those interested in probation services. In relation to\u00a0probation, the plan states that:<\/p>\n

    ‘\u2026we will build on our reform of probation to ensure offenders are\u00a0monitored and supported effectively after they have left custody. In the last\u00a0Parliament we ensured, for the very first time, that every offender,\u00a0sentenced to more than a day in prison is supervised properly on release. In\u00a0the past, offenders sentenced to terms of less than 12 months had next to\u00a0no support. The Transforming Rehabilitation reforms which extended the reach of probation also brought more commercial expertise and charitable\u00a0energy into reducing reoffending and we will support the innovative work now being done by more and more Community Rehabilitation Companies.’<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    The Lead Minister for Objective 1 is Andrew Selous MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of\u00a0State for Prisons, Probation, Rehabilitation and Sentencing. The Lead officials for Objective\u00a01: Michael Spurr, Chief Executive, National Offender Management Service and Indra\u00a0Morris, Director General, Prisons Policy, Strategy and Change.<\/p>\n

    To read the full version of the Single Departmental Plan 2015 to 2020:\u00a0https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/publications\/moj-single-departmental-plan-2015-to-2020\/single-departmental-plan-2015-to-2020#improve-public-safety-and-reducereoffending-by-reforming-prisons-probation-and-youth-justice<\/p>\n

    Chief Inspector of Probation’s Speech to Howard League\u00a0conference<\/strong>
    \nAs part of a Justice Inspectorate plenary session on ‘Inspection as a Catalyst for reform’,\u00a0Dame Glenys Stacey, Chief Inspector of Probation, gave a presentation at the Howard\u00a0League for Penal Reform’s conference entitled ‘Justice and penal reform: Re-shaping the\u00a0penal landscape’ on 16th March.<\/p>\n

    The Chief Inspector stated that “a competing market often lends itself to a risk-based\u00a0approach to inspection” and requires foresight regarding “how market pressures will\u00a0influence what is done, and what is not done”.<\/p>\n

    The best inspectorates, she stated “strike that tricky balance between process and\u00a0outcomes – words that are so commonly used, but often not\u00a0 sufficiently well defined and\u00a0understood. Let us not forget that there should be, there is a relationship between the\u00a0two.”<\/p>\n

    She explained how inspectorates wrestle with the question of what proportion of their\u00a0limited resources should be devoted to thematic inspection and what proportion should\u00a0be spent on the more routine inspection of individual bodies. “In deciding the right\u00a0balance, we should keep in mind that timely, risk-based thematic inspection is particularly\u00a0valuable in times of change.”<\/p>\n

    She highlighted that whilst quantitative measures of delivery by the NPS and CRCs are\u00a0important and necessary, they are also insufficient. This is because “on their own, they do\u00a0not necessarily answer the big questions: for example, are CRCs working with the luntary sector in a sufficiently joined-up and systematic way and if not then why not,\u00a0and is the “Through the Gate’ initiative working well enough (in these early days) to be\u00a0likely to deliver the significant expectations of it?”<\/p>\n

    The value of thematic work, the Chief Inspector stated, can be to illuminate matters of\u00a0particular concern at points in time but it can also shed light on more longstanding\u00a0matters. For example, she questioned the extent to which local authorities are providing\u00a0accommodation and support to 16 and 17 year olds in the manner anticipated by the law\u00a0(the Southwark judgment).<\/p>\n

    To read the transcript of the full speech by the Chief Inspector of Probation:
    \nhttp:\/\/www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk\/hmiprobation\/wpcontent\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2016\/02\/The-Howard-League-March-2016-final-1-_2_.pdf<\/p>\n

    Contracting Out Probation Services 2013-2016<\/strong>
    \nA Parliamentary briefing paper entitled Contracting Out Probation Services 2013-16 was\u00a0published on 22nd January 2016 by the House of Commons Library. The briefing paper\u00a0charts the progress of the recent reforms to probation services in England and Wales and\u00a0brings together some of the associated commentary.<\/p>\n

    The briefing outlines that 45,000 extra people are being subject to the probation system\u00a0due to the introduction of community supervision for those serving prison sentences of 12\u00a0months or less.<\/p>\n

    The report explains that there have been concerns about ‘the pace of change\u2026the danger\u00a0of fragmentation\u2026 about IT systems’ and about the lack of clarity for the voluntary sector\u00a0about their role. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation have produced three reports\u00a0about the reforms. Whilst the most recent has found some improvement in\u00a0communication between the National Probation Service (NPS) and the Community\u00a0Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs), enforcement has been found to be variable and there\u00a0were problems with risk assessment and child protection.<\/p>\n

    The briefing paper helpfully explains the centrality of ‘Payment by Results’ (PbR’ to the\u00a0Transforming Rehabilitation reforms. Quarterly cohorts of people subject to probation\u00a0supervision are being established and measured since October 2015. There is a 26-month\u00a0period between the start of a cohort and the first potential payment to CRCs under the\u00a0mechanism would be in December 2017. The National Audit Office report on the\u00a0Government’s use of PbR across the public sector concluded that there were risks to\u00a0commissioners and a lack of credible evidence that the approach can work well in\u00a0 practice. Without such evidence the report stated that commissioners may be using PbR in\u00a0circumstances to which it is not suited.<\/p>\n

    The report includes a useful section on ‘Debate in Parliament’ and an appendix of the new\u00a0CRC owners announced in December 2014. To read the full report of Contracting Out\u00a0Probation Services 2013-16:\u00a0http:\/\/researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk\/documents\/SN06894\/SN06894.pdf<\/p>\n

    Payment by Results – lessons from the literature<\/strong>
    \nRussell Webster has recently undertaken a review of the PbR literature, analysing a total\u00a0of 93 PbR studies, the majority of which (75) focussed on PbR in the UK. The review, published on 3rd February, was part of a separate project to develop an interactive tool to\u00a0help commissioners and providers decide whether or not a payment by results approach\u00a0might be an effective approach to commissioning a particular service.<\/p>\n

    The review notes that PbR has become much more widespread, in the UK in particular,\u00a0since 2010 when it was championed by the government in general and the Treasury in\u00a0particular. The rapid growth in PbR schemes has occurred at the same time as substantial cuts to public services.<\/p>\n

    One of the main findings of the review is that:<\/p>\n

    ‘PbR schemes are so varied, tend to be commissioned for such different\u00a0reasons (to improve outcomes and\/or stimulate innovation; to reduce costs,\u00a0to transfer risk from government or commissioners, to encourage new\u00a0markets), and are so often poorly evaluated, that it is not yet possible to\u00a0pass judgement on whether the PbR model works.’<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    A key emerging theme is the limited amount of discussion and negotiation between\u00a0commissioners and providers at all stages of the process. The review seeks to improve this\u00a0situation and help progress the debate from binary positions of being for or against PbR to\u00a0a more nuanced understanding of the conditions in which it is more appropriate to use.<\/p>\n

    To read more about Payment by Results – lessons from the literature:\u00a0http:\/\/www.russellwebster.com\/payment-by-results-lessons-from-the-literature\/<\/p>\n

    Probation Institute Academic Advisory Panel<\/strong>
    \nThe Probation Institute has announced the launch of its Academic Advisory Panel. The\u00a0panel will have responsibility to develop and sustain relationships with academic partners,\u00a0as well as support the work of the Institute’s Research Committee. The Panel, chaired by\u00a0Emerita Professor Anne Worrall, consists of university experts who are recognized for\u00a0their contributions to probation-related research.<\/p>\n

    To read more about the launch of the Academic Advisory Panel:\u00a0http:\/\/probation-institute.org\/probation-institute-academic-advisory-panel-established\/[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][vc_column column_width_percent=”100″ gutter_size=”2″ override_padding=”yes” column_padding=”2″ back_color=”color-lxmt” overlay_alpha=”50″ shift_x=”0″ shift_y=”0″ shift_y_down=”0″ z_index=”0″ medium_width=”0″ mobile_width=”0″ sticky=”yes” width=”1\/3″ css=”.vc_custom_1599058615073{padding-right: 26px !important;padding-left: 26px !important;}”][vc_custom_heading heading_semantic=”h3″ text_font=”font-128611″ text_size=”h4″ text_weight=”500″ text_color=”color-210407″]Latest Issue[\/vc_custom_heading][uncode_index el_id=”index-163686″ loop=”size:1|order_by:date|post_type:post|categories:3″ gutter_size=”3″ post_items=”title,date” screen_lg=”1000″ screen_md=”600″ screen_sm=”480″ single_text=”overlay” single_style=”dark” single_overlay_opacity=”50″ single_overlay_anim=”no” single_text_visible=”yes” single_text_anim=”no” single_h_align_mobile=”left” single_padding=”0″ single_title_family=”font-128611″ single_title_dimension=”h4″ single_title_weight=”500″][vc_button button_color=”accent” size=”btn-xl” radius=”btn-square” wide=”yes” custom_typo=”yes” font_family=”font-128611″ font_weight=”500″ border_width=”0″ link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fmmuperu.co.uk%2Fbjcj%2Fnewsletter%2F|title:Newsletter||”]Subscribe to our Newsletter[\/vc_button][vc_raw_html]JTNDYSUyMGNsYXNzJTNEJTIydHdpdHRlci10aW1lbGluZSUyMiUyMGRhdGEtd2lkdGglM0QlMjI0MDAlMjIlMjBkYXRhLWhlaWdodCUzRCUyMjU0NSUyMiUyMGhyZWYlM0QlMjJodHRwcyUzQSUyRiUyRnR3aXR0ZXIuY29tJTJGYmpjb21tdW5pdHlqdXN0JTNGcmVmX3NyYyUzRHR3c3JjJTI1NUV0ZnclMjIlM0VUd2VldHMlMjBieSUyMGJqY29tbXVuaXR5anVzdCUzQyUyRmElM0UlMjAlM0NzY3JpcHQlMjBhc3luYyUyMHNyYyUzRCUyMmh0dHBzJTNBJTJGJTJGcGxhdGZvcm0udHdpdHRlci5jb20lMkZ3aWRnZXRzLmpzJTIyJTIwY2hhcnNldCUzRCUyMnV0Zi04JTIyJTNFJTNDJTJGc2NyaXB0JTNF[\/vc_raw_html][\/vc_column][\/vc_row]<\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    [vc_row row_height_percent=”0″ override_padding=”yes” h_padding=”2″ top_padding=”3″ bottom_padding=”2″ overlay_alpha=”50″ equal_height=”yes” gutter_size=”3″ column_width_use_pixel=”yes” shift_y=”0″ z_index=”0″ column_width_pixel=”1000″][vc_column column_width_percent=”100″ position_horizontal=”left” gutter_size=”2″ override_padding=”yes” column_padding=”0″ overlay_alpha=”50″ shift_x=”0″ […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1438","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-review"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nCommunity Justice Files 38 - BJCJ<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/review\/community-justice-files-38\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Community Justice Files 38 - BJCJ\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"[vc_row row_height_percent=”0″ override_padding=”yes” h_padding=”2″ top_padding=”3″ bottom_padding=”2″ overlay_alpha=”50″ equal_height=”yes” gutter_size=”3″ column_width_use_pixel=”yes” shift_y=”0″ z_index=”0″ column_width_pixel=”1000″][vc_column column_width_percent=”100″ position_horizontal=”left” gutter_size=”2″ override_padding=”yes” column_padding=”0″ overlay_alpha=”50″ shift_x=”0″ […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/review\/community-justice-files-38\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"BJCJ\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-03-15T15:55:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-12-19T11:37:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Nathan Monk\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Nathan Monk\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/review\\\/community-justice-files-38\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/review\\\/community-justice-files-38\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Nathan Monk\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061\"},\"headline\":\"Community Justice Files 38\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-03-15T15:55:09+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-12-19T11:37:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/review\\\/community-justice-files-38\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":3085,\"commentCount\":0,\"articleSection\":[\"Review\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/review\\\/community-justice-files-38\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/review\\\/community-justice-files-38\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/review\\\/community-justice-files-38\\\/\",\"name\":\"Community Justice Files 38 - BJCJ\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2016-03-15T15:55:09+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-12-19T11:37:08+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/review\\\/community-justice-files-38\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/\",\"name\":\"BJCJ\",\"description\":\"British Journal of Community Justice\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061\",\"name\":\"Nathan Monk\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Nathan Monk\"},\"description\":\"I'm proud to work for some of the world\u2019s most influential brands that shape cities and define lives: Universities and colleges. I provide advice to forward-thinking senior leaders on how to exceed their organisational targets by creating user-focused, digital-first strategies.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/sleek.bio\\\/n\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/nathansmonk\\\/\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/author\\\/nathansmonk\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Community Justice Files 38 - BJCJ","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/review\/community-justice-files-38\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Community Justice Files 38 - BJCJ","og_description":"[vc_row row_height_percent=”0″ override_padding=”yes” h_padding=”2″ top_padding=”3″ bottom_padding=”2″ overlay_alpha=”50″ equal_height=”yes” gutter_size=”3″ column_width_use_pixel=”yes” shift_y=”0″ z_index=”0″ column_width_pixel=”1000″][vc_column column_width_percent=”100″ position_horizontal=”left” gutter_size=”2″ override_padding=”yes” column_padding=”0″ overlay_alpha=”50″ shift_x=”0″ […]","og_url":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/review\/community-justice-files-38\/","og_site_name":"BJCJ","article_published_time":"2016-03-15T15:55:09+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-12-19T11:37:08+00:00","author":"Nathan Monk","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Nathan Monk","Estimated reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/review\/community-justice-files-38\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/review\/community-justice-files-38\/"},"author":{"name":"Nathan Monk","@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/#\/schema\/person\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061"},"headline":"Community Justice Files 38","datePublished":"2016-03-15T15:55:09+00:00","dateModified":"2022-12-19T11:37:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/review\/community-justice-files-38\/"},"wordCount":3085,"commentCount":0,"articleSection":["Review"],"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/review\/community-justice-files-38\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/review\/community-justice-files-38\/","url":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/review\/community-justice-files-38\/","name":"Community Justice Files 38 - BJCJ","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/#website"},"datePublished":"2016-03-15T15:55:09+00:00","dateModified":"2022-12-19T11:37:08+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/#\/schema\/person\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/review\/community-justice-files-38\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/#website","url":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/","name":"BJCJ","description":"British Journal of Community Justice","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/#\/schema\/person\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061","name":"Nathan Monk","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Nathan Monk"},"description":"I'm proud to work for some of the world\u2019s most influential brands that shape cities and define lives: Universities and colleges. I provide advice to forward-thinking senior leaders on how to exceed their organisational targets by creating user-focused, digital-first strategies.","sameAs":["https:\/\/sleek.bio\/n","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/nathansmonk\/"],"url":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/author\/nathansmonk\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1438","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1438"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1438\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2884,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1438\/revisions\/2884"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1438"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1438"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1438"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}