This article draws on original research and other studies to explore a range of issues that probation areas are likely to face during implementation of the OASys risk/needs instrument. It considers how such instruments are viewed by practitioners and focuses in particular on how they perceive them to impact on their professionalism. The article concludes by encouraging a wider debate about the future of indeterminacy in assessment and elsewhere in probation practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andrews, D. & Bonta, J. (1995) The Level of Service Inventory–Revised: Manual. New York: Multi-Health Systems Inc.
2.
Aubrey, R. & Hough, M. (1997) Assessing Offenders’ Needs: Assessment Scales for the Probation Service, (Home Office Research Study 166). London: Home Office .
3.
Aye-Maung, N. & Hammond, N. (2000) Risk of Re-offending and Needs Assessments: The User’s Perspective, (Home Office Research Study 216). London: Home Office .
4.
Bonta, J. (1996) ‘Risk-needs assessment and treatment’, in A.T. Harland (ed) Choosing Correctional Options That Work. London: Sage .
5.
Burnett, R. (1996) Fitting Supervision to Offenders: Assessment and Allocation Decisions in the Probation Service (Home Office Research Study 153). London: Home Office .
6.
Colombo, A. & Neary, M. (1998) ‘“Square Roots and Algebra”: Understanding Perceptions of Combined Risk/Needs Assessment Measures’ , Probation Journal45 (4), pp. 213–219 .
7.
Derber, C. (1982) ‘Managing Professionals: Ideological Proletarianization and Mental Labor’ in C. Derber (ed) Professionals as Workers: Mental Labor in Advanced Capitalism. Boston, MA: G. K. Hall .
8.
Fletcher, H. (1995) ‘New Reconviction Scale’ , NAPO News72 (1).
9.
Gibbs, A. (1999) ‘The Assessment, Case Management and Evaluation System’ , Probation Journal46 (3), pp. 182–186 .
10.
Home Office (1995) National Standards for the Supervision of Offenders in the Community. London: Home Office .
11.
Home Office (1996) Guidance for the Probation Service on the Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS), (Probation Circular 63/1996). London: Home Office .
12.
Jamous, H. & Peloille, B. (1970) ‘Professions or Self-perpetuating Systems? Changes in the French University-hospital System’, in J.A. Jackson (ed) Professions and Professionalization, Sociological Studies 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
13.
Kemshall, H. (1998) ‘Defensible Decisions for Risk: or “It’s the Doers Wot Get the Blame”’ , Probation Journal45 (2), pp. 67–72 .
14.
McGuire, J. & Priestley, P. (1995) ‘Reviewing “What Works”: Past, Present and Future’, in J. McGuire (ed) What Works: Reducing Reoffending. Chichester: Wiley .
15.
Merrington, S. (2001) ‘Objectives, Intervention and Reducing Risk’, Probation Studies Unit ACE Practitioner Bulletin No. 3, University of Oxford , available at http://www.crim.ox.ac.uk/publications/psubull3.pdf
16.
Merrington, S. & Skinns, J. (2000) ‘Using ACE to Profile Criminogenic Needs’, Probation Studies Unit ACE Practitioner Bulletin No. 1, University of Oxford , available at http://www.crim.ox.ac.uk/publications/psubull1.pdf
17.
National Probation Service (2001) A New Choreography: Integrated Strategy for the National Probation Service for England and Wales 2001–2004. London: Home Office .
18.
OASys Development Team (2001) The Offender Assessment System: User Manual.
19.
Raynor, P., Kynch, J., Roberts, C. & Merrington, S. (2000) Risk and Need Assessment in Probation Services: An Evaluation (Home Office Research Study 211). London: Home Office .
20.
Roberts, C. (1993) ‘How to Improve Practice’, in Improving Practice: Towards a Partnership Between Information, Research and Practice , Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference of the National Probation Research and Information Exchange, University of Warwick, 30 March–2 April 1993, NPRIE.
21.
Roberts, C. & Robinson, G. (1998) ‘Improving Practice Through Pilot Studies: the Case of Pre-sentence Reports’ , Vista: Perspectives on Probation3 (3), pp. 186–195 .
22.
Roberts, C., Burnett, R., Kirby, A. & Hamill, H. (1996) A System for Evaluating Probation Practice (Probation Studies Unit Report No. 1). Oxford: University of Oxford Centre for Criminological Research .
23.
Robinson, G. (2001) Probation, Risk and Governance. Unpublished PhD Thesis: University of Wales, Swansea.
24.
Robinson, G. (2002) ‘Exploring Risk Management in the Probation Service: Contemporary Developments in England and Wales’ , Punishment & Society4 (1), pp. 5–25 .
