Drawing on more than 30 years of experience, the author explores the impact of a range of recent reforms which he sees as being of particular importance to the future direction of the probation service. He argues that while changes to the socio-political context and organizational structure of probation raise many valid concerns, there is still much to be hopeful about, particularly in view of the motivated, high quality staff the service is still able to attract.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ACOP (1988) More Demanding than Prison. London: Association of Chief Officers of Probation .
2.
ACOP (2001) A Brief Chronicle and Review 1982–2001. London: Association of Chief Officers of Probation .
3.
Clarke, D. (1994) ‘Probation Qualifying Training: Can the Dip SW Deliver?’ in Probation Journal41 (3), pp. 152–154 .
4.
Ellison, M. (1934) Sparks Beneath the Ashes–Experiences of a London Probation Officer. London: John Murray .
5.
Gibbs, A. & King, D. (2002) ‘Home Detention with Electronic Monitoring in New Zealand and its Implications’ , in Vista7 (2), pp. 100–110 .
6.
Harding, J. (2000) ‘A Community Justice Dimension to Effective Probation Practice’ , in Howard Journal39 (2), pp. 132–149 .
7.
Hignett, C. (2000) ‘Punish and Rehabilitate–Do They Mean Us?’ in Probation Journal47 (1), pp. 51–52 .
8.
Home Office (The Dews Report) (1994) Review of Probation Officer Recruitment and Qualifying Training. London: Home Office .
9.
Leach, T. (1998) ‘In Defence of Traditional Terminology’ , in Vista4 (2), pp. 108–112 .
10.
Leach, T. (1999) ‘Effective Practice–Some Possible Pitfalls’ , in Vista5 (2), pp. 141–149 .
11.
Liddle, M. (2001) ‘Community Penalties in the Context of Contemporary Social Change’, in A. Bottoms, L. Gelsthorpe & S. Rex (eds) Community Penalties–Change and Challenges. Cullompton: Willan Publishing .
12.
Maguire, M., Kemshall, H., Noaks, L. & Wincup, E. (2001) Risk Management of Sexual and Violent Offenders–the Work of Public Protection Panels. Home Office Police Research Series Paper 139. London: HMSO .
13.
Mair, G. (2001) ‘Technology and the Future of Community Penalties’, in A. Bottoms, L. Gelsthorpe & S. Rex (eds) Community Penalties–Change and Challenges. Cullompton: Willan Publishing .
14.
May, C. (1999) Explaining Reconviction Following a Community Sentence: The Role of Social Factors. Home Office Research Study 192. London: HMSO .
15.
McGowan, V. (2002) ‘The NVQ–a Means to an End?’ , in Probation Journal49 (1), pp. 35–39 .
16.
Merrington, S. & Stanley, S. (2000) ‘Doubts about the ‘What Works’ Initiative’ , in Probation Journal47 (4), pp. 272–275 .
17.
MORI (1998) Re-branding the Probation Service. MORI Social Research .
18.
Nellis, M. (1992) ‘Probation Training after the CJA 1991’ , in Probation Journal41 (3), pp. 87–91 .
19.
Nellis, M. (1999) ‘Politics, Probation and the English Language’ , in Vista4 (3), pp. 233–240 .
20.
Nellis, M. (2001) ‘Community Penalties in Historical Perspective’, in A. Bottoms, L. Gelsthorpe & S. Rex (eds) Community Penalties–Change and Challenges. Cullompton: Willan Publishing .
21.
Porter, M. (1980) Competitive Advantage. New York: Free Press .
22.
Rex, S. (2001) ‘Beyond Cognitive-Behaviouralism? Reflections on the Effectiveness Literature’, in A. Bottoms, L. Gelsthorpe & S. Rex (eds) Community Penalties–Change and Challenges. Cullompton: Willan Publishing .
23.
Shaw, G.B.S. (1901) The Doctor’s Dilemma. (Act 1).
24.
Sleightholm, D. (1995) ‘Marketing and the Courts’ , in Vista1 (1), pp. 15–23 .
25.
Walker, H. & Beaumont, B. (1981) Probation Work–Critical Theory and Socialist Practice. Oxford: Basil Blackwell .
26.
Wargent, M. (2002) ‘The New Governance of Probation’ , in Howard Journal41 (2), pp. 182–200 .
27.
Whitfield, D. (1997) Tackling the Tag. Winchester: Waterside Press .
28.
Wootton, B. (1959) Social Science and Social Pathology. London: George Allen and Unwin .
