It is increasingly argued that vigorous enforcement improves probation outcomes and reduces reconviction rates. Based on a recent study of the link between enforcement and reconviction rates, this article argues that vigorous enforcement is not necessarily synonymous with effective enforcement. It also contends that ensuring compliance is at least as important as adherence to National Standards.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ashton, M. (2003) ‘Why do so few DTTOs fail in Scotland, and so many in England?’ , Drug and Alcohol Findings9, pp. 14-15 .
2.
Bale, D. (2000) ‘Reflections: Pure Fiction: An Infallible Guide to National Standards’ , Probation Journal47 (2), pp. 129-131 .
3.
Best, D., Man, Lan-Ho., Rees, S., Witton, J. and Strang, J. (2002) Evaluating the Effectiveness of Drug Treatment and Testing Orders in the London Probation Area. Unpublished Report to the LPA.
4.
Bottoms, A. (2003) Presentation to Cabinet Office Strategic Thinkers Seminar on Future Options for the Correctional Services, 10/06/2003. [Available at http://www.pm.gov.uk/files/pdf/bottomsnotes.pdf]
Ellis, T., Hedderman, C. and Mortimer, E. (1996) Enforcing Community Sentences. Home Office Research Study 158. London: Home Office .
7.
Hearnden, I. and Millie, A. (2003) Investigating the Link between Probation Enforcement and Reconviction. Home Office Research Findings 225. London: Home Office .
8.
Hedderman, C. (1999) The ACOP Enforcement Audit - Stage 1. London: ACOP .
9.
Hedderman, C. and Hearnden, I. (2000) Improving Enforcement - The Second ACOP Enforcement Audit. London: Association of Chief Officers of Probation .
10.
Hedderman, C. and Hearnden, I. (2001) Setting New Standards for Enforcement - The Third ACOP Enforcement Audit. London: Association of Chief Officers of Probation .
HM Inspectorate of Probation (2000b) Making National Standards work: A study by HMIP of enforcement practice in community penalties. London: HMI Probation .
13.
HM Inspectorate of Probation (2000c) The Use of Information by Probation Services: A Thematic Inspection in Four Parts. Part 1: Making National Standards Work: A Study by HMIP of Enforcement Practice in Community Penalties. London: HMI Probation . [Available at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/enforce1.html]
Home Office (1995) National Standards for the Supervision of Offenders in the Community. London: Home Office .
16.
Home Office (2002) Probation Statistics, England and Wales 2001. London: Home Office .
17.
London Probation Area (2003) Probation: The Newsletter of the London Probation Area. April 2003, Newsletter 8.
18.
May, C. and Wadwell, J. (2001) Enforcing Community Penalties: The Relationship Between Enforcement and Reconviction. Home Office Research Findings 155. London: Home Office .
19.
Morgan, R. (2003) ‘Thinking about the Demand for Probation Services’ , Probation Journal50 (1), pp. 7-19 .
20.
National Probation Service (2002) National Standards for the Supervision of Offenders in the Community - revised 2002. London: National Probation Service .
21.
Wallis, E. (2002) National Probation Service: Performance Report 1. London: National Probation Service .
