In this article the authors consider the results of the largest study of programme effectiveness yet published, arguing that it is still disappointingly inconclusive, partly because of the results themselves, and partly because of concerns about methodology.
Friendship, C. , Street, R. , Cann, J. & Harper, G. (2004) ‘Introduction: the Policy Context and Assessing the Evidence’, in G. Harper and C. Chitty (eds) The Impact of Corrections on Re-offending: A Review of What Works’, Home Office Research Study 291. London: Home Office .
2.
Hollin, C. , Palmer, E. , McGuire, J. , Hounsome, J. , Hatcher, R. , Bilby, C. & Clark, C. (2004) Pathfinder Programmes in the Probation Service: A Retrospective Analysis. Home Office Online Report 66/04. URL (accessed January 2005): www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsOLR6604.pdf
3.
Kershaw, C. , Goodman, J. & White, S. (1999) Reconvictions of offenders sentenced or discharged from prison in 1995, England and Wales, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 19/99. London: Home Office .
4.
Lloyd, C. , Mair, G. & Hough, M. (1995) Explaining Reconviction Rates: A CriticalAnalysis,Home Office Research Study 136. London: Home Office .
5.
McGuire, J. (2002) ‘Integrating Findings From Research Reviews’, in J. McGuire (ed.) Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment: Effective Programmes and Policies to Reduce Re-offending. Chichester: Wiley .
6.
Merrington, S. & Stanley, S. (2004) ‘What Works? Revisiting the Evidence in England and Wales’ , Probation Journal51(1): 7-20 .
