This short article is a comment on the recent proposal of a What Works Centre for probation (
Sanders, Jones and Briggs, 2021). Any new ‘What Works’ initiative needs to be informed by the patchy and uneven history of research on the effectiveness of probation in England and Wales. Problems have included, at various times, failure to keep up with research in other countries; over-dependency on government departments to conduct and fund research; poor planning and/or implementation of experimental projects; excessive managerialism, and failure to engage practitioners in a research culture. Unless they are avoided, these problems will hamper any new initiative.
AndrewsDABontaJ (1995) The Level of Service Inventory – Revised Manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
2.
AndrewsDAZingerIHogeRD, et al. (1990) Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal28(3): 369–404.
3.
AnnisonJDomineyJ (2021) Introducing the NAPO archive. Probation Journal68(3): 365–370.
4.
BontaJBourgonGRuggeT, et al. (2011) An experimental demonstration of training probation officers in evidence-based community supervision. Criminal Justice and Behavior38(11): 1127–1148.
5.
BrodySR (1976) The Effectiveness of Sentencing. Research Study 35. London: HMSO.
6.
CroftJ (1978) Research in Criminal Justice. Research Study 44. London: HMSO.
7.
DeeringJPikeSThurstonR (2001) Extending what works principles to standard orders: Findings from a local evaluation. Probation Journal48(1): 17–25.
8.
DowdenCAndrewsD (2004) The importance of staff practice in delivering effective correctional treatment: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology48(2): 203–214.
9.
EllisTWinstoneJ (2002) The policy impact of a survey of programme evaluations in England. In: McGuireJ (ed) Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment. Chichester: Wiley, pp.333–358.
10.
FarrallSHunterBSharpeG, et al. (2014) Criminal Careers in Transition: The Social Context of Desistance from Crime. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
FolkardMSSmithDESmithDD (1976) IMPACT Volume II: The Results of the Experiment. Research Study 36. London: HMSO.
13.
FoxCHarrisonJHothersallG, et al. (2021) A rapid evidence assessment of the impact of probation caseloads on reducing recidivism and other outcomes. Probation Journal, online advance publication.
14.
GoveM (2016) Interview with Faisal Islam, BBC 3 June 2016.
15.
Herzog-EvansM (2018) The risk-need-responsivity model: Evidence diversity and integrative theory. In: UgwudikePRaynorPAnnisonJ (eds) Evidence-Based Skills in Criminal Justice. Bristol: Policy Press, pp.99–126.
16.
HMIP (1998) Strategies for Effective Offender Supervision: Report of the HMIP What Works Project. London: Home Office.
17.
HMIP (2021) Caseloads, Workloads and Staffing Levels in Probation. Research and Analysis Bulletin 2021/02. Manchester: HM Inspectorate of Probation.
18.
HollinC (2008) Evaluating offending behaviour programmes: Does only randomization glister?Criminology and Criminal Justice8(1): 89–106.
19.
McGuireJ (ed) (1995) What Works: Reducing Reoffending. Chichester: Wiley.
20.
McGuireJ (ed) (2002) Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment. Chichester: Wiley.
21.
McIvorG (1990) Sanctions for Serious or Persistent Offenders. Stirling: Social Work Research Centre.
22.
MartinsonJ (1974) What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest35: 22–54.
23.
MarunaSMannR (2019) Reconciling ‘Desistance’ and ‘What Works’. Manchester: HM Inspectorate of Probation.
24.
PorporinoF (2010) Bringing sense and sensitivity to corrections: From programmes to ‘fix’ offenders to services to support desistance. In: BrayfordJCoweFDeeringJ (eds) What Else Works?Abingdon: Willan, pp.61–85.
25.
RadzinowiczL1958) The Results of Probation. A Report of the Cambridge Department of Criminal Science. London: Macmillan.
26.
RaynorP (1988) Probation as an Alternative to Custody. Aldershot: Avebury.
27.
RaynorP (2004) The probation service ‘pathfinders’: Finding the path and losing the way?Criminal Justice4(3): 309–325.
28.
RaynorP (2020) Probation for profit: Neoliberalism, magical thinking and evidence refusal. In: BeanP (ed) Criminal Justice and Privatisation. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.18–31.
29.
RaynorPVanstoneM (2018) What matters is what you do: The rediscovery of skills in probation practice. European Journal of Probation10(2): 199–214.
RobertsC (1989) Hereford and Worcester Probation Service Young Offender Project: First Evaluation Report. Oxford: Department of Social and Administrative Studies.
32.
RobinsonGPriedeCFarrallS, et al. (2014) Understanding quality in probation practice: Frontline perspectives in England and Wales. Criminology and Criminal Justice14(2): 123–142.
33.
RossRRFabianoEA (1985) Time to Think: A Cognitive Model of Delinquency Prevention and Offender Rehabilitation. Johnson City, TN: Institute of Social Sciences and Arts.
34.
SandersMJonesLBriggsE (2021) A what works centre for probation: Challenges and possibilities. Probation Journal.
35.
TrotterC (1996) The impact of different supervision practices in community corrections. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology28(2): 29–46.
36.
UgwudikePGrahamHMcNeillFRaynorPTaxmanFSTrotterC (eds) (2020) The Routledge Companion to Rehabilitative Work in Criminal Justice. Abingdon: Routledge.
