In response to declining use of the probation order, ILPS formed a unit with the general brief 'to demonstrate that offenders could be held on probation with at least as good an outcome in personal and community terms as that following any other disposal.' The team report on the plan they devised, their practice approach and their subsequent evaluation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Home Office Report of the Departmental Committee on the Probation Service Cmnd. 1650HMSO, 1982.
2.
'The diminished use of Probation Order', NAPO Newsletter No. 164, 1978.
3.
Folkard M.S. et al Impact Vol. II Home Office Research Study No. 36, HMSO, 1976.
4.
Martinson, R. 'What works? Questions & Answers about Prison Reform' Public Interest Vol. 35 Spring 1974.
5.
Brodie, S.R.The Effectiveness of Sentencing, HMSO, 1976.
6.
McWilliams, W. 'The Probation Officer at Court: from friend to acquaintance', Howard Journal Vol. 20 No. 2, 1981.
7.
Roberts, J. and Roberts, C. 'Social Enquiry Reports & Sentencing', Howard Journal Vol. 21 No. 2. 1982.
8.
Bottoms, A.E. 'Neglected features of contemporary Penal Systems', in D. GarlandandP. Young (eds.) The Power to Punish, Heineman Educational , 1983.
9.
Stanley S. and Murphy, M.Survey of Social Enquiry Reports, Inner London Probation Service , 1984.
10.
Simon, F.H.Prediction Methods in Criminology, HMSO, 1971.
11.
In Pointing, J. & Franklin, R. (eds.) Alternatives to custody, Blackwell, 1986.
12.
Priestley, P. et al (1978) Social Skills & Personal Problem Solving, LondonTavistock
