Bill McWilliams of the Cambridge Institute of Criminology considers the implications of the new standards both for practice and for the Service's relationship with courts, in the context of the purpose of Community Service and identifies the problems which can arise from a tougher, high tech approach.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Vass, A.A.Sentenced to Labour: Close Encounters with a Prison Substitute, Venus Academica, 1984.
2.
McWilliams, B.C.Community Service Orders: Discretion and the Prosecution of Breach Proceedings , University of Manchester Department of Social Administration , 1980.
3.
Coates, R.B. , Miller, A.D. and Ohlin, L.E.Diversity in a Youth Correctional System, Ballinger, 1978. Coates , R.B. 'Community-Based Services for Juvenile Delinquents: Concept and Implications for Practice', Journal of Social Issues, 37, 87-101, 1981.
4.
H.M. Inspectorate of Probation Report on a Thematic Inspection of Community Service, Home Office, 1988.
5.
Ackoff, R.L. 'Resurrecting the Future of Operational Research ', Journal of the Operational Research Society, 30, 189-200, 1979.
6.
McWilliams, W. 'The Probation Officer at Court: From Friend to Acquaintance', Howard Journal, 20, 97-116, 1981.
7.
Putnam, D. 'We Are More Than What We Consume', The Independent , 18 March, 1989.
8.
Home Office Letter: Tackling Offending: an Action Plan, 17 January (PBN/88 317/1/29), 1988.
9.
Anderson, D. 'Jail. The Random Punishment', Sunday Telegraph, 5 February, 1989.
10.
Jervis, M. 'Radical Reforms and Golden Opportunities', Social Work Today, 20, 12-13, 1989.
