Gill McIvor of the Social Work Research Centre at the University of Stirling reviews British and North American research on the effectiveness of intensive group projects and cautions against increased control without heeding the social and personal problems experienced by offenders.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
P RaynoxProbation as an Alternative to Custody, Gower, 1988.
2.
C.H Roberts Hereford and Worcester Probation Service Young Offender Project. First Evaluation Report, Department of Social and Administrative Studies, University of Oxford, 1989
3.
D.A. Andrews , J. Bonta & R.D. Hoge, "Classification for effective rehabilitation-Rediscovering psychology', Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 1719-52, 1990
4.
D.A. Andrews & J.J. Keissling, 'Program structure and effective correctional practices A summary of the CaVIC research' in R R. Ross & P Gendreau (eds.) Effective Correctional Treatment, Butterworths, 1980.
5.
D.A. Andrews , J.J. Keissling, D. Robinson & S. Mickus, 'The risk principle of case classification An outcome evaluation with young adult probationers', Canadian Journal of Criminology, 28, 377-84, 1986
6.
T.G. Clear & P.L. Hardyman , 'The new intensive supervision movement', Crime and Delinquency, 36, 42-60, 1990
7.
J. Petersilia & S. Turner, 'Comparing intensive and regular supervision for high-risk probationers. Early results from an experiment in California ', Crime and Delinquency, 36, 87-111, 1990.
8.
J.M. Byrne, 'Reintegrating the concept of community into community-based corrections ', Crime and Delinquency, 35, 471-99, 1989
9.
J.M. Byrne, 'The future of intensive probation supervision and the new intermediate sanctions , Crime and Delinquency, 36, 6-41, 1990.
10.
B.S. Erwin , 'Old and new tools for the modern probation officer', Crime and Delinquency, 36, 61-74, 1990.
