Increased flexibility in combining the community service order with other non-custodial sanctions under the 1991 Act will probably lead to its greater use by sentencers. Increased throughput could mean more mediocre work opportunities, less interest in offenders' needs and a higher breach rate. Gill McIvor of the University of Stirling Social Work Research Centre argues the case for maintaining and improving the quality of the community service experience.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
McWilliams, W. 'Community Service National Standards: Practice and Sentencing', Probation Journal, 36, 121-6, 1989
2.
Mclvor, G. 'Community service work placements', The Howard Journal , 30, 19-29, 1991.
3.
McIvor, G.An Evaluative Study of Community Service by Offenders in Scotland, Social Work Research Centre, University of Stirling, 1989.
4.
Advisory Council on the Penal System, Non-custodial and Semi-custodial Penalties , HMSO, 1970.
5.
Carnie, J.Sentencers' Perceptions of Community Service by Offenders, Scottish Office Central Research Unit, 1990
6.
McIvor, G.Community Service by Offenders: Assessing the Benefit to the Community, Social Work Research Centre, University of Stirling, 1990
7.
McIvor, G.Reconviction Among Offenders Sentenced to Community Service, Social Work Research Centre, University of Stirling, 1992
8.
Ervin, L. & Schneider, A. 'Explaining the effects of restitution on offenders: Results from a national experiment in juvenile courts', in B Galaway & J Hudson (Eds.) Criminal Justice, Restitution, and Reconciliation, Criminal Justice Press, 1990
9.
McIvor, G.Sanctions for Serious or Persistent Offenders. A Review of the Literature, Social Work Research Centre, University of Stirling, 1990
10.
McWilliams, W. & Pease, K. 'The future of community service ' in K Pease & W McWilliams (Eds.), Community Service by Order, Scottish Academic Press, 1980
11.
Social Work Services GroupNational Objectives and Standards for CS in Scotland, 1989
