Paul Crosland, a researcher at Lancaster University's Department of Applied Social Science, assesses how the local probation team might develop a basis for comparing the work undertaken by each officer and suggests that 'effective practice' might be supported by identifying the officers whose caseload history demonstrates 'preferable' court outcomes and lower rates of reconviction than might normally be expected.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
C. Humphrey and K. Pease, 'Effectiveness Measurement in Probation: A View from the Troops', Howard Journal of Criminal Justice31(1) 31-52, 1991.
2.
C. Lloyd et al, Explaining reconviction rates: a critical analysis, Home Office Research Study no.136, HMSO, 1995.
3.
G. Mair and C. Nee, 'Day Centre Reconviction Rates', British Journal of Criminology, 32(3) 329-339, 1992.
4.
G. Mair, Probation Day Centres, Home Office Research Study no.100, HMSO, 1988.
5.
P. Crosland, B. Frank & M. Wilkinson, A Year's Caseload of a Local Probation Office (unpublished), Lancaster University, 1994.
6.
M. Cavadino et al, 'Seriousness of Offences: The Results of the South Yorkshire Study', Prison Service Journal9336-44, May 1994.
7.
P. Crosland , 'An Overview of 1993/ 1994 and a Comparative Assessment of Case-Management and Outcome within a local Probation area' (unpublished), Lancaster University, 1995.
8.
Home Office, Conference Report- Bath Spa Hotel - October 1994 , Home Office Special Conference Office (Liverpool).
9.
P. Raynor, D. Smith and M. Vanstone, Effective Probation Practice, Macmillan, 1994.
