Select Committee on Home Affairs Third Report


Memorandum by the Association of Chief Officers of Probation


  The national statement of purpose issued by the Home Office defines the purpose of the probation service as to serve the courts and the public by:

    —  supervising offenders in the community;

    —  helping offenders to lead law abiding lives; and

    —  safeguarding the welfare of children in family proceedings.

  National standards for the supervision of offenders in the community produced in 1995 by the Home Office identifies the focus of the supervision of community sentences as:

    —  to protect the public;

    —  to reduce reoffending; and

    —  to rehabilitate the offender.

  Probation services are both effective and cost effective in the part they play in the criminal justice process.

  Evidence indicates that the increased use of community sentences in a considered way, properly resourced, would assist and enhance public safety.

  The probation service in England and Wales is the leading community penalties agency.

  Over 110,000 offenders are under community supervision to the probation service every year, whereas the prison population stands at 63,000.

  Over 66,000 prisoners and those on licence are monitored and supervised by probation officers to increase their chances of a successful transition back into the community.

  Community service workers contribute over 6 million hours of unpaid work for the benefit of an estimated 17,000 individuals and community groups in England and Wales.

  All community sentences operated by the probation service are in accordance with a framework of national standards laid down by the Home Office.

  In 1996-97 £420 million from central and local government funds went to probation services paying for services, which includes the supervision of over 185,000 people at any one time. This is almost three times the number in prison for just over one quarter of the bill to the tax payer.

  We recommend that serious consideration is given to the introduction of:

    —  supervised attendance centres;

    —  use of electronic monitoring as part of a community sentence; and

    —  community prisons.

  ACOP commissioned a paper by Colin Roberts of the Probation Studies Unit at Oxford University identifying the evidence of likely effective interventions of community sentences, which we are pleased to attach to this submission.

November 1997

  This submission provides brief, well researched answers to the areas the committee indicated that it would be examining. Supporting evidence and issues covered in more detail can be found in the appendices included with this submission. Also included is a reference list of research reports and other material which underpin the points we make.

  As part of the overall submission is a document prepared by the Probation Studies Unit at Oxford University, who are independent of ACOP. This document contains evidence of likely effective interventions, with particular reference to community sentences and the work of the probation service.


Strengths and weaknesses of various community and other non-custodial sentences currently available to the courts, both in their own terms and relative to custodial sentences.

  In 1996, 46,000 COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDERS were made by the courts. Community service orders can be made for anything between 40 to 240 hours. About 71 per cent completed their hours successfully. Community service costs about £140 per offender per month[37].

  The community service order is simple, easily understood and is inexpensive. It commands very wide public support. It was introduced in 1974. The main purpose of a community service order is to prevent further offending by re-integrating the offender into the community. This is achieved through punishment, by means of positive and demanding unpaid work, keeping to disciplined requirements and through reparation to the community, by undertaking socially useful work. The offender is "paying back" in terms of work undertaken, either directly or indirectly to the victims of crime, for the damage caused by crime. The community gets a wide range of tasks completed. The offenders—quite apart from meeting their obligations—learn new skills (and in some instances obtain basic NVQ certificates) and acquire a measure of acceptance through community contacts, which would otherwise be impossible. The high level of community and public support which CS enjoys springs directly from the thousands of community groups and individuals who have benefited from CS involvement.

  Community service has to be run within a very disciplined framework and the high level of breach proceedings and failures might be seen as a disadvantage[38]. But it is inescapable if the positive image of CS is to be maintained. CS is also flexible—the sentence range of 40 to 240 hours allows its use for a wide variety of offenders and offences. Arguably the most successful sentencing innovation in the last 50 years, it has now been copied in over 40 countries[39].

  In 1996 over 48,500 PROBATION ORDERS were made at Crown and Magistrates court, 20 per cent of which were on women. A probation order can last for up to three years. About 72 per cent ran their full course with only four per cent being breached for failure to comply with requirements. It costs £2,200 per order to supervise.

  The probation order is inexpensive, very flexible and enjoys the confidence of courts[40]. It has been in existence as an order of the court since 1907. The probation order has three main purposes, to protect the public from harm from the offender, to prevent the offender from committing further offences and to secure the rehabilitation of the offender. Costs and effectiveness are dealt with elsewhere, but the flexibility of the sentence is a major strength. A wide range of additional conditions (on residence, psychiatric treatment, requirements in relation to drink, drugs, or specific activities, for instance) means that courts can tailor orders to the needs of specific offenders, and that they can be used for a very wide range of cases.

  The probation service seeks to protect the public by undertaking comprehensive risk assessments, registering and monitoring dangerous offenders, including serious sex offenders and working with other agencies on child protection issues. [41]A key part of the initial work with offenders is the completion of a comprehensive risk assessment. The detailed information which the initial risk assessment produces ensures that the probation order is used to tackle the reasons for an individual's offending. Sometimes this involves complex treatment programmes delivered with other experts, for instance: mental health professionals, drugs workers or psychologists expert in sexual offending. At other times more straightforward approaches can achieve the required results.

  The probation service assists in the prevention of further offending through the delivery of well targeted supervision, focussing on and confronting offending patterns and behaviour. Programmes delivered as part of an order will typically contain ways to make sure that the offenders are constructively reminded of their victims perspective as required by national standards and that distorted thinking is challenged. Many of the programmes are delivered in groups which challenge and confront the offenders perspective[42][43]. The probation order is demanding in terms of the obligations it places on offenders and offenders are required to account for their behaviour. National standards determine how probation orders are structured and failure to comply will result in the offender being returned to court.

  The probation service helps in the rehabilitation of the offender through enabling access to practical assistance for employment, literacy, money management, etc. for a group of people who frequently "fall through the net" of other provision. It is necessary to recognise that the probation order is sometimes perceived to be a soft option, whilst in a nation-wide survey offenders themselves did not consider it in this way, there is a need to further tackle public perception, which is based largely on a misunderstanding of this particular community sentence[44].

  Just over 17,000 COMBINATION ORDERS commenced in 1996; these orders have nearly doubled in the last 3 years. The court can impose a probation element for up to 3 years and a community service order element for between 40-100 hours.

  Combination orders were introduced in the 1991 Criminal Justice Act and, by providing a mixture of probation and community service, have all the advantages outlined above. In particular combination orders provide the court with an opportunity of a sentence that can concentrate on an individual's offending, yet that also provides an element of punishment for the offender. They are, inevitably, more costly to supervise and resource constraints in the probation service are now acute.

  Combination orders are just that, a combination of sentences, therefore the individual who is reporting on probation, who may also be attending an offending behaviour group or treatment facility, also has to attend for community service one day a week. In 1996 58 per cent completed the probation element successfully and 69 per cent completed the specified number of community service hours. It is important that combination orders are targeted appropriately and because there is an increased requirement to report may not always be suitable for those offenders with disorganised, chaotic lives, who are all too evident on probation caseloads.

  There are 101 PROBATION and BAIL HOSTELS in the country that are available not only for those awaiting trial, but are also a further sentencing option to the court.

  Probation hostels are very important and offer far more than accommodation. They provide a structured and safe way of integrating offenders back into local communities and play a key role in protecting the public. A high proportion of residents are extremely difficult and dangerous. Offenders are either resident as a condition of bail or as part of a probation order. Hostels provide 24 hour surveillance and monitoring, and residents can attend groups run in the hostel or in the community, to focus on their offending. Whilst hostels have achieved an 83 per cent occupancy rate, with over 65 per cent of hostel residents completing their orders, there is scope for them to be used more extensively, in particular as part of pre or post release supervision[45].

  Whilst the following sentences are not normally directly within the area of probation supervision ACOP considers that they could be used more extensively and that they could make a larger contribution to the sentencing framework as a whole.

  Attendance Centre Orders 5,500 attendance centre orders were made last year however there is substantial scope to develop their use and content to make them more available and effective[46]. Problems at present seem to revolve around availability and the content of the programmes. There are very few centres available and those that do exist require offenders to travel long distances. If there was greater clarity of purpose and an increase in availability then they are likely to be used more. ACOP's ideas as to how these orders might be developed are contained in Section 6.

  Fines can be a very successful sentence of the court, however magistrates seem unable to fine offenders with no real disposable income. In 1991 of all sentences used in magistrates courts for indictable offences, the proportionate use of the fine was 45 per cent. This has dropped to 36 per cent in 1996. Longer term, the decline has been even more marked. The impact has been to overload all other parts of the system with offenders who could have been just as effectively dealt with (and much more cheaply) by a monetary penalty. In ACOP's view unit fines could have been used properly to resolve these problems, but over-reaction to early difficulties of design and consequent adverse publicity closed that option. Turning to non payment, pilots are soon to be taking place in which penalties of Community Service and Electronic Monitoring, which were not thought appropriate for an original offence are to be used. This will be an expensive alternative[47]  [48].

  The use of absolute and conditional discharges remain a useful option for courts. They offer the prospect of a penalty being imposed if further behaviour warrants it, but a sufficient penalty in those cases where the process of conviction and the court appearance itself are enough. They are however continuing to fall as a sentencing option.

  Young offenders The Audit Commission produced a report on young offenders, which indicated that26 per cent of known offenders are under the age of 18, persistent offenders on community sentences could be supervised more intensively, that prevention is better than cure and all agencies involved should work together better. A summary is attached (Appendix 1). ACOP believes that the probation service has a particular contribution to make in managing the youth offender team element of the youth justice strategy within the context of a multi agency working group under the chief executive. ACOP has made a detailed submission to the Home Secretary—Copy attached Appendix 2—and has responded to the three consultative documents on Youth Justice.


The available information as to the relative costs of different kinds of custodial and non-custodial sentences.

  Current published Home Office figures[49] which are as reliable as any national estimates, are as follows: (all relate to 1995-96)
Annual unit cost
Community Service Order £1,700
Probation Order£2,280
Supervision Order (for those aged between 10-17) £2,170
Hostel place (based on 90 per cent occupancy figures) £15,700
Prison place£24,178

  Compared with prison community sentences are relatively inexpensive to operate. It is also important to recognise other costs to the community of supporting an offender's family whilst they are in prison. In addition there are immense costs to victims (both financial and emotional) and to society as a whole.


The available information as to whether, relative to prison sentences, non custodial sentences are (a) more or less effective as a means of rehabilitation and preventing reoffending and/or (b) expose the public to greater or lesser risk of further crime.

  A single measure of effectiveness is not sufficient—it may relate to reoffending, to improvements in longer term rehabilitation or to risk to the public. The single, simple measure which is invariably used is that of reconviction rates. However comparative figures in which, for instance, overall prison rates compared with community sentences are not valid. Appendix 3 gives brief details of three recent studies and the difference when comparing probation with offenders sentenced to imprisonment at magistrates' courts is stark and very significant. Figures still need to be interpreted and judgements made—but we believe the evidence is compelling.

Evidence is available as to the type of effective programmes which reduce reoffending[50]

  This includes:

    —  ensuring that approaches are based on behavioural or cognitive behavioural methods;

    —  matching the level of risk posed by the individual with the level of intervention;

    —  a recognition that specific factors are associated with offending and that these should be treated separately from other needs;

    —  using a learning style which requires active participation on behalf of the offender, but is also carefully structured;

    —  skills oriented, in order to teach problem solving and social interaction, including role play and modelling;

    —  employment focused—where offenders can obtain real jobs;

    —  having clear aims, which are linked consistently with the methods used;

    —  programmes which are broad, in order to address the range of offenders' problems; and

    —  approaches which are community based, to enable proximity to the offenders' home environment and real life learning.

  This last point is of particular importance when comparing programmes which can be delivered in a community as opposed to a prison environment. Whilst some of the offenders in prison do receive programmes as outlined above, this is an extremely small proportion of the prison population. Prison is primarily a means of containment, rehabilitation is a much lower priority. However those offenders who are supervised in the community by the probation service will, following a thorough risk assessment, receive supervision which is focused and targeted. ACOP and the Home Office are working closely together to disseminate good practice to probation services to facilitate the delivery of programmes to offenders which fit the above criteria.

  Effective work with younger offenders needs to reflect all of the above, but the importance of the family, peer and educational environment must not be underestimated. Nor should the damage of incarceration to a young offender, who is likely to be exposed to a more sophisticated criminal culture.

  A key to developing effective work with offenders is the use of partnerships with other agencies to work alongside the probation service. In 1994 probation services were given grant aiding powers and are required to spend 5 per cent of budgets on obtaining services from the voluntary and independent sector. In 1996-7 over £25 million was being spent on partnerships for providing services to offenders in a number of fields including accommodation, drugs, alcohol, employement and others.

  The probation service has also got an important role to play in the new welfare to work proposals, for example some of the time spent undertaking Community Service may act as an important assessment or even be considered part of the Gateway options. Reducing unemployment is a key aspect in reducing offending.

  Probation services are centrally involved in drugs action teams across the country. This ensures that the offender focus in the development of services to drug misusers maintains a high profile, therefore assisting the probation service in delivering effective work to this very vulnerable group.

  Whilst there are many other examples of particular activities in which the probation service is involved one other initiative is the joint supervision with the police of particular offenders. These individuals are targeted because of their high profile of offending and this is now shown to be having an impact on reducing offending within particular communities.

  This section is further developed by the evidence of likely effective interventions undertaken by Colin Roberts from the Probation Studies Unit at Oxford University, which is submitted alongside this document.* [51]More detailed information is also available in the report by the Home Office Inspectorate of Probation on Strategies for Effective Supervision to be published shortly.


Steps which might be taken to improve the quality of community sentences

  There are various ways in which improvements to the quality of community sentences could occur. Building on good practice, increasing sentencer confidence, maintaining high levels of contact where appropriate and targeting resources to best effect.

  It is important to build on the good practice information contained within inspection reports which are produced by the HM Inspectorate of Probation, both as part of their Quality and Effectiveness agenda and the thematics which they undertake. Many examples of high quality work exist which are being undertaken in a group or on an individual basis, or where close interagency work is taking place, however there is greater scope for such information to be shared[52].

  Further evidence in terms of quality can be found in the comment that there is sentencer confidence and the probation service is also viewed favourably by offenders. As stated in the research study of offenders on probation, "The probation service is working to achieve its formal aims and objectives. Probationers' relationships with their supervisors are generally very positive. A majority of probationers think that probation has helped them to understand their offending behaviour and will help them stay out of trouble. There is evidence also of a punitive effect, in that orders are restrictive of liberty". The experience of the demonstration projects currently taking place in Teesside and Shropshire will be of great help in further developing further services to sentencers.

  Another component of quality in community sentence supervision is quantity. National Standards sought to address this by requiring specific levels of contact, but as stated previously there is compelling evidence that more intensive work, especially in the early part of orders, is particularly effective. This leads on from a structured assessment which needs to be applied more consistently across probation areas. However rapidly increasing caseloads in the probation service (not only in increased use of probation and community service, but in increases in prison licence, too) mean that the opportunity to provide the level of intensive contact is not always possible.

  Inevitably when considering improvements to the quality of services the impact on resources has to be recognised. The probation service is fully aware of the need to provide locally sensitive services and respond to the needs of the local community appropriately. More and more services are engaged in partnerships with local community organisations which brings an added quality and value to the work being delivered. The probation service is also actively involved in the prison probation review and the comprehensive spending review which will focus on quality, as well as efficiency, the comparative costs of prison and non custodial sentences and other effectiveness issues. The probation service has an important role to play in networking with other organisations such as police, local authorities, health and others to improve the quality of services to offenders and the community.

  Some broad proposals would allow progress to be made in three key areas:

    —  more direct and open feedback to sentencers; more use by sentencers of progress reports which offenders would be told would happen. The impact of this is not sufficiently recognised;

    —  better access to drug and alcohol services, employment and training initiatives. Much has already been achieved, but ensuring that other agencies (NHS, DoE) really do provide relevant services remains a priority;

    —  more consistent (not uniform) provision throughout all 54 probation areas.


Whether changes in the extent to which non custodial sentences are used, and in the way they are designed and delivered, could improve their potential capacity to reduce the rates of imprisonment for particular groups, including (a) women (b) ethnic minorities (c) young offenders (d) the mentally disordered and (e) those engaged in crime to feed their drug habit.

  A particular benefit of working in partnership is the expertise and skills that others can bring in working with specific groups.

  Probation services do run programmes for women and the research evidence indicates that single gender groups are preferable[53]. However the numbers to run groups are often quite small, which means that most of the inputs do take place individually. Where areas have persevered and decided to facilitate attendance at groups, through dependant care provision, cre"ches, transport to outlying areas etc groups have been more successful. Community Service could also be used more extensively, however a key piece of work needs to take place with sentencers to indicate to them the range of community provision which is available[54].

  In relation to ethnic minorities similar comments also apply, not only to the style and type of provision supervised by the probation service, but also in respect of the views of sentencers. There is evidence of a higher proportion of custodial remands for male ethnic minority defendants, although the rates of their referral to and acceptance for bail hostel places and other supported bail facilities has been improved. The use of a custodial remand can affect the likelihood of a non custodial sentencing disposal being considered[55].

  Young offenders are the most volatile, criminally active group but this group have the greatest capacity to change. It is considered that well targeted, well resourced provision, with access to real employment could be the basis of much more effective supervision. There are particular problems with young people going into prison, they are often held long distances from their home, this is particularly the case for female young offenders. They are frequently either victim or offender of abuse of various kinds. There is an issue of bullying and self harm in young offender institutions and the number of suicides continues to cause concern. There is scope with young offenders for the development of sentences, served partly in custody and part in the community.

  Mentally disordered offenders need to be dealt with where possible in the community, within the community care arrangements. There is evidence that when dealt within the prison setting that treatment is often disrupted, signs and symptoms go unnoticed and individuals become a threat to both themselves and others. The probation service needs to work closely with both health and social services in order to deliver effective community sentences and greater provision for accommodation needs to be made both within the approved hostel setting and within hospitals.

  Closer liaison between criminal justice and mental health workers would allow for early identification and intervention, therefore alleviating the mental health symptoms and reducing the risk of reoffending. In addition if a mechanism was put in to place which allows for the money to follow the individual, this would ensure easier access to treatment with a long term aim of increasing public safety[56][57].

  Substance misusers, particularly those who are offending to support their habit, are often so prolific in their offending, that most effective work will have significant impact. Working alongside agencies who are specifically engaged in this area of work brings great benefits and there is early experience which suggests that joint police-probation supervision may have a real role to play. There is a government initiative to introduce drug testing orders as part of supervision in the community, which ACOP welcomes as this will target those offenders who are known to commit a high level of crime in order to fund their habit or who are violent, yet have indicated some degree of willingness to co-operate with treatment.


Other forms of non-custodial sentence that might be introduced.

  The key starting point for ACOP is to ensure that the current provision is used more effectively. There could be a real danger in introducing yet more sentencing options, when as discussed earlier some of the provision that is available is not used to greatest effect. Any additional sentencing options must be targeted at those whose offending is less serious and who do not need the detailed exploration and input into their offending, which the probation service is better able to provide to more serious offenders, who could still be dealt with in the community.

  There are three immediate options on which the committee may wish to consider the probation service and the police working more closely together:

Supervised Attendance Orders

  ACOP proposes a change to the current attendance centre order, which would be:

    —  Fully available (separate programmes for juveniles and adults) to all courts by designating probation centres as attendance centres

    —  Jointly supervised by probation staff; by police, who could make a significant contribution as they do in many groupwork or joint supervision projects; by drug agencies or others for specific aspects of the programme

    —  Intensive, particularly in the first weeks of the order. If, for example, orders were 20-100 hours, undertaken in five hour segments, then the first month should involve both Saturdays and Sundays for maximum impact.

    —  Inexpensive and good value for money, by using existing probation premises at weekends. Administrative and sessional staff would be the main cost.

  Electronic monitoring has a useful role to play, providing its use is targeted correctly. Experience elsewhere suggests that the use of electronic monitoring works best for short periods of time with specific offenders, in conjunction with other community supervision. For example serious sex offenders. Used in this way, the electronic tag:

    —  "buys time" for other programmes to take effect; and

    —  enhances the intensive contact which is most effective in the early part of orders (see Section 4).

  As a sentence in its own right, or longer term, the tag has an unhappy track record, increasing rather than decreasing prison numbers; and increasing costs significantly without enhancing public safety. The experience in Sweden, currently the most effective and cost effective European tagging programme, reinforces these views.

  Tagging can also be used very cost effectively as an earlier-release device to reduce prison numbers and we have urged the Home Office to consider this. Longer licence periods, with the first month or two seeing the offender both tagged and supervised by the probation service, would provide a very useful phased-release system, compatible with enhanced public safety. The Dutch experience currently supports this.

Community prisons

  It is important for criminal justice agencies to work together, however there is scope to consider the probation service providing a more rigorous programme of community custody at the weekends, using current probation premises, incorporating community service and electronic monitoring. In some countries this has been extended to weekend prisons. The current prison/probation review will explore the ways in which the two services can work more closely together which may link in with this proposal.

  In terms of young offenders there is a need to change the culture so that the non custodial sentences which are available are used effectively. In England and Wales there are already more disposals available than equivalent European courts, yet we continue to have the highest rates of custodial sentencing. A move to something similar to the Scottish Children's hearing system would clearly assist with the younger age group. Latest thinking on restorative justice places more emphasis on victim/offender mediation and reparation is also shown to be of value[58].


How the confidence of the public, of victims and of judges/magistrates in non custodial punishments as effective, appropriate and safe sentences might be enchanced.

  Whilst evidence in the 1996 British crime survey[59] indicated that there had been a small drop in worry about the main categories of property crime since 1994, there is still much to be done to improve the confidence in community sentences. There is evidence to show that sentencing trends are affected by the Home Secretary[60] and consequently probably the most significant contribution has to be made by politicians—saying that they believed in them. Confidence at a local level continues to remain high as referred to previously in relation to sentencers and community service beneficiaries. The Victims Charter[61] has given an increased prominence to victims and there are currently pilots in place offering victims the opportunity to comment on the impact that the offence had on them, which will be taken into account during the court proceedings. The National Standards requirement which ACOP, with Victim Support, has promoted, ensures that victims of serious sexual or violent offenders, who receive a sentence of four years imprisonment or more, are kept informed of the progress of the offender through the prison system. This could be extended to those on community sentences, if there was a particular concern expressed by the victim.

  The increase in confidence also needs to be seen in the context of the media environment in which all the criminal justice agencies are operating. Within this creating the opportunities for "good news stories" to be published is limited.

  In any debate on confidence it needs to be recognised that: [62][63] [64]

    —  34 per cent of those under supervision have a significant drugs problem

    —  35 per cent had an alcohol problem; some have both;

    —  75 per cent are unemployed—and half of those are long term unemployed; around one third have accommodation problems;

    —  a quarter have significant debts (average around £300 in one recent survey);

    —  12 per cent have learning difficulties—a rather larger proportion have significant literacy problems;

    —  33 per cent had been in care;

    —  50 per cent had previous supervision; and

    —  40 per cent had a previous custodial sentence.

  In these circumstances 75-90 per cent successful completion of orders is:

    —  remarkable;

    —  only achieved with considerable tolerance and a lot of dogged, patient work; and

    —  worth preserving.

  In order for there to be an increase in confidence attention is being given to enforcement. This is an area in which it is recognised that there is room for improvement and is being tackled by ACOP in conjunction with the HM Inspector of Probation. This is concentrated primarily on the requirement to adhere to National Standards where rigorous enforcement is required. There is the need however to recognise that the service is supervising difficult persistent offenders in the community, whose ingrained offending will take time to change.

  In respect of young offenders work needs to be done within local communities to help them recognise that on most occasions offending is a part of growing up and unless it becomes very frequent or very serious, it can be contained within the community. To assist with this would be a programme of education for parents, systems that keep young people in schools rather than excluding them and schemes to keep children and young people off the streets and engaged in constructive activities.


How far diversion from crime projects (programmes for discouraging from crime individuals or groups who may be vulnerable to becoming offenders) could be improved by learning from effective non-custodial programmes for offenders.

  This is particularly relevant for young people. There is the need to co-ordinate the different local authority departments such as housing, education, social services, and leisure to work more closely with the criminal justice agencies. This is more likely to occur with the plan for local authorities to take the lead responsibility for community safety. More development of community safety programmes should occur and crime prevention needs to become a priority for all agencies. The schemes for young people as outlined in section 7 are a key part of this programme. Schemes for dealing with car crime have been developed by the probation service which could be easily used for non offenders. Other experiences of projects in school holidays made available all year round would have a significant impact in reducing crime.

November 1997


  Appendix 1—Misspent Youth: a summary, Audit Commission, November 1996

  Appendix 2—ACOP Memorandum to Home Secretary: Youth Justice, August 1997

  Appendix 3—Community sentences—a briefing produced by Essex Probation Service, 1997


  Effective sentencing, Colin Roberts, Probation Studies Unit, University of Oxford, 1997[66]

  Protecting the Public, ACOP & Central Probation Council, 1997

  Community Safety, ACOP & Central Probation Council, 1997

  Young People and Crime, ACOP & Central Probation Council, 1997

  Sex Offenders: Protecting the Public, ACOP & Central Probation Council, 1997

  Stopping Violence, ACOP & Central Probation Council, 1997

  Car Crime, ACOP & Central Probation Council, 1997

  Victims of Crime, ACOP & Central Probation Council, 1997

  Drink/Drugs, ACOP & Central Probation Council, 1997

37   Kent Probation Service survey of CS Beneficiaries, 1996. Back

38   Home Office Probation Statistics 1996, published September 1997. Back

39   Tackling the Tag, Dick Whitfield 1993. Back

40   Home Office Research findings no. 48-Magistrates' views of the probation service, 1997. Back

41   Risk assessment and management manual produced by the Home Office and ACOP, 1997. Back

42   National Standards for the supervision of offenders in the Community, Home Office, 1995. Back

43   ACOP and Victim Support joint statement, July 1996. Back

44   Home Office Research Study no 167-Offenders on probation, 1997. Back

45   Home Office 3 year plan 1997-2000. Back

46   Home Office statistical bulletin 16/97-cautions, court proceedings and sentencing, England and Wales, 1996. Back

47   NACRO Criminal Justice Digest, January 1996. Back

48   Audit Commission Misspent Youth report, November 1996. Back

49   Home Office Annual report issued April 1997. Back

50   HMIP What works project on Effective Community Supervision-soon to be published. Back

51   See Appendix 30. Back

52   HMI Probation Annual report 1996-published July 1997. Back

53   HMI Probation thematic report: women offenders, 1991 and follow up 1996. Back

54   Home Office Research Document 170-understanding the sentencing of women. Back

55   Race and sentencing: a study in the Crown Court, Dr Roger Hood, 1992. Back

56   Crossing boundaries-report of the Wessex project, Dr R Lart, Bristol University, 1997. Back

57   HMIPrisons-Patient or prisoner: a new strategy for health care in prisons-discussion paper, 1997. Back

58   Report from Thames Valley Police restorative justice, 1997. Back

59   British Crime Survey 1996. Back

60   Graph of Home Secretaries sentencing trends. Back

61   Victims Charter 1996. Back

62   Kent reconviction study, 1991. Back

63   Dorset Probation service longitudinal study-published in Working for Probation, Ward & Lacey, 1996. Back

64   SNARP survey-Tizzard Centre, University of Kent, 1997. Back

65   Not printed. Back

66   See Appendix 32. Back

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 1998
Prepared 25 August 1998