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:
in the community;
to lead law abiding lives; and
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 reduce reoffending;
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:
use of electronic
monitoring as part of a community sentence; and
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.
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
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 offendersquite
apart from meeting their obligationslearn 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.
But it is inescapable if the positive image of CS is to be maintained.
CS is also flexiblethe 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.
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.
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. 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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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 SecretaryCopy attached Appendix 2and
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
which are as reliable as any national estimates, are as follows:
(all relate to 1995-96)
|Annual unit cost
| Community Service Order
|Supervision Order (for those aged between 10-17)
|Hostel place (based on 90 per cent occupancy figures)
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
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
A single measure of effectiveness is not sufficientit
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 madebut we believe the evidence
Evidence is available as to the type of effective
programmes which reduce reoffending
approaches are based on behavioural or cognitive behavioural methods;
level of risk posed by the individual with the level of intervention;
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;
in order to teach problem solving and social interaction, including
role play and modelling;
offenders can obtain real jobs;
aims, which are linked consistently with the methods used;
are broad, in order to address the range of offenders' problems;
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
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.* 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
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.
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:
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;
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;
(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
Probation services do run programmes for women
and the research evidence indicates that single gender groups
are preferable. 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.
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.
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.
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
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
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:
(separate programmes for juveniles and adults) to all courts by
designating probation centres as attendance centres
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
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
and good value for money, by using existing probation premises
at weekends. Administrative and sessional staff would be the main
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:
for other programmes to take effect; and
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
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.
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
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
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 and
consequently probably the most significant contribution has to
be made by politicianssaying 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
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
In any debate on confidence it needs to be recognised
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
unemployedand 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 difficultiesa rather larger proportion have significant
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:
with considerable tolerance and a lot of dogged, patient work;
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.
Appendix 1Misspent Youth: a summary,
Audit Commission, November 1996
Appendix 2ACOP Memorandum to Home Secretary:
Youth Justice, August 1997
Appendix 3Community sentencesa
briefing produced by Essex Probation Service, 1997
Effective sentencing, Colin Roberts, Probation
Studies Unit, University of Oxford, 1997
Protecting the Public, ACOP & Central Probation
Community Safety, ACOP & Central Probation
Young People and Crime, ACOP & Central Probation
Sex Offenders: Protecting the Public, ACOP &
Central Probation Council, 1997
Stopping Violence, ACOP & Central Probation
Car Crime, ACOP & Central Probation Council,
Victims of Crime, ACOP & Central Probation
Drink/Drugs, ACOP & Central Probation Council,
37 Kent Probation Service survey of CS Beneficiaries,
Home Office Probation Statistics 1996, published September 1997. Back
Tackling the Tag, Dick Whitfield 1993. Back
Home Office Research findings no. 48-Magistrates' views of the
probation service, 1997. Back
Risk assessment and management manual produced by the Home Office
and ACOP, 1997. Back
National Standards for the supervision of offenders in the Community,
Home Office, 1995. Back
ACOP and Victim Support joint statement, July 1996. Back
Home Office Research Study no 167-Offenders on probation, 1997. Back
Home Office 3 year plan 1997-2000. Back
Home Office statistical bulletin 16/97-cautions, court proceedings
and sentencing, England and Wales, 1996. Back
NACRO Criminal Justice Digest, January 1996. Back
Audit Commission Misspent Youth report, November 1996. Back
Home Office Annual report issued April 1997. Back
HMIP What works project on Effective Community Supervision-soon
to be published. Back
See Appendix 30. Back
HMI Probation Annual report 1996-published July 1997. Back
HMI Probation thematic report: women offenders, 1991 and follow
up 1996. Back
Home Office Research Document 170-understanding the sentencing
of women. Back
Race and sentencing: a study in the Crown Court, Dr Roger Hood,
Crossing boundaries-report of the Wessex project, Dr R Lart, Bristol
University, 1997. Back
HMIPrisons-Patient or prisoner: a new strategy for health care
in prisons-discussion paper, 1997. Back
Report from Thames Valley Police restorative justice, 1997. Back
British Crime Survey 1996. Back
Graph of Home Secretaries sentencing trends. Back
Victims Charter 1996. Back
Kent reconviction study, 1991. Back
Dorset Probation service longitudinal study-published in Working
for Probation, Ward & Lacey, 1996. Back
SNARP survey-Tizzard Centre, University of Kent, 1997. Back
Not printed. Back
See Appendix 32. Back