The probation service 'pathfinders': Finding the path and losing the way?

Criminal Justice

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 309-325

  Raynor, Peter ^a  

^a SWANSEA UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evaluation; Evidence based practice; Pathfinders; Probation

Indexed keywords

EID: 33644518056     PISSN: 14668025     EISSN: 17413230     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1466802504048468     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (64)

1. Bernfeld, G., P. Farrington and A. Leschied (eds) (2001) Offender Rehabilitation in Practice. Chichester: Wiley.
2. Blumsorn, M. (2004) 'First Steps and Beyond: The Pathway to Our Knowledge of Delivering Programmes', VISTA 8(3): 171-176
3. Brewer, C. and J. Lait (1980) Can Social Work Survive? London: Temple Smith.
4. Brody, S.R. (1976) The Effectiveness of Sentencing. Home Office Research Study 35. London: HMSO.
5. Butler, Lord (chair) (2004) Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction. HC 898. London: HMSO.
6. Carter, P. (2003) Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime. London: Strategy Unit.
7. Colledge, M., P. Collier and S. Brand (1999) Programmes for Offenders: Guidance for Evaluators. London: Home Office.
8. Correctional Services Accreditation Panel (2003) Report 2002-2003. London: CSAP.
9. Dhiri S. and S. Brand (1999) Analysis of Costs and Benefits: Guidance for Evaluators. London: Home Office.
10. Dowden, C. and D. Andrews (2004) 'The Importance of Staff Practice in Delivering Effective Correctional Treatment: A Meta-analysis', International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 48(2): 203-214
11. Ellis, T. (2000) 'Enforcement Policy and Practice: Evidence-based or Rhetoricbased?', Criminal justice Matters 39: 6-8.
12. Folkard, M.S., D.E. Smith and D.D. Smith (1976) IMPACT Volume II: The Results of the Experiment. Home Office Research Study 36. London: HMSO.
13. Gaes, G., T. Flanagan, L. Motiuk and L. Stewart (1999) 'Adult Correctional Treatment', in M. Tonry and J. Petersilia (eds) Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 26, pp. 361-426. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
14. Gelsthorpe, L. and P. Raynor (1995) 'Quality and Effectiveness in Probation Officers' Reports to Sentencers', British Journal of Criminology 35(2): 188-200.
15. Gendreau, P., C. Goggin and P. Smith (1999) 'The Forgotten Issue in Effective Correctional Treatment: Program Implementation', International journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 43(2): 180-187
16. Graves, R. (1961) 'In Broken Images', in R. Graves, Robert Graves: Selected by Himself, p. 79. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
17. Green, D.G., E. Grove and N.A. Martin (2004) How Can the Criminal Justice System Reduce the Criminal Activities of Known Offenders? Civitas Final Report for the Rethinking Crime and Punishment Project. Available at: www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/CivitasRCP-Report.pdf
18. Haslewood-Pocsik, I., L. Merone and C. Roberts (2004) The Evaluation of the Employment Pathfinder: Lessons from Phase 1 and a Survey for Phase 2. Online Report 22/04. London: Home Office.
19. Hearnden, I. and A. Millie (2003) Investigating Links Between Probation Enforcement and Reconviction. Online Report 41/03. London: Home Office.
20. Hedderman, C. (2004) 'Testing Times: How the Policy and Practice Environment Shaped the Creation of the What Works Evidence-base', VISTA 8: 182-188
21. Hedderman, C. and I. Hearnden (2001) 'To Discipline or Punish? Enforcement under National Standards 2000', VISTA 6(3): 215-224
22. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation (2002) Annual Report 2001-2002 London: Home Office.
23. Hollin, C, J. McGuire, E. Palmer, C. Bilby, R. Hatcher and A. Holmes (2002) Introducing Pathfinder Programmes into the Probation Service: An Interim Report. Home Office Research Study 247. London: Home Office.
24. Home Office (1984) Probation Service in England and Wales: Statement of National Objectives and Priorities. London: Home Office.
25. Home Office (2004) Reducing Crime, Changing Lives. London: Home Office.
26. Kendall, K. (2004) 'Dangerous Thinking: A Critical History of Correctional Cognitive Behaviouralism', in G. Mair (ed.) What Matters in Probation, pp. 53-89. Cullompton: Willan.
27. Legg, D. and J. Powell (2000) Measuring Inputs: Guidance for Evaluators. London: Home Office.
28. Lewis, S., J. Vennard, M. Maguire, P. Raynor, M. Vanstone, S. Raybould and A. Rix (2003) The Resettlement of Short-term Prisoners: An Evaluation of Seven Pathfinders. RDS Occasional Paper 83. London: Home Office.
29. Lipsey, M. (1999) 'Can Rehabilitative Programs Reduce the Recidivism of Juvenile Offenders? An Inquiry into the Effectiveness of Practical Programs', Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law 6(3): 611-641
30. Lipton, D., F. Pearson, C. Cleland and D. Yee (2002) 'The effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural treatment methods on offender recidivism', in J. McGuire (ed.) Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment, pp. 79-112. Chichester: Wiley.
31. McGuire, J. (ed.) (1995) What Works: Reducing Reoffending. Chichester: Wiley.
32. McGuire, J. (2002) 'Integrating Findings from Research Reviews', in J. McGuire (ed.) Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment, pp.3-38. Chichester: Wiley.
33. McMahon, G., A. Hall, G. Hayward, C. Hudson and C. Roberts (2004) Basic Skills Programmes in the Probation Service: An Evaluation of the Basic Skills Pathfinder. Home Office Research Findings 203. London: Home Office.
34. Mair, G. (1988) Probation Day Centres. Home Office Research Study 100. London: HMSO.
35. Mair, G. (2004) 'The Origins of What Works in England and Wales: A House Built On Sand?', in G. Mair (ed.) What Matters in Probation, pp. 12-33. Cullompton: Willan.
36. Martinson, J. (1974) 'What Works? Questions and Answers About Prison Reform', The Public Interest 35: 22-54.
37. Merrington, S. and S. Stanley (2000) 'Doubts About the What Works Initiative', Probation Journal 47(4): 272-275
38. Merrington, S. and S. Stanley (2004) 'What Works? Revisiting the Evidence in England and Wales', Probation Journal 51(1): 7-20.
39. Murray, C. (1983) Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980. New York: Basic Books.
40. NAPO (2001a) AGM Resolutions 2001', NAPO News 134: 10-15.
41. NAPO (2001b) 'Unexecuted Warrants', NAPO News 135: 1.
42. Ong, G., L. Harsent and S. Coles (2003) Think First Evaluation. Unpublished conference workshop report. London: National Probation Service.
43. Partridge, S. (2004) Examining Case Management Models for Community Sentences. Online Report 17/04. London: Home Office.
44. Pease, K., S. Billingham and I. Earnshaw (1977) Community Service Assessed in 1976. Home Office Research Study No. 39. London: HMSO.
45. Raynor, P. (1988) Probation as an Alternative to Custody. Aldershot: Avebury.
46. Raynor, P. (2003a) 'Evidence-based Probation and its Critics', Probation Journal 50(4): 334-345
47. Raynor, P. (2003b) 'Research in Probation: From Nothing Works to What Works', in W. H. Chui and M. Nellis (eds) Moving Probation Forward, pp.74-91. London: Pearson Longman.
48. Raynor, P. and M. Vanstone (1997) Straight Thinking on Probation (STOP): The Mid Glamorgan Experiment. Probation Studies Unit Report No. 4, pp. 189-203. Oxford: University of Oxford Centre for Criminological Research.
49. Raynor, P. and M. Vanstone (2001) 'Straight Thinking on Probation: Evidencebased Practice and the Culture of Curiosity' in G. Bernfeld, D. Farrington and A. Leschied (eds) Offender Rehabilitation in Practice, pp. 189-203. Chichester: Wiley.
50. Raynor, P. and M. Vanstone (2002) Understanding Community Penalties. Buckingham: Open University Press.
51. Redondo, S., J. Sanchez-Meca and V. Garrido (2002) 'Crime Treatment in Europe: A Review of Outcome Studies', in J. MeGuire (ed.) Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment, pp. 113-142 Chichester, Wiley.
52. Research, Development and Statistics (2004a) Home Office RDS and YJB Minimum Standards for Reconviction Studies, internal paper.
53. Research, Development and Statistics (2004b) Home Office RDS and YJB Standards for Impact Studies in Correctional Settings, internal paper.
54. Rex, S., L. Gelsthorpe, C. Roberts and P. Jordan (2004) What's Promising in Community Service: Implementation of Seven Pathfinder Projects. Home Office Research Findings 231. London: Home Office.
55. Roberts, C. (1989) Hereford and Worcester Probation Service Young Offender Project: First Evaluation Report. Oxford: Department of Social and Administrative Studies.
56. Roberts, C. (2004) 'An Early Evaluation of a Cognitive Offending Behaviour Programme ("Think First") in Probation Areas', VISTA 8(3): 137-145
57. Robinson, G. (2001) 'Power, Knowledge and What Works in Probation', Howard Journal 40(3): 235-254
58. Rose, N. (2000) 'Government and Control', British Journal of Criminology 40(2): 321-339
59. Sherman, L., D. Farrington, B. Welsh and D.L. Mackenzie (eds) (2002) Evidence-based Crime Prevention. New York: Routledge.
60. Smith, G. and C. Cantley (1984) 'Pluralistic Evaluation', in J. Lishman (ed.) Evaluation, pp. 140-162. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen.
61. Strategy Unit (2003) Trying It Out - the Role of "pilots" in Policy-making. London: Cabinet Office.
62. Thorpe, J. (1979) Social Inquiry Reports: A Survey, Home Office Research Study 48. London: HMSO.
63. Trotter, C. (1993) The Supervision of Offenders - What Works? A Study Undertaken in Community Based Corrections, Victoria. Melbourne: Social Work Department, Monash University and Victoria Department of Justice.
64. Underdown, A. (1998) Strategies for Effective Supervision: Report of the HMIP What Works Project. London: Home Office.