Assessment tools in probation: Their development and potential

What Works in Probation and Youth Justice: Developing Evidence-Based Practice

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 46-69

  Merrington, Simon ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925747916     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781843924937     Document Type: Chapter

References (22)

1. Andrews, D.A. and Bonta, J.L. (1995) LSI-R: The Level of Service Inventory –Revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
2. Aye Maung, N. and Hammond, N. (2000) Risk of Re-offending and Needs Assessments: The User’s Perspective, Home Office Research Study 216. London: Home Office.
3. Baker, K., Jones, S., Roberts, C. and Merrington, S. (2002) Validity and Reliability of ASSET. London: Youth Justice Board.
4. Bonta, J.L. (1996) ‘Risk-needs assessment and treatment’, in A.T. Harland (ed.), Choosing Correctional Options that Work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5. Burnett, R. (1996) Fitting Supervision to Offenders: Assessment and Allocation Decisions in the Probation Service, Home Office Research Study 153. London: Home Office.
6. Gendreau, P., Little, T. and Goggin, C. (1995) A Meta-analysis of the Predictors of Adult Offender Recidivism:Assessment Guidelines for Classification and Treatment. New Brunswick, NJ: Department of Psychology, University of New Brunswick.
7. Gibbs, A. (1999) ‘ACE: the assessment, case management and evaluation system’, Probation Journal, 46 (3), 182–186.
8. Haslewood-Pócsik, I. (2001) Practitioner ACE Assessments and Offender Self-Assessments: A Comparison, ACE Practitioner Bulletin 5. Oxford: Probation Studies Unit.
9. Home Office (1999) A Joint Risk/Needs Assessment System for the Prison and Probation Services, Probation Circular 16/1999. London: Home Office Probation Unit.
10. Howard, P., Clark, D. and Garnham, N. (forthcoming) An Evaluation and Validation of the Offender Assessment System (OASys). London: Home Office.
11. Kemshall, H. (1996) Good Practice in Risk Assessment and Risk Management. London: Jessica Kingsley.
12. MacDonald, G. (1993) ‘Implementing the findings of effectiveness research in probation’, in C. Roberts (ed.), Improving Practice: Towards a Partnership between Information, Research and Practice, Proceedings of the 9th Annual Research and Information Conference of the Probation Service. Warwick: University of Warwick.
13. McGuire, J. (ed.) (1995) What Works: Reducing Reoffending: Guidelines from Research and Practice. Chichester: Wiley.
14. May, C. (1999) Explaining Reconviction following a Community Sentence: the Role of Social Factors, Home Office Research Study 192. London: Home Office.
15. Merrington, S. (2001) Objectives, Intervention and Reducing Risk, ACE Practitioner Bulletin 3. Oxford: Probation Studies Unit.
16. Raynor, P., Kynch, J., Roberts, C. and Merrington, S. (2000) Risk and Need Assessment in Probation Services: An Evaluation, Home Office Research Study 211. London: Home Office.
17. Roberts, C. (1995) ‘Effective practice and service delivery’, in J. McGuire (ed.), What Works: Reducing Reoffending: Guidelines from Research and Practice. Chichester: Wiley.
18. Roberts, C. and Robinson, G. (1998) ‘Improving practice through pilot studies: the case of pre-sentence reports’, Vista, 3 (3), 186–195.
19. Roberts, C., Burnett, R., Kirby, A. and Hamill, H., (1996) A System For Evaluating Probation Practice, Probation Studies Unit Report 1. Oxford: Centre for Criminological Research.
20. Robinson, G. (2003) ‘Implementing OASys: lessons from research into LSI-R and ACE’, Probation Journal, 50 (1), 30–40.
21. Sutton, D. and Davies, P. (1997) A Review of the Development of LSI-R in Britain. Dinas Powys: Cognitive Centre Foundation.
22. Wikstrom, P.-O. (2002) Adolescent Crime in Context. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Institute of Criminology.