Does Tougher Enforcement Lead to Lower Reconviction?

Probation Journal

Volumn 51, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 48-58

  Hearnden, Ian ^a   Millie, Andrew ^a  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

breach at court; breach initiation; compliance; early termination for good progress; enforcement; reconviction

Indexed keywords

EID: 84993661322     PISSN: 02645505     EISSN: 17413079     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0264550504041403     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Ashton, M. (2003) ‘Why do so few DTTOs fail in Scotland, and so many in England?’, Drug and Alcohol Findings 9, pp. 14-15.
2. Bale, D. (2000) ‘Reflections: Pure Fiction: An Infallible Guide to National Standards’, Probation Journal 47 (2), pp. 129-131.
3. Best, D., Man, Lan-Ho., Rees, S., Witton, J. and Strang, J. (2002) Evaluating the Effectiveness of Drug Treatment and Testing Orders in the London Probation Area. Unpublished Report to the LPA.
4. Bottoms, A. (2003) Presentation to Cabinet Office Strategic Thinkers Seminar on Future Options for the Correctional Services, 10/06/2003. [Available at http://www.pm.gov.uk/files/pdf/bottomsnotes.pdf]
5. Dobson, G. (1999) Probation: A Service Reinventing Itself. 25/05/1999. [Available at http://www.sourceuk.net/indexf.html?00318]
6. Ellis, T., Hedderman, C. and Mortimer, E. (1996) Enforcing Community Sentences. Home Office Research Study 158. London: Home Office.
7. Hearnden, I. and Millie, A. (2003) Investigating the Link between Probation Enforcement and Reconviction. Home Office Research Findings 225. London: Home Office.
8. Hedderman, C. (1999) The ACOP Enforcement Audit - Stage 1. London: ACOP.
9. Hedderman, C. and Hearnden, I. (2000) Improving Enforcement - The Second ACOP Enforcement Audit. London: Association of Chief Officers of Probation.
10. Hedderman, C. and Hearnden, I. (2001) Setting New Standards for Enforcement - The Third ACOP Enforcement Audit. London: Association of Chief Officers of Probation.
11. HM Inspectorate of Probation (2000 a) HMIP Annual Report 1999-2000. London: HMI Probation. [Available at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/inside/org/dob/direct/hmiprobdocs.html]
12. HM Inspectorate of Probation (2000 b) Making National Standards work: A study by HMIP of enforcement practice in community penalties. London: HMI Probation.
13. HM Inspectorate of Probation (2000 c) The Use of Information by Probation Services: A Thematic Inspection in Four Parts. Part 1: Making National Standards Work: A Study by HMIP of Enforcement Practice in Community Penalties. London: HMI Probation. [Available at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/enforce1.html]
14. Home Affairs Select Committee (1998) Alternatives to Prison Sentences - House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee. London: United Kingdom Parliament. [Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmhaff/486/48602.htm]
15. Home Office (1995) National Standards for the Supervision of Offenders in the Community. London: Home Office.
16. Home Office (2002) Probation Statistics, England and Wales 2001. London: Home Office.
17. London Probation Area (2003) Probation: The Newsletter of the London Probation Area. April 2003, Newsletter 8.
18. May, C. and Wadwell, J. (2001) Enforcing Community Penalties: The Relationship Between Enforcement and Reconviction. Home Office Research Findings 155. London: Home Office.
19. Morgan, R. (2003) ‘Thinking about the Demand for Probation Services’, Probation Journal 50 (1), pp. 7-19.
20. National Probation Service (2002) National Standards for the Supervision of Offenders in the Community - revised 2002. London: National Probation Service.
21. Wallis, E. (2002) National Probation Service: Performance Report 1. London: National Probation Service.