![handle is hein.journals/probj51 and id is 1 raw text is:
Probation Editorial
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Copyright © 2004 NAPO Vol 51(1): 5-6
DOI: 10.1177/0264550504041375
www.napo.org.uk
www.sagepublications.com
The future of 'What Works?'
The previous edition of Probation Journal contained several papers that
considered different aspects of the 'What Works' project. One in particular,
Peter Raynor's 'Evidence-based probation and its critics', argued cogently in favour
of evidence-based practice, notwithstanding 'serious resource problems' and a
'period of transition in probation services [that is] full of paradoxes' (p. 342). The
continuing enthusiasm of many practitioners and managers, some in areas that
have yet to finish restructuring, could be seen as one such paradox. Putting to one
side any consideration of its merits, the relentless onslaught of new criminal justice
legislation clearly adds to the tremendous organisational pressures on probation
areas across England and Wales. Probation staff already struggling to develop and
implement evidence-based practice, are in addition now forced to absorb wider
changes primarily driven bythe need to manage the alarming growth in the prison
population and create a seamless probation and prison service.
At the time of writing the timetable for the implementation of the new Criminal
Justice Act is unclear. What is certain is that it will introduce a range of new sentenc-
ing disposals requiring a common case management structure across the
probation and prison services, with further organizational upheaval inevitable. At
the same time the 'Carter Review', ('leaked' but, at the time of writing, not
published), is critical of the increased use of imprisonment, which is a likely conse-
quence of the new Act. It urges even more targeting of high risk offenders by the
probation service, greater use of fines, and a unified central probation/prison
managerial structure.
What implications does this have for the 'What Works' project? It is interesting
that the Carter Review talks, somewhat enigmatically, of creating the 'right incen-
tives to innovate', something that could be at odds with the drive towards consist-
ency represented by the effective practice movement. The new Act could be seen
as an opportunity for evidence-based practice to prove itself as larger numbers of
offenders are placed under probation supervision. However, unless high
programme completion rates and demonstrable reductions in reoffending are
achieved in step with political timetables, it might simply provide more reasons to
'reorganise' probation.
For good or ill, the success of the 'What Works' project therefore remains tied
5](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/probj51&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most