Effective Probation in England and Wales? The Rise and Fall of Evidence

  • Peter RaynorEmail author


The capacity of criminological research to provide evidence about the outcomes of offender management and interventions has increased beyond recognition since the 1970s, moving from ‘nothing works’ to an understanding of what practices are effective in programmes and in individual supervision. At the same time the capacity of research to influence major decisions has followed a different trajectory, peaking in 1999–2003 and declining since. The emerging pattern is that the higher the political profile of a policy, the smaller the role of research in it, and the larger the roles of ideology and political presentation. The privatisation of probation without any evidence at all is a recent example. This chapter provides a personal account of how one ex-probation academic has experienced the rise and fall of evidence.


Criminal Justice Criminal Justice System Probation Officer Critical Criminology Probation Service 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28(3), 369–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, R., & Brake, M. (Eds.). (1975). Radical social work. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  3. Brewer, C., & Lait, J. (1980). Can social work survive? London: Temple Smith.Google Scholar
  4. Calverley, C., Cole, B., Kaur, G., Lewis, S., Raynor, P., Sadeghi, S., & Wardak, A. (2004). Black and Asian offenders on probation. In Home Office Research Study (vol. 277). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  5. Carter, P. (2003). Managing offenders, reducing crime: A new approach (Correctional Services Review). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  6. Casey, L. (2008). Engaging communities in fighting crime: A review. London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
  7. Eliot, T. S. (1963). Collected poems 1909–1962. London: Faber.Google Scholar
  8. Field-Fisher, T. G. (1974). (Chair) Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the care and supervision provided in relation to Maria Colwell. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  9. Fischer, J. (1973). Is casework effective? A review. Social Work, 18(1), 5–20.Google Scholar
  10. Fischer, J. (1976). The effectiveness of social casework. Springfield: C. C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  11. Fischer, J. (1978). Effective casework practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  12. Folkard, M. S., Smith, D. E., & Smith, D. D. (1976). IMPACT volume II: The results of the experiment. Home Office Research Study 36. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  13. Gelsthorpe, L., & Raynor, P. (1995). Quality and effectiveness in probation officers’ reports to sentencers. British Journal of Criminology, 35(2), 188–200.Google Scholar
  14. Gelsthorpe, L., Raynor, P., & Robinson, G. (2010). Pre-sentence reports in England and Wales: Changing discourses of risk, need and quality. In F. McNeill, P. Raynor, & C. Trotter (Eds.), Offender supervision: New directions in theory, research and practice (pp. 471–491). Abingdon: Willan.Google Scholar
  15. Heimler, E. (1975). Survival in society. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
  16. H. M. Inspectorate of Probation. (2016a). A thematic inspection of the delivery of unpaid work. Manchester: HMIP.Google Scholar
  17. H. M. Inspectorate of Probation. (2016b). Transforming rehabilitation: Early implementation 4. Manchester: HMIP.Google Scholar
  18. Hichens, E., & Pearce, S. (2014). Process evaluation of the HMP Doncaster payment by results Pilot: Phase 2 findings. London: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
  19. Hollis, F. (1964). Casework: A psychosocial therapy. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  20. Holtom, C., & Raynor, P. (1988). Origins of victim support philosophy and practice. In M. Maguire & J. Pointing (Eds.), Victims of crime: A new deal (pp. 17–25). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Home Office. (1984). Probation service in England and Wales: Statement of national objectives and priorities. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  22. Jordan, W. (1970). Client-worker transactions. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  23. Jordan, W. (1972). The social worker in family situations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  24. Jordan, W. (1973). Paupers: The making of the new claiming class. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  25. Lewis, S., Vennard, J., Maguire, M., Raynor, P., Vanstone, M., Raybould, S., et al. (2003) The resettlement of short-term prisoners: An evaluation of seven pathfinders, RDS Occasional Paper No. 83. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  26. Lewis, S., Raynor, P., Smith, D., & Wardak, A. (Eds.). (2006). Race and probation. Cullompton: Willan.Google Scholar
  27. Lewis, S., Maguire, M., Raynor, P., Vanstone, M., & Vennard, J. (2007). What works in resettlement? Findings from seven pathfinders for short-term prisoners in England and Wales. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 7(1), 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maguire, M., & Raynor, P. (1997). The revival of throughcare: Rhetoric and reality in automatic conditional release. British Journal of Criminology, 37(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maguire, M., & Raynor, P. (2006). How the resettlement of prisoners promotes desistance from crime: Or does it? Criminology and Criminal Justice, 6(1), 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Maguire, M., Raynor, P., Vanstone, M., & Kynch, J. (2000). Voluntary after-care and the probation service: A case of diminishing responsibility. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(3), 234–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mair, G. (Ed.). (2004). What matters in probation. Cullompton: Willan.Google Scholar
  32. Martinson, J. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22–54.Google Scholar
  33. McGuire, J. (Ed.). (1995). What works: Reducing reoffending. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. McGuire, J., & Priestley, P. (1985). Offending behaviour: Skills and stratagems for going straight. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
  35. McIvor, G. (1990). Sanctions for serious or persistent offenders. Stirling: Social Work Research Centre.Google Scholar
  36. Meyer, H., Borgatta, E., & Jones, W. (1965). Girls at vocational high. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  37. Miles, H., & Raynor, P. (2014). Reintegrative justice in practice. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  38. Parker, A. (1966). The unknown citizen. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  39. Pincus, A., & Minahan, A. (1973). Social work practice: Model and method. Itasca: Peacock.Google Scholar
  40. Powers, E., & Witmer, H. (1951). An experiment in the prevention of delinquency. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Raynor, P. (1978). Compulsory persuasion: A problem for correctional social work. British Journal of Social Work, 8(4), 411–424.Google Scholar
  42. Raynor, P. (1979). Rhetoric and reality in social work. Community Care, 256, 19–21.Google Scholar
  43. Raynor, P. (1980). Is there any sense in social enquiry reports? Probation Journal, 27(3), 78–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Raynor, P. (1984a). Evaluation with one eye closed: The empiricist agenda in social work research. British Journal of Social Work, 14(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  45. Raynor, P. (1984b). National purpose and objectives: A comment. Probation Journal, 31(2), 43–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Raynor, P. (1985). Social work, justice and control. Oxford: Blackwell. Second edition (1993). London: Whiting and Birch.Google Scholar
  47. Raynor, P. (1988). Probation as an alternative to custody. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  48. Raynor, P. (1998). Reading probation statistics: A critical comment. Vista, 3, 181–185.Google Scholar
  49. Raynor, P. (2004). The probation service ‘pathfinders’: Finding the path and losing the way? Criminal Justice, 4(3), 309–325.Google Scholar
  50. Raynor, P. (2007). Risk and need assessment in British probation: The contribution of LSI-R. Psychology, Crime and Law, 13(2), 125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Raynor, P. (2012). Community penalties, probation, and offender management. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (pp. 928–954). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Raynor, P. (2014). Consent to probation in England and Wales: How it was abolished, and why it matters. European Journal of Probation, 6(3), 296–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Raynor, P., & Miles, H. (2007). Evidence-based probation in a microstate: The British Channel Island of Jersey. European Journal of Criminology, 4(3), 299–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Raynor, P., & Vanstone, M. (1996). Reasoning and rehabilitation in Britain: The results of the Straight Thinking On Probation (STOP) programme. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 40, 272–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Raynor, P., & Vanstone, M. (1997). Straight Thinking On Probation (STOP): The Mid Glamorgan experiment. Probation Studies Unit Report No. 4. Oxford: University of Oxford Centre for Criminological Research.Google Scholar
  56. Raynor, P., and Vanstone, M. (2002). Understanding Community Penalties: probation, policy and social change. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Raynor, P., & Vanstone, M. (2015, February). Moving away from social work and half way back again: New research on skills in probation. British Journal of Social Work Online Advance Access, 12, 17pp.Google Scholar
  58. Raynor, P., Gelsthorpe, L., & Tisi, A. (1995). Quality assurance, pre-sentence reports and the probation service. British Journal of Social Work, 25(4), 477–488.Google Scholar
  59. Raynor, P., Kynch, J., Roberts, C., & Merrington, M. (2000). Risk and need assessment in probation services: An evaluation. Research Study 211. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  60. Raynor, P., Ugwudike, P., & Vanstone, M. (2014). The impact of skills in probation work: A reconviction study. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 14(2), 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ross, R. R., Fabiano, E. A., & Ewles, C. D. (1988). Reasoning and rehabilitation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 32(1), 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shaw, M. (1974). Social work in Prison. Home Office Research Study 22. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  63. Statham, R. (Ed.). (2014). The golden age of probation. Hook: Waterside.Google Scholar
  64. Underdown, A. (1998). Strategies for effective supervision: Report of the HMIP what works project. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  65. Willis, A. (1983). The balance between care and control in probation: A research note. British Journal of Social Work, 13, 339–346.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CriminologySwansea UniversitySwanseaUK

Personalised recommendations