Skip to main content

A Future for Evidence-Based Do-Gooding?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Probation and Politics
  • 415 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter will focus on the international history of the probation service with a particular emphasis on the values and principles that underpinned both management and practice during most of the twentieth century, and how latterly they have been compromised by overtly political agenda. It will define those values and principles, explain why they are important, describe how they have been undermined as well as how they have survived in the undergrowth of practice, and set out the arguments for their reinstatement at the heart of a newly constituted probation service. This will not be an exercise in nostalgia for a golden age but instead it will posit values and principles in the real and current world of accountability and legitimate demands for demonstrable effectiveness. A central argument of this chapter will be that during the emergence of the Effective Practice Initiative an opportunity to incorporate the demands of accountability within the humanistic tradition of probation was lost. This chapter will pitch for that opportunity to be revisited.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Biestek, F. P. (1961). The casework relationship. London: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clancy, A., Hudson, K., Maguire, M., Peake, R., Raynor, P., Vanstone, M. et al. (2006). Getting out and staying out. Results of the prisoner resettlement pathfinders. Researching criminal justice series. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downes, D., & Morgan, R. (1997). Dumping the “Hostages to Fortune”? The Politics of law and order in post-war Britain. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (2nd edn.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drakeford, M., & Vanstone, M. (Eds.) (1996). Beyond offending behaviour. Aldershot: Arena.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabiano, E., & Porporino, F. (2002). Focus on resettlement – a change. Canada: T3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goff, D. (1972). An approach to community involvement. Probation Journal, 18(3), 68–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hereford and Worcester Probation Service. (1989). Programme for achievement and challenge. Worcester: Hereford and Worcester Probation Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirst, G. (1996). Moving forward: How do we do that? Probation Journal, 43(2), 58–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollin, C. (1995). The meaning and implication of programme integrity. In What works: reducing offending. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office. (1962). Report of the Departmental Committee on the work of the probation service. Cmnd. 1650. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hugman, B. (1977). Act natural. Bedford Square Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J., & Lawrence, D. (1992) ‘Black Groups Initiative Review’, unpublished paper, Inner London Probation Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kynaston, D. (2014). Modernity Britain. Book Two. A shake of the dice 1959–62. London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Mesurier, L. (1935). A Handbook of Probation. London: National Association of Probation Officers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linscott, C. J., & Crossland, R. S. (1989). Offending behaviour group programme. Devon Probation Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, Spring 5, 22–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, W. (1980) ‘Management models and the bases of management structures’, unpublished paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, W. (1987). Probation, pragmatism and policy. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 26, 97–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nellis, M., & Gelsthorpe, L. (2003). Human rights and probation values. In W. H. Chui & M. Nellis (Eds.), Moving probation forward. Evidence, arguments and practice. Harlow: Pearson Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, J. (2002). Punishment and civilization. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priestley, P., McGuire, J., Flegg, D., Hemsley, V., & Welham, D. (1978). Social skills and personal problem solving. A handbook of methods. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raynor, P. (1978). Compulsory persuasion: A problem for correctional social work. British Journal of Social Work, 8(4), 411–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raynor, P. & Vanstone, M. (1997). Straight Thinking On Probation (STOP). The Mid Glamorgan experiment. Probation Studies Unit report No. 4. Oxford: University of Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raynor, P., & Vanstone, M. (2002). Understanding community penalties: Probation, change and social context. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, G. (2013). What counts? Community sanctions and the construction of compliance. In P. Ugwudike & P. Raynor (Eds.), What works in offender compliance. International perspectives and evidence-based practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, R. R., Fabiano, E. A., & Ewles, C. D. (1988). Reasoning and rehabilitation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 32, 29–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumgay, J. (1989). Talking tough: Empty threats in probation practice. Howard Journal, 28(3), 177–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, R., & Crook, H. (1977). Group techniques. Probation, 24(2), 61–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ugwudike, P., & Raynor, P. (2013). Introduction. In P. Ugwudike & P. Raynor (Eds.), What works in offender compliance. International perspectives and evidence-based practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vanstone, M. (1985). Moving away from help?: policy and practice in probation day centres. Howard Journal, 24(1), 20–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanstone, M. (1988). Values, leadership and the future of the probation service. Probation Journal, 35(4), 131–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanstone, M. (1990). Soothsayers, training officers and a threatened service. Practice, 4(2), 121–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanstone, M. (1993). A missed opportunity re-assessed: The influence of the day training centre experiment on the criminal justice system and probation practice. British Journal of Social Work, 23(1), 213–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanstone, M. (2004). Supervising offenders in the community: A history of probation practice. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanstone, M. (2008). The international origins and initial development of probation: An early example of policy transfer. British Journal of Criminology, 48(6), 735–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanstone, M. (2010a). Maintaining programme integrity: The F. O. R.…A change programme and the resettlement of ex-prisoners. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54(1), 131–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanstone, M. (2010b). Creative work: An historical perspectives. In J. Brayford, F. Cowie, & J. Deering. (Eds.), What else works? Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanstone, M., & Seymour, B. (1986). Probation service objectives and the neglected ingredients. Probation Journal, 33(2), 43–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, K. (1979). Fuel debts and the probation service. Probation Journal, 26(4), 110–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, C., & Fox, C. (1984). Berkeley sex offenders group: A seven year evaluation. Probation Journal, 31(1), 43–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, L. T. (1958). A small comparative study of the results of probation. British Journal of Delinquency, VIII, 3, 201–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B. (1995). Probation values. Birmingham Ventura Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wootton, B. (1959). Social science and social pathology. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maurice Vanstone .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vanstone, M. (2016). A Future for Evidence-Based Do-Gooding?. In: Vanstone, M., Priestley, P. (eds) Probation and Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59557-7_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59557-7_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-59556-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-59557-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics