Abstract
This chapter, while concentrating on Research, Monitoring and Evaluation as an exemplar of ‘technology transfer’, is based on the experience of the author on missions to Turkey in 2009 and 2010.1 These covered an early mission to develop information systems and practice for probation work with victims and juveniles, the mission to develop National Standards (see Chapter 8) and a late mission to review progress in information management and the measurement of standards. After some introductory discussion, I therefore describe briefly the information management missions with some detail about work on the measurement of National Standards.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Aubrey, R. and Hough, M. (1997), Assessing Offenders’ Needs: Assessment Scales for the Probation Service, Home Office Research Study No. 166, London: Home Office.
Bahar, H. I. and Fert, I. (2008), ‘The Debate over Recent Recorded Crime in Turkey International’, Journal of Social Inquiry, 1 (1): 89–104.
Canton, R. (2009), ‘Taking Probation Abroad’, European Journal of Probation, 1 (1): 66–78.
Canton, R. and Eadie, T. (2007), ‘National Standards’, in R. Canton and D. Hancock (eds.), Dictionary of Probation and Offender Management, Portland, Oregon; Cullompton: Willan, pp. 181–182.
Council of Europe (2008), Expert Report on the UYAP System.
Davies, K. and Gregory M.J. (2010), ‘The Price of Targets: Audit and Evaluation in Probation Practice Probation’, Journal, 57 (4): 400–414.
Finkel (2006), Osman’s Dream, London: John Murray.
Fitzmaurice, C. and Pease, K. (1986), The Psychology of Judicial Sentencing, Manchester: University of Manchester Press.
Herzog-Evans, M. (2011), ‘Probation in France: Some Things Old, Some Things New, Some Things Borrowed, and Often Blue Probation’, Journal, 58 (4): 345–354.
Levin, P.T. (2011), Turkey and the European Union — Christianity and Secular Images of Islam, New York and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Merrington, S. and Stanley, S. (2007), ‘Effectiveness: Who Counts What?’ in L. Gelsthorpe and R. Morgan (eds), Handbook of Probation, Portland Oregon; Cullompton: Willan, pp. 428–458.
Ministry of Justice (2009), Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2008, London: MOJ.
Morgan, R. (2007), ‘Probation, Governance and Accountability’, in L. Gelsthorpe and R. Morgan, (eds.), Handbook of Probation, Portland, Oregon;Cullompton: Willan, pp. 90–113.
MWH Consortium (2008), Sectoral Interim Evaluation of the European Union PreAccession Assistance — Turkey European Commission DG Enlargement Evaluation Unit.
Probation Association (n.d.), Hitting the Target, Missing the Point. A Constructive Critique of the Regulatory Framework for Probation Trusts. London: Probation Association.
Sparks, R.F., Genn, H.G., and Dodd, D.J. (1977), Surveying Victims: A Study of the Measurement of Criminal Victimisation, Chichester: John Wiley.
UN Office on Drugs and Crime (2008).
Vanstone, M. (2008), ‘The International Origins and Initial Development of Probation: An Early Example of Policy Transfer British’, Journal of Criminology, 48 (6), pp. 735–755.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2014 Stephen Stanley
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stanley, S. (2014). Developing Systems for Research, Monitoring and Evaluation. In: McFarlane, M.A., Canton, R. (eds) Policy Transfer in Criminal Justice. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137300607_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137300607_8
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-45317-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-30060-7
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political Science CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)