Working for Community Justice: A Home Office Perspective (From Community Justice: Issues for Probation and Criminal Justice, P 106-129, 2005, Jane Winstone and Francis Pakes, eds. -- See NCJ-211782)

• NCJ Number: 211788
• Author(s): Chris Lewis
• Date Published: 2005
• Length: 24 pages
• Sale Source: Willan Publishing
• Publication Format: Book Chapter
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This chapter examines recent developments in policy and research on the treatment of offenders from the perspective of the British Home Office.

Abstract

In 1995, the development of offender programs in the probation services was left to individual areas, with little central direction, funding, accreditation, or pressure for programs to provide empirical evidence that they were reducing recidivism rates. The 1997 election returned a New Labour government. In 1999, the central government made large investments in programs across the justice system, which brought with it more centralized control of criminal justice policy and practice. In the area of probation, a National Probation Service was established; local services were merged into 42 areas; a joint accreditation system for offender programs was established; an offender assessment system was established in partnership with prisons; pilot offender programs were developed; and evaluation became an integral part of these pilot programs. The overarching goal of all these investments was to produce crime reductions. The accreditation panel for corrections programs was one of the first new structures to be created. The focus on accreditation and evaluation produced tangible measures of what was and was not working to reduce recidivism. At the end of 2004, some evaluations had shown significant reductions in reconviction rates through the use of offender programs; however, others showed only limited success, and many evaluations were inconclusive. Reasons for these mixed results include the need from 1999 onwards to respond so quickly to the political imperative for measured progress; the lack of a strategic approach to the research agenda; and the central controlling mechanisms that discouraged local initiative. It will take time before stability is achieved through a healthy balance between central control and local initiative. Until this happens, the efficiency and effectiveness with which offender programs are designed and implemented will suffer, thus compromising successful outcomes. 29 references