感化服务“探路者”

P. Raynor
{"title":"感化服务“探路者”","authors":"P. Raynor","doi":"10.1177/1466802504048468","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Part of the programme of research funded under the Crime Reduction Programme was a group of evaluative studies of innovative probation service projects known as ‘Pathfinders’. These projects were developed as part of the ‘What Works’ initiative which had been pursued by the Probation Service since the mid-1990s, and need to be understood in that context as well as in the context of the Crime Reduction Programme. ‘What Works’ was an attempt to achieve a rapid step-change in the effectiveness of probation work in England and Wales through systematic application of international research on effective methods for the rehabilitation of offenders. The studies carried out with the Crime Reduction Programme support represented a resurgence of research interest in the effective supervision of offenders, after a period of relative neglect. However, the results of the studies have been less positive than was hoped and expected by Probation Service leaders. This article explores some of the arguments which are currently being put forward to account for this, and considers in particular the problems of implementation and time-scale which afflicted the projects, the narrow model of evaluation which informed the research strategy, and the limited role of evidence in a criminal justice context dominated by politically driven initiatives.","PeriodicalId":10793,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice","volume":"1 1","pages":"309 - 325"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"45","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Probation Service ‘Pathfinders’\",\"authors\":\"P. Raynor\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1466802504048468\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Part of the programme of research funded under the Crime Reduction Programme was a group of evaluative studies of innovative probation service projects known as ‘Pathfinders’. These projects were developed as part of the ‘What Works’ initiative which had been pursued by the Probation Service since the mid-1990s, and need to be understood in that context as well as in the context of the Crime Reduction Programme. ‘What Works’ was an attempt to achieve a rapid step-change in the effectiveness of probation work in England and Wales through systematic application of international research on effective methods for the rehabilitation of offenders. The studies carried out with the Crime Reduction Programme support represented a resurgence of research interest in the effective supervision of offenders, after a period of relative neglect. However, the results of the studies have been less positive than was hoped and expected by Probation Service leaders. This article explores some of the arguments which are currently being put forward to account for this, and considers in particular the problems of implementation and time-scale which afflicted the projects, the narrow model of evaluation which informed the research strategy, and the limited role of evidence in a criminal justice context dominated by politically driven initiatives.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10793,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Criminal Justice\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"309 - 325\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"45\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Criminal Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1466802504048468\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminal Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1466802504048468","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 45

摘要

减少犯罪方案资助的研究方案的一部分是一组被称为“探路者”的创新性缓刑服务项目的评价研究。这些项目是作为“什么有效”倡议的一部分而制定的,该倡议自1990年代中期以来一直由缓刑服务处推行,需要在这一背景下以及在减少犯罪方案的背景下加以理解。“什么有效”是一项尝试,通过系统地应用国际上对罪犯改造的有效方法的研究,来实现英格兰和威尔士缓刑工作效率的快速转变。在减少犯罪方案的支持下进行的研究表明,在一段相对被忽视的时期之后,对有效监督罪犯的研究兴趣重新抬头。然而,这些研究的结果并不像缓刑服务机构负责人所希望和期望的那样积极。本文探讨了目前为解释这一点而提出的一些论点,并特别考虑了困扰项目的实施和时间尺度问题,为研究策略提供信息的狭隘评估模型,以及证据在政治驱动的倡议主导的刑事司法背景下的有限作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Probation Service ‘Pathfinders’
Part of the programme of research funded under the Crime Reduction Programme was a group of evaluative studies of innovative probation service projects known as ‘Pathfinders’. These projects were developed as part of the ‘What Works’ initiative which had been pursued by the Probation Service since the mid-1990s, and need to be understood in that context as well as in the context of the Crime Reduction Programme. ‘What Works’ was an attempt to achieve a rapid step-change in the effectiveness of probation work in England and Wales through systematic application of international research on effective methods for the rehabilitation of offenders. The studies carried out with the Crime Reduction Programme support represented a resurgence of research interest in the effective supervision of offenders, after a period of relative neglect. However, the results of the studies have been less positive than was hoped and expected by Probation Service leaders. This article explores some of the arguments which are currently being put forward to account for this, and considers in particular the problems of implementation and time-scale which afflicted the projects, the narrow model of evaluation which informed the research strategy, and the limited role of evidence in a criminal justice context dominated by politically driven initiatives.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信