Programmes for Offenders: Guidance for Evaluators

Colledge, Maureen; Collier, Patrick; Brand, Sam

doi:10.1037/e665472007-001

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They may be subject to selection effects, as participation in the resettlement schemes was voluntary. A one-year reconviction study is generally considered less reliable than a two-year study (Colledge et al, 1999). Further, the number of offenders completing the FOR programme was relatively small (n ϭ114).…”

Section: Results Of the Reconviction Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

What works in resettlement? Findings from seven Pathfinders for short-term prisoners in England and Wales

Lewis

Maguire

Raynor³

et al. 2007

Criminology & Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents findings from the evaluation of Phase One of the resettlement ‘Pathfinder’, which was funded under the Home Office Crime Reduction Programme. Seven projects (four probation-led and three run by voluntary agencies) targeted the resettlement needs and/or offending behaviour of adults sentenced to prison for under 12 months, who are currently not subject to post-release supervision. All participants received help with welfare needs, and some attended a short cognitive motivational programme. The results suggest that such interventions can significantly reduce the problems faced by this frequently neglected group, as well as having a positive effect on their attitudes to crime. There was also some evidence of reductions in reconviction, especially among those who maintained contact with mentors after release. The findings have implications for the Government's resettlement agenda, as set out in the Reducing Re-offending National Action Plan, as well as for NOMS policy and practice. The shelving of plans for the introduction of ‘Custody Plus’, it is argued, creates a risk that potentially effective ‘through the gate’ work with short-termers will not come to fruition.

show abstract

Section: Results Of the Reconviction Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

What works in resettlement? Findings from seven Pathfinders for short-term prisoners in England and Wales

Lewis

Maguire

Raynor³

et al. 2007

Criminology & Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This explanation conveniently overlooked the fact that many decisions about methodology were either pre-empted by project designs, or already determined in the Home Office's own advice to researchers (e.g. Colledge et al, 1999) and in the design and budget decisions taken within RDS before invitations to tender were sent out. However, what is more important for the purposes of this article is that the perceived failure of much of the correctional 'what works' research to show positive outcomes, and the consequent questions raised about the status and value of research within the Home Office, constitute the background and partial explanation for the emergence of a new and more cautious methodological orthodoxy.…”

Section: Reacting To Disappointing Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the light of more recent methodological pronouncements, it is interesting to note that the guidance produced for CRP evaluations, and particularly for interventions with offenders, was firmly based on quasi-experimental methodologies (Colledge et al, 1999). For example, advice was provided about selecting suitable comparison groups and matching relevant characteristics such as age, sex and criminal record.…”

Section: The Quasi-experimental Pathfindersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This also provided the underpinning rationale for a new review of 'what works' research in Home Office Research Study 291 (Harper and Chitty, 2004). The shift to a more managerial language is interesting: what had been guidance for evaluators (Colledge et al, 1999) was replaced by standards for impact studies. More important, however, were the methodological shifts.…”

Section: The New Orthodoxymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Community penalties and Home Office research

Raynor

2008

Criminology & Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article discusses recent research on community penalties in the UK, and in particular the contribution of the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics division (of which the relevant section is now known as RDS-NOMS following its recent relocation as part of the National Offender Management Service). Current statements of methodological preference are discussed in the light of the history of evaluative research in this field, and it is suggested that a perceived need for information management may be leading to an unhelpful narrowing of methodological choices. This approach risks neglecting features of community sentences which require investigation, and at worst could encourage a drift back towards a belief that `nothing works'.

show abstract

“…Booklets of guidance were also published to ensure common approaches throughout the CRP evaluations: one contained very basic guidance on how to do a reconviction study (Colledge et al, 1999) and two others sought to establish a common approach to the appraisal of cost effectiveness (Dhiri and Brand, 1999;Legg and Powell, 2000), leading to some puzzlement among probation researchers about exactly how they should apply advice which seemed to be based on burglary prevention projects. From the point of view of researchers, the process of tendering and contracting felt more like becoming a sub-contractor of RDS than receiving a research grant, and this was reinforced by anxious accountability requirements such as frequent progress reports and 'steering group' meetings.…”

Section: The Pathfinder Research Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Probation Service ‘Pathfinders’

Raynor

2004

Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Programmes for Offenders: Guidance for Evaluators

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

What works in resettlement? Findings from seven Pathfinders for short-term prisoners in England and Wales

What works in resettlement? Findings from seven Pathfinders for short-term prisoners in England and Wales

Community penalties and Home Office research

The Probation Service ‘Pathfinders’

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About