|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
‘The worst tax form you’ve ever seen’? Probation officers’ views about OASys
George Mair
Liverpool John Moores University, g.mair{at}ljmu.ac.uk
Lol Burke
Liverpool John Moores University, l.burke{at}ljmu.ac.uk
Stuart Taylor
Liverpool John Moores University, s.taylor{at}ljmu.ac.uk
Classification with regard to their risk/needs has become an increasingly significant aspect of work with offenders generally. In England and Wales, the Offender Assessment System (OASys) used by the National Probation Service has a key role to play in effective practice. OASys is the latest in a series of such assessment tools, but despite considerable care taken over its development, users’ views about its efficacy have not been explored. This article reports the results of the first national survey of Probation Officers’ views about OASys. While a variety of concerns are noted - especially the time-consuming nature of completing an OASys assessment - and such concerns need to be addressed, on the whole, users are not opposed to OASys.
Key Words: National Probation Service • OASys • risk assessment
References
- ACOP (1986) Report on Midlands Regional Workshop: Do We Need Risk? Wakefield: ACOP Occasional Paper .
- Andrews, D. & Bonta, J. (1995) The Level of Service Inventory - Revised Manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems Inc.
- Aubrey, R. & Hough, M. (1997) Assessing Offenders’ Needs: Assessment Scales for the Probation Service. Home Office Research Study 166. London: Home Office .
- Aye Maung, N. & Hammond, N. (2000) Risk of Reoffending and Needs Assessments: The User’s Perspective. Home Office Research Study 216. London: Home Office .
- Bale, D.J. (1987) ‘Uses of a Risk of Custody Scale’ , Probation Journal 34 (4): 127-131 .[Abstract]
- Bale, D.J. (1989) ‘The Cambridgeshire Risk of Custody Scale’, in G. Mair (ed.) Risk Prediction and Probation: Papers from a Research and Planning Unit Workshop, pp. 22-52. RPU Paper 56. London: Home Office .
- Burnett, R. (1996) Fitting Supervision to Offenders: Assessment and Allocation Decisions in the Probation Service. Home Office Research Study 153. London: Home Office .
- Carter, P. (2003) Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime. London: Strategy Unit .
- Colombo, A. & Neary, M. (1998) ‘"Square Roots and Algebra": Understanding Perceptions of Combined Risk/Needs Assessment Measures’ , Probation Journal 45 (4): 213-219 .[Abstract]
- Copas, J. (1995) ‘On Using Crime Statistics for Prediction’, in M. Walker (ed.) Interpreting Crime Statistics, pp. 175-206. Oxford: Clarendon Press .
- Farrington, D.P. & Tarling, R. (eds) (1985) Prediction in Criminology. Albany: SUNY Press .
- Fitzmaurice, C. (1989) ‘Predicting Risks in Courts: The Staffordshire Sentencing Prediction Scale’, in G. Mair (ed.) Risk Prediction and Probation: Papers from a Research and Planning Unit Workshop. RPU Paper 56. London: Home Office .
- Fitzmaurice, C., Biddle, F. & Stanby, P. (1991) SPS: Sentence Prediction Scale, pp. 79-107. Staffordshire Probation Service .
- Gibbs, A. (1999) ‘The Assessment, Case Management and Evaluation System’ , Probation Journal 46 (3): 182-186 .[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Gottfredson, D.M. & Tonry, M. (eds) (1987) Prediction and Classification: Criminal Justice Decision Making. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
- Harper, G. & Chitty, C. (eds) (2004) The Impact of Corrections on Reoffending: A Review of ‘What Works’. Home Office Research Study 291. London: Home Office .
- Home Office (1998) Joining Forces to Protect the Public. London: Home Office .
- Home Office (2001a) A New Choreography: An Integrated Strategy for the National Probation Service for England and Wales. London: Home Office .
- Home Office (2001b) Making Punishments Work: Report of a Review of the Sentencing Framework for England and Wales (The Halliday Report). London: Home Office .
- Home Office (2004a) Reducing Crime - Changing Lives: The Government’s Plans for Transforming the Management of Offenders. London: Home Office .
- Home Office (2004b) What Works News Issue 19, December.
- Humphrey, C., Carter, P. & Pease, K. (1992) ‘A Reconviction Predictor for Probationers’ , British Journal of Social Work 22(1): 33-46 .[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Hudson, B. (1996) Understanding Justice: An Introduction to Ideas, Perspectives and Controversies in Modern Penal Theory. Buckingham: Open University Press .
- Mair, G. (ed.) (1989) Risk Prediction and Probation: Papers from a Research and Planning Unit Workshop. RPU Paper 56. London: Home Office.
- Mair, G. (2001) ‘Technology and the Future of Community Penalties’, in A. Bottoms, L. Gelsthorpe and S. Rex (eds) Community Penalties: Change and Challenges. Cullompton: Willan .
- Mair, G. (2004) ‘The Origins of What Works in England and Wales: A House Built on Sand?’, in G. Mair (ed.) What Matters in Probation, pp. 12-33. Cullompton: Willan .
- Merrington, S. (2004) ‘Assessment Tools in Probation: Their Development and Potential’, in R. Burnett and C. Roberts (eds) What Works in Probation and Youth Justice: Developing Evidence-based Practice, pp. 46-69. Cullompton: Willan .
- Raynor, P., Kynch, J., Roberts, C. & Merrington, S. (2000) Risk and Need Assessment in Probation Services: An Evaluation. Home Office Research Study 211. London: Home Office .
- Roberts, C., Burnett, R., Kirby, A. & Hamill, H. (1996) A System for Evaluating Probation Practice. Probation Studies Unit Report No. 1. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Criminological Research .
- Robinson, G. (1999) ‘Risk Management and Rehabilitation in the Probation Service: Collision and Collusion’ , Howard Journal 38 (4): 421-433 .[CrossRef]
- Robinson, G. (2001) ‘Power, Knowledge and "What Works" in Probation’ , Howard Journal 40 (3): 235-254 .[CrossRef]
- Robinson, G. (2002) ‘Exploring Risk Management in Probation Practice: Contemporary Developments in England and Wales’ , Punishment and Society 4 (1): 5-25 .
- Robinson, G. (2003) ‘Implementing OASys: Lessons from Research into LSI-R and ACE’ , in Probation Journal 50 (1): 30-40 .[Abstract]
- Shaw, M. & Hannah-Moffat, K. (2004) ‘How Cognitive Skills Forgot about Gender and Diversity’, in G. Mair (ed.) What Matters in Probation, pp. 90-121. Cullompton: Willan .
- Underdown, A. (1998) Strategies for Effective Supervision: Report of the HMIP What Works Project. London: HMIP .
Probation Journal, Vol. 53, No. 1,
7-23 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0264550506060861
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
J. Annison, T. Eadie, and C. Knight
People First: Probation Officer Perspectives on Probation Work
Probation Journal,
September 1, 2008;
55(3):
259 - 271.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Wendy Fitzgibbon
Fit for purpose? OASys assessments and parole decisions
Probation Journal,
March 1, 2008;
55(1):
55 - 69.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Robinson and R. Burnett
Experiencing modernization: Frontline probation perspectives on the transition to a National Offender Management Service
Probation Journal,
December 1, 2007;
54(4):
318 - 337.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
