Officially recorded convictions for probationers: the relationship with self-report and supervisory observations
Objectives. For the past 20-25 years the assessment of the outcomes of probation supervision and its associated variants has relied upon officially recorded offending as the chief determinant of ‘success’ and ‘failure’. A recent assessment of the impact of accredited programmes aimed at reducing off...
| 1. VerfasserIn: | |
|---|---|
| Medienart: | Elektronisch Aufsatz |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2005
|
| In: |
Legal and criminological psychology
Jahr: 2005, Band: 10, Heft: 1, Seiten: 121-131 |
| Online-Zugang: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Journals Online & Print: | Lade...
|
| Verfügbarkeit prüfen: | HBZ Gateway |
| Zusammenfassung: | Objectives. For the past 20-25 years the assessment of the outcomes of probation supervision and its associated variants has relied upon officially recorded offending as the chief determinant of ‘success’ and ‘failure’. A recent assessment of the impact of accredited programmes aimed at reducing offending called for reconviction rates to be supplemented with other outcome measures to give a more accurate picture of treatment effectiveness. Methods. Self-reports of offending are one such alternative outcome measure, and this paper responds to recent calls for developments in this field. This paper throws further light on the frequency of offending by probationers during their probation orders, the extent to which their officers knew of this offending and the relationship between self-reported offending and subsequent convictions. Results. The data suggest that about a half of the probationers committed at least one offence during the time they were on probation and that about a third of the probationers reported that they had committed more than four offences during this same time. In the main, probation officers reports mirrored the reports gained from the probationers. Generally speaking, the relationship between self-reported offending and officially recorded convictions was also very close. However, this varied by the offences/convictions under consideration. Conclusion. There were slightly more probationers found guilty of property offences than had admitted to such offending during their interviews. The explanation for this appeared to have been deliberate concealment on the part of the probationer, rather than recall failure. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2044-8333 |
| DOI: | 10.1348/135532504X15367 |
