Editorial
| Date | 01 December 2000 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455050004700401 |
| Published date | 01 December 2000 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
234
EDITORIAL
Should
we
be
concerned
about
the
reliability
of
the
claims
made
for
effective
practice?
The
enormous
investment
of
both
resources
and
hopes
in
the
Effective
Practice
Initiative
would
suggest
that
there
must
be
a
good
deal
of
certainty
about
its
merits.
Otherwise,
surely
plans
to
channel
60,000
offenders
through
accredited
programmes
by
2003
could
not
be
contemplated.
Two
of
the
Reflections
pieces
in
this
edition
provide
a
much
needed
critical
analysis
of
this
perspective.
Credible
Accreditation
provides
a
biting
critique
of
the
Prison
Probation
Accreditation
Panel
and
of
the
wider
process
of
validation,
while
Doubts
About
the
What
Works
Initiative
carefully
examines
the
strength
of
the
evidence
underpinning
the
programmes,
and
finds
it
less
than
convincing.
I
However,
perhaps
a
more
pertinent
question
would
be
to
ask
if
we
should
in
any
case
be
so
damning
of
a
strategy
which
has
aimed
to
build
credibility
before
providing
the
proof
of
it?
Although
’talking
up’
the
merits
of
effective
practice
can
be
dangerous,
is
it
not
understandable
that
both
politicians
and
probation
managers
have
felt
compelled
to
do
so?
In
the
current
political
climate,
a
comprehensible
sound
bite like
’prison
works’
is
still
a far
more
powerful
guarantor
of
public
support
and
resources
than
the
more
complex
and
relative
message
contained
within
’community
programmes
can
reduce
offending’.
Consequently,
the
implementation
of
very
promising
community
approaches
at
the
earliest
opportunity,
even
if
they
are
not
yet
’proven’,
could
be
seen
as
a
political
necessity.
Such
thinking
certainly
does
not
seem
limited
to
this
country.
What
Works
at
One
Arm
Point?
details
the
problematic
implementation
in
remote
areas
of
Australia
of
approaches
developed
in
North
America
and
the
UK,
strongly
criticising
the
inappropriate
elevation
of
What
Works
to
a
&dquo;global
criminological
creed&dquo;.
Straight
Thinking
in
New
Zealand/Aotearoa
identifies
similar
problems
in
another
country
where
’What
Works’
has
taken
hold
largely
in
response
to
political
pressure
to
develop
’tougher’
community
punishments.
One
of
the
ways
in
which
the
Probation
Service
has
sought
to
improve
its
criminal
justice
credentials
is
by
distancing
itself
from
the
language
and,
to
a
lesser
extent,
the
ethos
of
social
work.
Many
commentators
who
have
argued
vehemently
for
training
and
practice
rooted
in
social
work
values
will
be
heartened
to
read
Social
Work
Education,
Pro-Social
Orientation
and
Effective
Probation
Practice.
This
article
recounts
convincing
evidence
that
social
work
training
in
the
Australian
context
has
produced
motivated
practitioners
who
are
substantially
more
effective
in
reducing
reoffending.
Back
to
the
Future:
Housing
and
Support
for
Offenders
is
a
reminder
of
the
continued
need
in
the
’What
Works’
era
to
have
an
understanding
of
the
environmental
as
well
as
individual
cognitive
precursors
to
offending.
It
presents
a
balanced
but
passionate
argument
for
the
contribution
which
&dquo;traditional
concerns&dquo;
about
the
need
for
adequate
housing
can
make
to
reducing
reoffending
by
those
who
present
risks
to
themselves
or
others.
The
article
on
the
Irish
Probation
and
Welfare
Service
continues
the
international
theme
with
a
fascinating
consideration
of
a
developing
Service,
while
Pure
Fiction
3
concludes
the
author’s
(almost)
oblique
critique
of
the
impact
of National
Standards.
In
view
of
the
huge
implications
of
the
’What
Works’
strategy,
responses
to
the
contents
of
this
edition
would
be
very
welcome.
Readers
are
also
reminded
that
the
June
2001
edition
will
be
an
extended
special
issue
on
Youth
Justice
and
Working
With
Young
Offenders.
The
deadline
for
submissions
is
1
February
2001.
To continue reading
Request your trial