Letters
| Author | Hindpal Singh Bhui,Lesley Bell,Jeremy Cameron |
| Published date | 01 June 2002 |
| Date | 01 June 2002 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/026455050204900231 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
192
E-mail letters to:
prbjournal@aol.com
Persistent Car Thieves
Dear Editor,
I am currently writing up an Advanced
Award in Social Work submission
focusing on interventions with persistent
car thieves, and would be interested in
hearing from anyone involved in this area
of service delivery. With the absence of an
accredited car crime programme, I have
been involved in developing a car crime
programme for persistent adult car thieves
and would be happy to share my findings
with anyone who responds to this letter.
While there will be cultural differences
between working in Belfast and other
parts of the UK, I believe this cognitive-
behavioural programme can be easily
transferable.
My contact details are as follows:
Probation Office, 270 Falls Road, Belfast
BT12 6AL. Tel: 02890 231763 or
078 038 978 51. Fax: 02890 326280.
Lesley Bell
Probation Officer, Belfast
Accredited Programmes
Dear Editor,
I seldom reply to criticism because I think
people are entitled to have their go.
However, there are exceptions. Jill
Shackleton’s reply to my piece in the
Probation Journal 48 (1) March 2002,
pp.69-72, was one of them. She says first
that the traditional probation order had a
re-conviction rate of 54%. Then she says
that research shows that cognitive skills
programmes “could have a significantly
greater impact on re-convictions (as large
as 15%) than other forms of interventions.
They could reduce the re-conviction rate
to below the 50% level.” Then she says
that “it may be true that not all the studies
had randomised allocation” and, even
worse, that “it is undoubtedly true that not
all the studies were compared against
probation orders without conditions”.
In translation, what she means, I think,
is that no-one knows whether the cognitive
skills programmes would be more
effective than other forms of intervention.
No-one knows whether they in fact do
more harm than good. None of the studies
had randomised allocation (in other words
the clients were hand-picked). In none of
them were programmes matched against
the probation order without conditions.
As I said in my last piece, the research
is essentially invalid. Tests on a probation
order with cognitive behavioural
groupwork are not being matched against
the relevant alternative, which is a
traditional probation order without extra
conditions. Until that happens all the
research, all the audits, all the circulars are
a waste of public money.Jeremy Cameron
Retired Probation Officer, London
LETTERS
Patricia Otukoya
It is with enormous shock and sadness that
we learnt a few weeks ago of the sudden
and unexpected death of Patricia Otukoya, a
member of the Editorial Board, at the young
age of 47. In the short space of time that
Patricia was on the Board, she had become
a respected and valued colleague – her
passion, spirit and enthusiastic engagement
with life made her a joy to be around.
Patricia has left an indelible mark on the
memories of those who were lucky enough
to meet her during more than 20
distinguished years in the Probation
Service. She will be greatly missed by her
friends at the Probation Journal, as well as
by innumerable others who knew her in
Napo, ABPO, the Probation Service and
beyond.
Hindpal Singh Bhui
Editor
To continue reading
Request your trial