Mair and May

Mair and May

1. Aim

   • To investigate the experiences of offenders on probation orders in a cross-section of offices in England and Wales.

2. Methodology

   • A survey using a questionnaire that was piloted initially with 7 offices and 24 offenders, then improved before being given to the final sample.

3. Sample

   • A total of 3299 offenders were selected at random from 22 probation offices across England and Wales to be representative of all crimes and age groups.
   • Of the original selected sample, 40% failed to take part for various reasons, with more failing to turn up for appointments in the London area. This means that the smaller offices are over represented and a corrective weighting has had to be employed.

4. Procedure

   • Interviews were conducted by independently employed researchers visiting the selected offices and covered a vast range of questions about the offender’s life as well as their likelihood of re-offending.
   • Many questions had Likert scale responses, otherwise they were all closed, multiple choice type.

5. Results

   • An average of 88% of the sample felt probation was extremely or very useful.
   • Over 60% of the sample felt that the probation officer would help them to sort out problems and was there to talk to.
   • Only 37% felt that this would stop them re-offending altogether.
   • Having someone independent to talk to seems to be the most useful function of the probation officer, and the topics discussed included: things to do, problem with accommodation, problems with money, employment, family problems, why they committed the offende, drugs and alcohol problems and their health generally.

6. Conclusions

   • Probation is seen in a positive light by offenders. However, the percentage who failed to keep all of their appointments and are therefore excluded from the analysis may have more negative views.
   • This survey confirms the previous research, which shows that those on probation tend to be unemployed, on benefits, poorly qualified and in poor health, so that much of a probation officer’s time is spent discussing these factors. It was disappointing that not one offender in the survey thought that their order was intended to stop them re-offending and nearly one-third went on to commit another offence.

7. Evaluation

   • Sample - A range of probation officers were used (22) from around the country, this makes the study more generalisable.
     • The crimes that are over represented are most common with young offenders (25% aged 16-20) and probation offers these offenders the opportunity to change their behaviour without exposing them to prison (and furthering their criminal career).
       • Method – using Likert scales would have resulted in forced choice answers, this would affect the validity on these questions, whereas the open response questions for such a large survey would be difficult to interpret effectively.
   • Ethics – the data on individuals was kept confidential. It was a voluntary survey and so consent and withdrawal should have been given. The survey was useful as it provides the probation officers useful information into the benefits of the service that they provide.
   • Method – a structured interview was used. This was tested in a pilot study to help develop the validity of the measures and to make it more reliable. This allowed for a standardised format to be used, this reduces variability and so increases validity. A mix of quantitative and qualitative data was collected this allows for both statistical analysis and to have a greater depth and richness of the thoughts and feelings of offenders.
     • Sample - Participants dropped out of the study. The group that may have remained therefore may have been biased and not representative of all offenders on probation.
       • Demand characteristics – perhaps those who answered demonstrated demand characteristics as the 88% that thought it was useful may have seen it benefiting their case. Over 50% of males and 75% of females that responded had a female probation officer. This may demonstrate participants bias as the participant may reflect relationship with probation officer rather than with the survey. However, female probation officers may offer better emotional support, this questions validity.
   • Some types of offence are over represented (driving 24%, burglary 20% and violence 19%) some offences were under represented (sexual 2% and robbery 2%). The perception that some offences suit probation more than others.