{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01731058705469142, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01154039136979428, 'mean_word_length': 5.389423076923077, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluation in a cold climate

Attachment theory has routinely been considered essential for those working with children. However, contemporary literature and research on attachment offers some compelling insights for work with offenders, particularly in the way that empathy is developed and mood is regulated A copy of the winning article can be accessed via the Probation Journal website http://prb.sagepub.com/ in Probation Journal in 2008 (Ansbro, 2008). The author lucidly considers how attunement to how early emotional connections can influence later development in terms of cognition and behaviour can provide the worker with a potentially valuable insight into how the individual views themselves and relates to others. Drawing on a theoretical framework which would not have been unfamiliar to readers of this journal in the post-war period she goes on to demonstrate how they continue to resonate with contemporary practice and are congruent with both cognitive behavioural approaches and recent research which has highlighted how the quality of the relationship between the worker and those under their supervision is pivotal to effective intervention. It is appropriate therefore that the articles contained in this edition similarly reflect the notion of reflective enquiry which is the hallmark of Maria Ansbro’s article. While it may well be the case that probation supervision remains ‘a craft or art rather than a mechanical science’ (Hough, 2007), all the articles in this edition support the ongoing need for robust evaluation while acknowledging the complexities involved. It could be argued that for much of its history, evaluation was not a prominent feature of the probation mindset. This did not mean that studies into its effectiveness were not undertaken but that they tended to be of secondary concern to the moral justification implied in the rehabilitative task. Early groundbreaking studies (Radzinowicz, 1959) relied heavily on official data and were mainly concerned with system issues such as the age, gender and criminal histories of those placed on probation, rather than the impact of such disposals in terms of future offending. The colder political climate from the 1970s onwards, prompted by what was interpreted as negative findings (Martinson, 1974; Brody, 1976) led to a dominant notion of effectiveness couched in terms of the promotion of ‘alternatives to custody’. In policy terms this was driven by the increasing numbers being sent to prison with the attendant problems of overcrowding, and the excessive costs of keeping them there when compared with community disposals. In the 1990s reconviction rates became the primary measure of effectiveness. The limitations of using reconviction rates has been widely discussed elsewhere (see Mair, 1995; Hannah-Moffatt and Shaw, 2000) but they remain an important measure by which probation is measured. In ‘How not to assess probation performance: Constructing local reconviction rates’ Carol Hedderman considers how one probation area has measured reoffending rates among those under its supervision. While acknowledging the importance of robust local measures, the author highlights the complexity of comparing performance between areas in terms of reconviction given the range of factors and variables which can influence outcomes. She suggests that a longitudinal approach would potentially provide a more accurate insight into reoffending rates during the supervision process rather than the ‘snapshots’ provided by the cross-sectional methods employed by NOMS. Judgements regarding the effectiveness of community based sanctions often lie not only in terms of their own efficacy but how they compare against the use of custody. The measures used to compare reconviction rates for custodial and noncustodial sentences have been questioned although it is generally accepted that ultimately there is little to choose between them. There is some evidence, however, Probation Journal 108 56(2)