View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

learned the limits to which theycould test the probation officer’s discretion when applying
the standards (McIvor 1992:185).
At the time when the national standards were introduced, The Probation and After Care
Service structure in England and Wales was divided into 55 different services. It was
therefore to be anticipated that slightly different interpretations might be given to the
purpose of community service across this large number of semi-autonomous agencies.
Moreover the individual practices which were used to operationalise the communityservice
schemes were bound to result in significant differences of approach when analysed. The
principal issue which the National Standards sought to address was the application of
uniform compliance procedures and the general discipline of offenders during the
performance of community service. Researchers had drawn attention to variations in
practice in bringing breach procedures against offenders who had repeatedly failed to turn
up for work sessions (Young 1979; McWilliams and Murphy1990; Pease 1985; Vass 1984).
In one study conducted by Eysenck in 1986, it was found that the Probation Service staff
were prepared to accept a 25% level of non-attendance and she referred to the excessive
tolerance of absenteeismbefore breaches were brought back to the court (Eysenck 1986).
When the national standards were introduced, some Probation Services reported difficulty
in working the prescribed standards. In particular, the national standards specified that
firm use of the breach procedures was to be used for absences from community service
which were deemed unacceptable, such breaches being the building-blocks upon which
breach proceedings are typically taken (McWilliams and Murphy 1990). Breach
proceedings are warranted accordingly to the national standards when the number of
unacceptable absences exceeds three. The proportion of cases where breach proceedings
were commenced after four or more unacceptable absences decreased significantly over a
period of two years coterminus with introduction of the national standards in April 1989
and there were significantly fewer cases where very large numbers of unacceptable
absences had accrued prior to the procedure of breach being initiated (Lloyd 1991). The
evaluation of the effect of the national standards would seem to indicate a major
realignment of probation officers practices to ensure the offender`s compliance with the
order. (Lloyd, 1991:19)
102