<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="https://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="https://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim https://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="https://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>01014nam a2200193   4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="001">14301</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="090" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">14301</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">20010326u           y0pory50      ba</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="101" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">eng</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="200" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Improving understanding and recall of the probation service contract</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="330" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Achieving greater compliance with community sentences and licences is an important Probation Service priority. Leigh Morris and Jonathan Mason use IQ test evidence to argue that supervision contracts may be too difficult for a significant proportion of offenders to understand, contributing to unnecessary breach. They present an example of a simplified probation contract, which they urge probation services to consider.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="461" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="v">V.46,n.4</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">Dec. 1999</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">p.259-262</subfield>
    <subfield code="t">Probation Journal</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">London</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="606" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">PROBATION SERVICE  INTELIG&#xCA;NCIA</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">MASON</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">Jonathan </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="701" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">MORRIS</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">Leigh</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="852" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="j">P.105</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="995" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">P__105_000000000000000</subfield>
    <subfield code="5">2021-12-17</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">17630</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">DGRSP</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">DGRSP</subfield>
    <subfield code="k">P.105</subfield>
    <subfield code="n">2021-12-17</subfield>
    <subfield code="o">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">AP</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
