<?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>01191nam a2200205   4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="001">15007</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="090" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">15007</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">"Square Roots and Algebra"</subfield>
    <subfield code="e">understanding perceptions of combined Risk/Needs assessment measures</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="330" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">The Home Office's emphasis on a new risk-based agenda for the Probation Service has been the hallmark of both legislation and a large number of policy documents. Yet very little is currently known about how probation officers view these changes. Here, Anthony Colombo and Mike Neary use their initial research findings to gain a clearer understanding of the practical concerns probation officers have about combined risk/needs measures, and assess the implications for future progress in the assessment and management of offender risk.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="461" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="v">V.45,n.4</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">Dec. 1998</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">p.213-219</subfield>
    <subfield code="t">Probation Journal</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">London</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="606" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">PROBATION  REINCID&#xCA;NCIA</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">COLOMBO</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">Anthony</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="701" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">NEARY</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">Mike</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">18336</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>
