<?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>00937nam a2200193   4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="001">18234</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="090" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">18234</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">20020423u           y0pory50      ba</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="101" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">eng</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="200" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">The supervision of sex offenders</subfield>
    <subfield code="e">policies influencing the probation role</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="330" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Terry Thomas and Robin Tuddenham examine how the sex offender register and wider employment and housing policies have impacted upon probation supervision of sex offenders. They argue that such policies may be at odds with effective, risk aware supervision, and that more guidane will be needed to assist front-line practitioners.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="461" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="v">V.49,n.1</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">Mar. 2002</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">p.10-18</subfield>
    <subfield code="t">Probation Journal</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">London</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="606" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">SUPERVIS&#xC3;O  DELINQUENTE SEXUAL  PROBATION</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">THOMAS</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">Terry </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="701" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">TUDDENHAM</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">Robin</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">21563</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>
