ABSTRACT
Local probation services had a large degree of autonomy within national organization and aims. Chief o„cers of dižerent area services had a degree of self-rule, approaching the recruitment of o„cers dižerently and allocating their budget on a local level. is allowed the service to re™ect local geographical differences, which also meant that it was hard to assess national advantages or disadvantages. ere were national trends that also re™ected government priorities: juvenile oženders moved out of probation interest in the 1960s as other services began to provide for them, and since the 1980s, drug treatment and drug-using oženders have been a core probation constituency. Today’s probation o„cers still supervise drug users in the community, providing behavioral intervention to prevent a spiral of drug use, crime, and imprisonment.
