◼ PROBATION. WHY AND HOW?

Lectoraat Werken in Justitieel Kader

Authors
Jacqueline Bosker
Leo Tigges
Renée Henskens
Date
29 of November 2021

© Hogeschool Utrecht, 2021
Bronvermelding is verplicht. Verveelvoudigen voor eigen gebruik of intern gebruik is toegestaan.

Authors
Jacqueline Bosker
Leo Tigges
Renée Henskens
ColophonTranslation: Beter Engels Vertaalbureau
Photos: Hogeschool Utrecht, Rob Voss and Arie Kievit

Year of issue
2021

Contact and adress
Kenniscentrum Sociale Innovatie, Hogeschool Utrecht
Lectoraat: Werken in Justitieel Kader
Postbus 85397, 3508 AJ Utrecht
Padualaan 101 – 3584 CS Utrecht
Telephone: 088 4819222
Email: socialeinnovatie@hu.nl
www.socialeinnovatie.hu.nl/www.hu.nl
1

Table of contents
FOREWORD .............................................................................................................................................. 3
KEY MESSAGE ........................................................................................................................................... 4
1

INTRODUCTION TO THE FULL TEXT ................................................................................................... 6

PART A: WHY PROBATION? ...................................................................................................................... 7
2

COUNCIL OF EUROPE STANDARDS .................................................................................................... 7

3

BENEFITS OF PROBATION ................................................................................................................. 84

SETTING UP AND RUNNING A PROBATION SYSTEM........................................................................ 11

PART B. HOW TO BRING PROBATION PRACTICES INTO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ........................ 15
5

THE MAIN DOMAINS OF PROBATION ............................................................................................. 15

6

HELPING OFFENDERS TO CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOUR .................................................................... 20

7

PARTNERSHIPS ............................................................................................................................... 22

ANNEX ................................................................................................................................................... 24

2◼ TITLE -Foreword
Since the 1970s the use of imprisonment as a sanction has escalated. The harms and unintended
consequences of imprisonment are well documented (Dirkzwager et al., 2014; Kirk, 2021). Today
there are over eleven million people imprisoned worldwide (Walmsley, 2020), the highest
number ever recorded, with ever increasing costs and no evidence of benefit for the wider
community or those imprisoned. Imprisonment should be used as a sanction only whennecessary to protect the public or as a sanction of last resort for the most extreme anddangerous cases.

CEP advocates the proportionate use of probation, other supervised community sanctions andalternatives to custody as the norm in sentencing in criminal matters. I warmly recommend
taking note of this brochure as it explains why probation and other supervised sanctions andmeasures in the community are efficient, effective and value for money. They provide
meaningful and effective alternatives to custody for most people who offend.

Gerry McNally
President of the Confederation of European Probation (CEP)3◼ TITLE - Foreword

Key message
Probation is a fast-developing field that plays an important role in the response to crime and theprevention of reoffending. Probation covers various sanctions and community-based measures,
including supervision and community service, designed to promote community safety and thesocial inclusion of offenders.
This brochure is intended for justice ministers, other politicians and senior civil servantsinterested in setting up or upgrading a probation service1. The ‘key message’ highlights the main
topics and messages in this brochure. Readers who want to learn more about the benefits ofprobation and about how to bring these into practice should read the full text.
Council of Europe standards
In 2010, the Council of Europe agreed the European Probation Rules: a set of basic principles forprobation services supported by all member countries. The European Probation Rules give
guidance on the organisation, policy and practice of probation. They are based on the European
Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and therefore reflect the values
shared by all European nations.
Benefits of probation
Developing a strong probation service and promoting community sentences can be a “smarter”
approach to dealing with offenders, for several reasons:•

Probation is cost-effective.

•

Probation reduces the prison
population.

•

Probation reduces reoffending.

•

A probation service can help judges andprosecutors.

•

Probation promotes rehabilitation.

•

Probation encourages reparation and restitution.

“Community alternatives have thepotential to significantly enhance theefficiency and effectiveness of every
arm of the criminal justice system – law
enforcement, the judiciary and thecorrectional system.” (Porporino, 2015)

Setting up and running a probation system
For probation to work well, it's important to have a coherent strategy that covers the following:
1

In this brochure, the term 'probation service' is used to refer to organisations that perform probation tasks.
Probation is used to refer to the various sanctions and measures implemented by probation organizations
4◼ TITLE - Key message

•

A clear policy on community sentencing and probation.

•

A legal framework for community sentencing, in which monitoring and support can be
combined.

•A strong infrastructure and adequate resourcing.

•

Skilled professionals.

•

A probation service that cooperates with judicial services, health care services,educational, employment and social welfare services.

•

An active media policy.

•

International cooperation.

The main domains of probation
The European Probation Rules describe the main domains of probation. Those countries thathave mature probation services are active in all domains and at various stages of the justiceprocess. That increases the scope for making use of community sentencing and for reducing theprison population.
•

In the pre-sentence phase, the probation agencies provide information and advice tojudicial and other relevant authorities to help them reach informed and just decisions.

•

Community supervision offers an excellent opportunity for offenders to address the
problems that led them into crime, with the help of the probation service. Community
service involves unpaid labour supervised by the probation service for the benefit of thecommunity.

•

During a prison sentence, probation services can advise prison authorities about
detention planning in line with prisoners' risks and needs, and help prisoners prepare for
their release.

•

Supervision following early release aims to meet the offenders' resettlement needs andto ensure compliance with the release conditions.

Partnerships
During community sentences several organisations are involved in supporting and treating
offenders to help them change their behaviour and protect the community. Collaboration
between the probation service and health care providers, the police, local social service
providers, the prison service and the judiciary is essential.

5◼ TITLE - Key message

1 Introduction to the full text
Probation is a fast-developing field that plays an important role in the response to crime and theprevention of reoffending. Probation is a term that covers various sanctions and communitybased measures, including supervision and community service, designed to promote community
safety and the social inclusion of offenders (Council of Europe, 2010). Across Europe, more
offenders are now on probation than are in prison. A strong probation service is cost-effective,
improves sentencing and helps reduce reoffending.
This brochure is intended for justice ministers, other politicians and senior civil servantsinterested in setting up or upgrading a probation service. It covers:•

Council of Europe standards•

Benefits of probation•

Setting up and running a probation system•

The role of probation in different stages of theexecution of criminal sanctions•

Helping offenders desist from crime•

Essential partnerships"……if community sanctions andmeasures are used wisely andproportionately, they can make acontribution to reducing prison
numbers. In any case they should
be valued not only for theirpotential to reduce the size of theprison population but for theirpositive contribution to justiceand social inclusion." (Council ofEurope, 2017).

The authors hope that this booklet will help countries that don't yet have probation systems orare in the early stages of developing probation systems to realise the potential benefits ofcommunity sentencing. Part A discusses the strategic issues emphasizing why probation isimportant. Part B explores the operational issues around bringing probation into criminal justicepractice.

6◼ TITLE - Introduction to the full text

Part A: Why probation?

2

Council of Europe standards

In 2010, the Council of Europe agreed the European Probation Rules: a set of basic principles forprobation services supported by all member countries. The European Probation Rules give
guidance on the organisation, policy and practice of probation (Canton, 2019). They are based on
the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and therefore reflect
the values shared by all European nations. According to these rules, the purpose of a probation
service is to reduce reoffending, and thus contribute to community safety and the fairadministration of justice. The rules go on to detail how probation services should work andrelate to offenders, victims, other agencies, media and the public (Council of Europe, 2010).
The European Probation Rules say that, for probation to realise its full potential, it needs to be
integrated with all phases of the justice system: from the pre-trial phase to post-custodialaftercare. Close cooperation with the judicial partners is therefore essential. See, for example,
the description of the Irish and the Dutch probation system on the CEP website. 22

https://www.cep-probation.org/knowledgebases/
7◼ TITLE - Part A: Why probation?

The development of strong probation services is a global movement. In the Tokyo Rules, theUnited Nations promotes the use of non-custodial sentencing and defines the minimum
requirements that should be met. 3

An example of a typical probationary sanction:
An offender has committed an offence that is punishable with a prison sentence. However,
the judge chooses to impose a conditional prison sentence: the offender is placed on
probation for a certain time and has to report to the probation service every two weeks.
The probation officer helps the offender to understand the background to and causes of theoffending, and supports the offender's efforts to overcome the underlying problems. Other
conditions might be attached to the probation order, such as electronic monitoring and theacceptance of mental health care. If the offender does not fulfil the conditions, theprobation service may refer the case back to court. The original prison sentence may thenbe activated.

3

Benefits of probation

Developing a strong probation service and promoting community sentences can be a smarter
approach to dealing with offenders, for several reasons:a.

Probation is cost-effective

Promoting community sentences and establishing a strong probation service can substantiallylower the cost of criminal justice. The potential savings vary from country to country and dependon the alternatives, but studies in various countries have shown that non-custodial sentences
are significantly cheaper (Gelb et al., 2019; Hamilton, 2021; Porporino, 2015). Data from a Dutch
study suggests that, on average, the cost of a community service order is about 12% of the costof a prison sentence (Wermink, 2010). Figures from England and Wales are similar, thecomparative cost of a twelve-month community sentence being about 10% of the average costof a prison sentence of the same length. 43

https://www.ohchr.org/documents/professionalinterest/tokyorules.pdf
Inferred from National Audit Office, UK, 2007: https://www.nao.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2008/01/0708203_I.pdf and from Transforming Rehabilitation-Justice Committee-Houseof Commons (2018) https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmjust/482/48208.htm
4

8◼ TITLE - 3

Benefits of probation

b.

Probation reduces the prison population

Many European countries have high rates of imprisonment. However, custodial punishment is
the most expensive response to crime. Prison is associated with higher rates of reoffending due
to the lower rates of successful rehabilitation and resocialisation. Detention has a disruptive
effect on the offender's life, potentially causing the loss of income, work, housing or social andfamily contacts, which is liable to lead to reoffending. Contact with other inmates can also
increase the risk of reoffending.

"Finland reduced its prison population by adopting a coherent long-term reform policy. In the
1960s, Finnish authorities realized its prison numbers were disproportionately high compared
to its Scandinavian neighbours. Politicians reached a consensus that they should and could
deal with prison overcrowding. A raft of measures were taken among which restricting the useof imprisonment as a default penalty for unpaid fines, the extension of the use of conditional
imprisonment and the system of early release, and the introduction of community service.
These reforms contributed to a systematic long-term decline in prison figures. By the 1990s,
Finland had fallen to the bottom of the west European list of prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants,
down from its top slot in the 1970s." (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2007)c.

Probation reduces reoffending

Community sentences increase the scope for helping offenders to desist from crime. Many
offenders have mental health problems, substance abuse problems or (mild) mental disabilities
or disorders. The care they need is often unavailable in prison (Byrne & Taxman, 2005). A
community sentence provides more opportunity for intervening to address the underlying
causes of offending. The offender can be helped out of substance abuse or into work, forexample. If community sentences are integrated with support measures, they can help reduce
reoffending (Hillier & Mews, 2018). Although treatment and support can be offered in detention,
they are more effective when provided in the community (Bonta & Andrews, 2017). If necessary,
behavioural restrictions and extra monitoring can be used to minimise the risk of reoffending
during a community sentence.

9◼ TITLE - 3

Benefits of probation

Community sentences are therefore a better option, certainly for minor offences. Althoughprison may be appropriate forpeople who commit more serious
In a Dutch study comparing people sentenced tooffences, it is still advantageous tocommunity service with matched offenders given
have a conditional release systemshort prison sentences, community service was foundwhere offenders are helped toto lead to a 46.8% reduction in reoffending in the fiveaddress the problems that led themyears after the sentence. (Wermink et al., 2010)
into crime.

For more information about how community sentences can help to reduce reoffending, see part
B of this brochure.

d.

A probation service can help judges and prosecutors

A probation service can help judges make better
sentencing decisions (Durnescu, 2008). A system where
the probation service gives advice in a pre-sentence reporton the feasibility of community sentencing helps topromote the use of non-custodial sentences. By assessing
the offender's criminal behaviour, problems and social
circumstances, the probation service can advise onwhether a community sentence can be effective and, if so,
what conditions should be imposed. Such information canhelp judges make good decisions about what type ofsentence to impose.

e.

Dutch judge in an exchange
meeting with colleagues from
Serbia: "I feel uneasy imposing
sentences without a proper
picture of the risk of reoffending
and the various options for
tailoring the sanction that I haveto impose. Then I ask myself, "If I
were the offender, is this how I
would want to be judged?"

Probation promotes rehabilitation

Most offenders return to society at some point. When they do, it is important that they canparticipate fully and make a positive contribution to society. The prospect of a better life can be
an important driver of behavioural change (Ward & Marchall, 2007). Society therefore needs tobe open to rehabilitating people who have made mistakes in the past (McNeill, 2018). Many
offenders face multiple problems. A probation service can be an important link between thejustice system and society. The service can promote reintegration and social inclusion by
supporting offenders and helping them establish or strengthen contacts with local social service
providers, employers and the local community.

10◼ TITLE - 3

Benefits of probation

f.

Probation encourages reparation and restitution

In many countries, the interests of victims play an increasingly important role in criminal justice.
To enable victims' voices to be heard and their needs to be met, restorative justice is an option
in a lot of countries and its use is encouraged. Restorative justice is "any process which enables
those harmed by crime, and those responsible for that harm, if they freely consent, toparticipate actively in the resolution of matters arising from the offence, through the help of a
trained and impartial third party" (Council of Europe, 2018, point 3). Restorative justice can help
both the offender and the victim deal with what has happened. For the victim, it offers a chance
to express their emotions and understand the crime. At the same time, the opportunity to
express responsibility or remorse can increase the offender's willingness to change and stop
offending (EFRJ, 2017; Marder, 2020). A probation service can contribute to the process by:-

Ensuring that victims' needs are taken into account in the criminal justice process-

Increasing offenders' awareness of the consequences of their criminal behaviour-

Encouraging and – if trained, independent officers are available – facilitating mediation
between offender and victim-

Organising community service orders under which offenders repay their victims or the
local community
85% of victims participating in Restorative Justice felt it was a positive
experience; 78% would recommend it to others. (Shapland et al., 2007)

4

Setting up and running a probation system

For probation to work well, it's important to have a coherent strategy that covers the following:•

Governance

Politicians should develop and maintain a clear policy on community sentencing and probation.
Probation cannot contribute properly to
Romania started developing a national
criminal justice without the backing ofprobation service in the mid-1990s. The
political leaders (Lappi-Seppälä, 2003). The
service has since grown and professionalised
development of a probation system requiresconsiderably. Romania's 2013 Probation Act
sustained commitment, monitoring andclearly drew inspiration from the European
Probation Rules.
coordination at the highest level. In that
context, the European Probation Rules are avaluable resource. They provide a framework for defining legislation, policies and practices,while allowing scope for the development of probation services and activities that reflect the11◼ TITLE -national culture, traditions and penal policies.
•

Sentencing

It is important to have a legal framework for community sentencing, in which monitoring andsupport can be combined. Community sentencing can be implemented in various ways, some ofwhich are summarised in the box below. With all options, a clear procedure is needed forintervention if the offender breaches the conditions of their sentence. The adoption ofcommunity sentences depends on judges, politicians and the public being able to see that thesystem is operating as intended. Courts will not embrace community sentencing if they are
unsure how the sentences will be administered or enforced (Porporino, 2015).
When deciding on the most appropriate sentence, the seriousness of the offence and thecharacteristics and circumstances of the offender must, of course, be taken into account.

Overview of community sentences and measures, in which monitoring and support can be
combined (based on Gelb et al., 2019).
o
o

o

o
o

o

Parole: early conditional release from custody.
(Partially) suspended sentence: a term of imprisonment, some or all of which does nothave to be served, providing that certain conditions are met. Those conditions might
include accepting treatment or a curfew, as well as not reoffending.
Intensive correction order: a term of imprisonment that is served in the community
instead of prison and typically includes intensive supervision and conditions that theoffender must fulfil.
Home detention: the offender is confined to home, thus avoiding the cost andconsequences of imprisonment. Additional conditions can be attached.
Community service order: the offender must perform unpaid work in the community for acertain number of hours. Community service orders can serve various purposes, including
deterrence, retribution and reparation.
Probation order: supervision by a probation officer, often in combination with assistanceand treatment programmes, with the focus on reform and rehabilitation.

Where community sentences are promoted, policy-makers should be alert to the 'net-widening
effect'. In many European countries, the use of community sentences has increased significantly.
Yet the number of prison sentences has remained high, even though crime has not increased. It
therefore seems that community sentences have been used not only as an alternative todetention, but as complement to detention thus penalising more people or penalising them for
longer periods (Aebi et al., 2015).

12◼ TITLE - 4

Setting up and running a probation system•Organisation

A strong infrastructure and adequate resourcing are vital for the implementation of community
sentencing. An organisation such as a probation service has to be tasked with carrying out thesentences. The organisation's management must have a clear mission and vision of how
community sentencing is to be implemented. Its budget must be generous enough to enable theorganisation to properly train its staff on a regular basis and provide the guidance and assistancethat offenders require.
•

Skilled professionals

For community sentencing to work, judges and prosecutors need to understand the objectives ofsentencing and to be familiar with the available options and the circumstances under which theyshould be used (Lappi-Seppälä, 2003). Also, probation officers need certain skills to supervise
offenders and help them change their behaviour. For example, they must be able to:-

Reconcile treatment goals and control goals-

Build and maintain a positive working alliances with people who are unlikely to seek
such alliances themselves-

Help offenders to change their behaviour-

Work with people who have multiple and/or complex problems-

Collaborate with professionals in various fields (judiciary, health care, social service
providers) and with people in the offender's social network

For more information about the responsibilities of and skills required by probation officers, seepart B.
•

Cooperation

In order to be effective, a probation service must cooperate with judicial services, health careservices, educational, employment and social welfare services. Professionals from such services
may be involved with an offender in order to meet the offender's needs or to protect thecommunity (Council of Europe, 2010). It is essential that all the professionals involved coordinate
their activities to provide cohesive and effective supervision and support.

13◼ TITLE - 4

Setting up and running a probation system•Communicating with the public

Public education is essential for the promotion of community sentencing. Research has shownthat the public often favours strict punishments,
The media have a crucial role toincluding long prison sentences. However, whenplay in informing the public andmore information is provided, opinions become more
shaping attitudes tonuanced and people become more open to
imprisonment. Journalists andalternative sentences (United Nations Office onothers therefore need to be fully
Drugs and Crime, 2007). The media have a crucial
briefed about the efficacy of nonrole in informing the public. It is therefore importantcustodial sentences, so that theyfor both the government and the probation service
are able to put occasional failures
to pursue an active media policy. Particularly when ainto perspective.
major incident occurs, such as an offender(Council of Europe, 2010)
committing a serious offence when under
supervision, it is important to provide the media withan honest but nuanced account.
•

International cooperation

Introducing a probation system where community sentences have not traditionally been used isa journey into the unknown. However, those embarking
The CEP is committed toon that journey can obtain guidance from otherenhancing the profile of probation
countries, the Council of Europe and the CEP. Countries
and to improving professionalism
can learn from each other and support each other. The
in the field at the national and
CEP (Confederation of European Probation) offers a
European levels.
platform for exchange and inspiration. The goals of the
CEP are to unite the European probation sector, toenhance the profile of probation and to improve professionalism in the field. The CEP organises
conferences on topical probation-related subjects and encourages the exchange of new ideas
through its digital newsletter and website.

14◼ TITLE - 4

Setting up and running a probation system

Part B. How to bring probation practices into the criminal justice system

5

The main domains of probation

The European Probation Rules describe the main domains of probation. Those countries thathave mature probation services are active in all domains and at various stages of the justiceprocess. That increases the scope for making use of community sentencing and for reducing theprison population.

15◼ TITLE - Part B. How to bring probation practices into the criminal justice system

Figure 1. Main domains of probation, based on Pitts & Tigges, 2021.

Pre-trial and pre-sentence phase
In the pre-sentence phase, the probation agencies provide information and advice to judicial andother relevant authorities to help them reach informed and just decisions (Council of Europe,2010). The advice addresses matters such as the suitability of non-custodial sentences andalternatives to pre-trial detention. Advice may also be given about specific conditions, electronicmonitoring or practical supervision arrangements.
Pre-sentence reports often contain the following elements (Canton & Dominey, 2018):•

Offence analysis•

Risk and protective factors•

Risk of reoffending and risk of harm•

Interventions or treatment that can support behavioural change•

Sentencing proposals (for judges' consideration and decision-making) that reflect theseriousness of the offence and address the offender's assessed risk and needs

16◼ TITLE - 5

The main domains of probation

The Probation Service in the Netherlands participates in a partnership called 'As Soon As
Possible' (ASAP). ASAP provides a quick and effective way of dealing with people arrested
for everyday offences after being caught in the act. Working together in a shared office, thePublic Prosecution Service, the police, Victim Support, the Child Care & Protection Board andthe Probation Service cooperate to process petty offences as soon as possible, sometimes
within a matter of hours. ASAP delivers a tailor-made response to crime, taking the interestsof the victim and society into account.

Community supervision and community service
Community supervision offers an excellent opportunity for offenders to address the problems
that led them into crime, with the help of the probation service. Supervision orders can be
imposed on condition that the offender accepts behavioural intervention, forensic care or
sheltered housing, so that the authorities can be sure that the sentence will reduce the risk ofreoffending. Such sentences also involve monitoring and support of offenders by probation
officers to protect the community and promote offender rehabilitation (see section 6 fordetails).
A community service order is a court order requiring an offender to work a certain number ofhours in the community. The Council of Europe defines community service as: "a community
sanction or measure which involves organising and supervising by the probation agencies of
unpaid labour for the benefit of the community as real or symbolic reparation for the harmcaused by an offender." (Council of Europe, 2010). There is evidence that community service can
support changes in the attitudes or behaviour of offenders, and that reconviction rates are lower
than after short prison sentences (which are often the alternative to community service)(McIvor, 2017).
Custodial sentences
Carrying out prison sentences is, of course, the responsibility of the prison service. However, insome countries, the probation service is involved in advising the prison authorities about
detention planning in line with prisoners' risks and needs. In order to facilitate the transition
from prison to ultimate release, it is important that offenders are gradually given more liberties
and are subject to less strict regimes as their release dates approach. The probation service canhelp prisoners prepare for their release. The probation service can also advise the authorities

17◼ TITLE - 5

The main domains of probationwhether early release is feasible and, if so, about the conditions that should be attached. For
some offenders a halfway house may offer a gradual transition from prison to the community.

Figure 1: Interagency cooperation in Estonian prisons

Early release
Most European countries have early release or parole systems. Supervision following early
release aims to meet the offenders' resettlement needs such as employment, housing andeducation, and to ensure compliance with the release conditions with a view to reducing therisks of reoffending and serious harm (Council of Europe, 2010).
It is important that preparations for“In Ireland, community service programmes
supervision are made during thewere extended, as a key component of thedetention phase, preferably on thehighly successful Community Returnbasis of collaboration between(supervised early release) programme, toprobation officers and prison staff
suitable prisoners who had been serving(Duwe, 2014). A consistent andbetween one and eight years custodial
continuous transition from thesentences, as part of a rigorous multi-agency
detention regime to the supervision
supervision programme.” (Geiran & Durnescu,
regime is essential. Such a transition
2019)
enables probation staff to startbuilding working alliances during thedetention phase. During aftercare, it appears to be of great importance to offer emotional andpractical help in collaboration with other organisations (Grace, 2017).
18◼ TITLE - 5

The main domains of probation

Electronic monitoring
Electronic monitoring (EM) can be imposed as part of a community sentence, as a sentence or toenable early release from detention (McIvor & Graham, 2015). The two main forms of EM
regulate the locations and movements of people under supervision. With RFID (radio frequency
identification), a wearable ankle bracelet and a monitoring unit installed in the offender's home
can confirm their presence or absence to support the enforcement of home confinement or
curfews. With GPS monitoring, which also relies on wearable ankle bracelets, the offender canbe tracked inside and outside the home and prohibited from entering designated exclusion
zones, usually with the aim of protecting previous victims or preventing further offending.
The Council of Europe (2014) promotes the use of EM to reduce prison overcrowding and prison
population growth. The Council recommends that EM is not to be used as a punishment in its
own right, but as a form of short-term control which supports probation-based rehabilitative
programmes. Used properly, EM adds an element of control that probation cannot always
achieve on its own, and can contribute to compliance with and completion of sentences andorders (Hucklesby & Holdsworth, 2020). The socio-psychological consequences of wearing anankle bracelet and knowing that compliance with location and time requirements can beconstantly and repeatedly checked, can have beneficial outcomes – providing structure to aclient's day, keeping clients away from antisocial contacts or situations, contributing to themaintenance of social bonds and exposure to positive influences (relationships, work,
education), and creating time for lifestyle reflection. EM can also have adverse effects in termsof stigma, frustration and paranoia, and is never a substitute for directly addressing the issues
that lead people into crime (Hucklesby, 2008; 2009).
A body of empirical knowledge has been built up regarding good practices and outcomes with
RFID and GPS monitoring. From the data, it is clear that the best results are achieved when thetechnologies are combined with supportive and reintegrative activities, rather than used forcontrol or punishment in its own right.

19◼ TITLE - 5

The main domains of probation

6

Helping offenders to change their behaviour

An increasing amount of information is available about what leads offenders to turn away from
crime and how offenders can be helped to change their behaviour. Some of the main insights are
summarised below.

•

Combining monitoring and support

Offender supervision should involve monitoring for risk signals and condition violations, in
combination with guiding and helping“Several studies show that offenders value:
offenders to change their behaviour• Sustained interest from a practitioner;(Paparozzi & Gendreau, 2005).
• Being treated as a person and with respect …;
Probation officers must have the skills• Rigorous challenge to offending behaviour;to perform both functions and must
• Trust, integrity, honesty, listening, being held
use the authority they have effectively.
to account and a non-judgemental
That entails, for example, clarifying theapproach.” (Bailey, 2007)
professional's own role and the rules
under supervision, adopting a consistent approach to intervention that is open to offenders'
input, and rejecting specific behaviours, not the offender (Dowden & Andrews, 2004). Balance is20◼ TITLE - 6

Helping offenders to change their behaviour

important in that context: over-emphasis of authority and sentencing is ineffective (Mowen etal., 2018; Wodahl et al., 2011) .
•RNR: risk assessment and risk management

The Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model is one of the most comprehensive and well-studied
models of offender management. In the RNR model, probationary activities must be based on
assessment of the specific risks and needs of the offender (Bonta & Andrews, 2017). An
assessment of the risk of reoffending helps to determine how intensive supervision should be:
the higher the risk, the higher the frequency and longer the duration of supervision (Lowenkamp
et al., 2006).
Assessment of the problems that lead to offending provides a basis for identifying theinterventions needed to limit the risk of reoffending. The offender should be helped to address
the problems that are linked to the criminal behaviour, such as substance abuse, lack of work or
anger management issues (Bonta & Andrews, 2017). Different interventions can be helpful todifferent offenders. The probation service itself can deploy techniques such as counsellinginterviews or behavioural training, and should collaborate with other professionals such as
forensic psychiatrists and local social service providers.
It is also important to identify the offender's strengths – e.g. a support network or skills that canbe used to achieve change goals – and to utilise and develop them.

•Core correctional practices

Based on a large body of research, various practices have been identified as effective in one-toone contacts between offenders and probation officers. These are:
Building and maintaining a positive working alliance contributes to the offender's motivation andwillingness to change, their well-being, the“Contact can be difficult in the first
resolution of problems that lead to criminal
phase of probation supervision. After all,behaviour, and the promotion of protective
this is when you need to set out clear
factors. An effective working alliance isframeworks and at the same time show
characterised by mutual understanding about
respect for the person and work on
goals and conditions, trust, bonding (feeling
trust.” (Menger et al., 2019)respected, supported and encouraged), and themitigation of resistance to mandatory contact (Menger et al., 2019).
Motivational interviewing is a collaborative, person-oriented and targeted counselling style thataims to trigger autonomous motivation for behavioural change. It appears to have a positive
influence on the willingness to undergo treatment or behavioural training, compliance with thespecial conditions and problem awareness (McMurran, 2009).
21◼ TITLE - 6

Helping offenders to change their behaviour

Prosocial modelling is a combination of modelling prosocial values and behaviours, positive
appreciation of prosocial expressions and behaviours, and disapproval of procriminal
expressions and behaviour. Several studies have found a significant correlation between
prosocial modelling and reduced reoffending (Dowden & Andrews, 2004; Trotter, 2013).
Using cognitive behavioural techniques involves clarifying the relationship between thoughts
and behaviour; identifying procriminal attitudes, thoughts and behaviours; teaching concrete
cognitive and behavioural skills; and supporting offenders in applying and generalising such skills
in daily life. The use of cognitive behavioural techniques increases the effectiveness ofsupervision (Trotter, 2013).
Strengthening offenders' practical and emotional problem-solving skills involves teaching
offenders to identify problems, as well as to formulate specific goals and plan for theirachievement. Offenders are then encouraged to work with probation officers to evaluate plan
realisation. Probation officers can also resolve problems for or with offenders, and help them toobtain assistance from appropriate agencies (Dowden & Andrews, 2004; Raynor et al., 2014).
•

Strengthening social bonds

Social bonds and support are vital for the prevention of reoffending. In addition to practical andemotional support, social bonds also provide social control. Offenders can have supportive social
bonds with family or friends. Wider prosocial bonds are also important, such as having a job andbeing included in the local community (McNeill at al., 2012). Probation officers can support
offenders in strengthening supportive social bonds, and reducing criminal contacts.
•

What doesn't work?

There is a lot of evidence that offender supervision is ineffective if it focuses only on monitoringand does not involve support or treatment. The same is true of intensive offender supervision
combined with immediate sanctions in the event of condition violation (Grattet et al., 2011;
Hyatt & Barnes, 2017). Interventions that focus on order and discipline, such as boot camps,
have also been shown to be ineffective. Finally, practices that offer support with or treatment
for problems that are not crime-related have proven to be less effective (Bonta & Andrews,2017).

7

Partnerships

Community sentences are served in the community, under the responsibility of the judiciary.
Often, several organisations are involved in supporting and treating offenders to help themchange their behaviour and protect the community. Such activities therefore involve
22◼ TITLE - 7

Partnerships

collaboration between various partners, such as the probation service, health care providers, thepolice, local social service providers, the prison service and the judiciary. Research into effective
collaboration in supervision has identified several aspects that promote the effectiveness of thecollaboration and thus indirectly support the effectiveness of supervision (Bosker, et al., 2020):-

A vision of, and clear demarcation of responsibilities for, activities involving and relating
to the offender, which are shared by professionals from all relevant organisations-

Effective information-sharing amongst professionals in various organisations (subject tostatutory privacy constraints)-

Proximity, such as working in the same building-

Continuity of the programme for the offender-Mutual respect and equality-based collaboration-

Involvement of people with suitable expertise and good access to appropriate services
or care-Organisational circumstances that facilitate collaboration (time allocation/caseload size,
policy, work processes and administration)

In the UK, Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) were developed to manage
high-risk offenders. The police, probation service and prison service work together with local
agencies to assess and manage violent and sexual offenders in order to protect the public,
including previous victims, from harm. Cooperation is promoted by sharing information,
combining resources and holding regular meetings.5

Finally, collaboration with volunteers can have added value. Volunteers can provide a bridge tosociety in a way that probation officers cannot, because volunteers are less associated with thejustice system. Offenders respond differently to volunteers than to professionals, because theyrealise that volunteers are committed to them for altruistic reasons. Volunteers offer emotional
support and practical help, can monitor potential risks, and for some clients are amongst their
few social contacts ((Henskens et al., 2020).

5

http://nomsintranet.org.uk/roh/roh/5-multi_agencywk/05_05.htm
23◼ TITLE - 7

Partnerships

AnnexThe brochure is based on scientific insights and practical experience. The authors have extensive,transnational experience in probation management and policy. They conduct research and teachin the field of probation.

About the authors
Jacqueline Bosker is Associate Professor at the University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, theNetherlands. She directs a research group Working with Mandated Clients, which studies
probation and prison services and forensic care. She also teaches professionals from various
forensic and social organizations in de Master Forensic Social Professional. Before taking up her
current post, Ms Bosker worked as a Senior Policy Advisor at the Dutch Probation Service.
Leo Tigges has worked at the Dutch Ministry of Justice, as Operational Director of the Dutch
Probation Service, and as Secretary General of CEP (the European Confederation of Probation).
He now works independently as a consultant in community-based justice, including capacity
building in Montenegro, Serbia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, as a member of the
UK Correctional Services Accreditation and Advice Panel, and as a researcher in the field of
probation.
Renée Henskens is a senior researcher at the University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, theNetherlands. She is familiar with probation work through previous work experience. The overall
aim of her work is to improve practice by connecting scientific knowledge, professional expertiseand client experiences. Renée is also a teacher for the master's programme Forensic Social
Professional.

Advisory Committee
The authors were supported by an Advisory Committee:
Maret Miljan, Head of the Prison Management Department and Lecturer Estonian Academy of
Security Sciences
Gerry McNally, President of the Confederation of European Probation (CEP) and Assistant
Director in the Probation Service in Ireland
Ioan Durnescu, Professor at the University of Bucharest, Faculty of Sociology and Social Work,
Romania
Brian Heath, visiting fellow at university of South Wales, former Chief Probation Officer of theJersey Probation and After Care Service

24◼ TITLE - Annex

Stephen Pitts, Consultant in Community-Based Justice and Ambassador - Confederation ofEuropean Probation (CEP)
Koen Goei, Programme Manager for probation with the Netherlands Helsinki Committee

Further reading
•

•
•

•

•

Council of Europe (2010). Recommendation CM / Rec (2010)1 of the Committee of
Ministers to member states on the Council of Europe. Probation Rules. See:
https://www.cep-probation.org/knowledgebases/council-of-europe-rulesrecommendations/Council of Europe (2017). Recommendation CM/Rec (2017) 3 on the European Rules on
Community Sanctions and Measures. See: https://www.cepprobation.org/knowledgebases/council-of-europe-rules-recommendations/
An extensive overview on implementation of probation can be found in: Geiran, V. &Durnescu, I. (2019). Implementing community sanctions and measures. Guidelines. Councilof Europe. See: https://rm.coe.int/implementing-community-sanctions-andmeasures/1680995098
An overview of empirical studies on the effectiveness of offender supervision can be foundin: Bosker, J., Monnee-van Doornmalen, J., Henskens, R., & Van der Plaat, D. (2020).
Effective practices in probation supervision. A systematic literature review. Kwaliteit
Forensische Zorg / Hogeschool Utrecht, Lectoraat Werken in Justitieel Kader. See:
www.internationalhu.com/research/projects/effective-practices-in-probation-supervision
Experience with and knowledge about probation in European countries is shared on thewebsite of the CEP: www.cep-probation.org/

25◼ TITLE - AnnexReferences
Aebi, M.F., Delgrande, N. & Marguet, Y. (2015). Have community sanctions and measures
widened the net of the European criminal justice systems? Punishment and society, 17(5), 575–
597. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474515615694
Bailey, R. (2007). Entry on Offender Perceptions. In R. Canton & D. Hancock (ed.), Dictionary ofProbation and Offender Management. Willan Publishing UK.
Bonta, J., & Andrews, D.A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (sixth edition). LexisNexis.
Bosker, J., Monnee-van Doornmalen, J., Henskens, R., & Van der Plaat, D. (2020). Effective
practices in probation supervision. A systematic literature review. Kwaliteit Forensische Zorg /Hogeschool Utrecht, Lectoraat Werken in Justitieel Kader.
Byrne, J., & Taxman, F. (2005). Crime control is a choice: divergent perspectives on the role oftreatment in the adult corrections system. Criminology and Public Policy, 4(2), 291.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2005.00022.x
Canton, R. (2019). European Probation Rules. HM Inspectorate of Probation, Academic Insights
2019/02.
Canton, R. & Dominey, J. (2018). Probation (2nd edition). Routledge.
Council of Europe. (2018). Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)8 of the Committee of Ministers tomember States concerning restorative justice in criminal matters.
https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=09000016808e35f3
Council of Europe (2017). Recommendation CM/Rec (2017) 3 on the European Rules on
Community Sanctions and Measures. https://rm.coe.int/168070c09b
Council of Europe (2014). Recommendation CM/Rec(2014) 4 of the Committee of Ministers tomember States on electronic monitoring. https://www.cep-probation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/10/Recommendation-CM-Rec-2014-of-the-Committee-of-Ministers-tomember-States-on-electronic-monitoring.pdf
Council of Europe (2010). Recommendation CM / Rec (2010)1 of the Committee of Ministers tomember states on the Council of Europe. Probation Rules.
https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805cfbc7
Dirkzwager A.J.E., van de Rakt M., Apel R., Nieuwbeerta P. (2014) Unintended Effects of
Imprisonment. In: Bruinsma G., Weisburd D. (eds). Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal
Justice. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_596.
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D.A. (2004). The importance of staff practice in delivering effective
correctional treatment. A meta-analytic review of core correctional practice. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48(2), 203-214.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X03257765
26◼ TITLE - Annex

Durnescu, I. (2008). An exploration of the purposes and outcomes of probation in European
Jurisdictions. Probation Journal, 55(3), 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550508092814
Duwe, G. (2014). A randomized experiment of a prisoner reentry program. Updated results froman evaluation of the Minnesota comprehensive offender reentry plan (MCORP). Criminal JusticeStudies, 27(2), 172-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2013.850081
EFRJ (2017). Effectiveness of restorative justice practices. An overview of empirical research on
restorative justice practices in Europe. www.euforumrj.org
Geiran, V. & Durnescu, I. (2019). Implementing community sanctions and measures. Guidelines.
Council of Europe. See: https://rm.coe.int/implementing-community-sanctions-andmeasures/1680995098
Gelb, K., Stobbs, N., & Hogg, R. (2019). Community-based sentencing orders and parole: a review
of literature and evaluations across jurisdictions. Queensland University of Technology.
Grace, S. (2017). Effective interventions for drug using women offenders. A narrative literature
review. Journal of Substance Use, 22(6), 664-671.
Grattet, R., Lin, J., & Petersilia, J. (2011). Supervision regimes, risk, and official reactions toparolee deviance. Criminology, 49(2), 371-399. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17459125.2011.00229.x
Hamilton, M. (2021). The effectiveness of sanctioning options. A review of key research findings.
Sentencing academy.
Henskens, R., Zuurbier, M., Van Asch, R., & Bosker, J. (2020). Een extra paar ogen voor een
breder perspectief: hoe vrijwilligers en professionals samenwerken in drie projecten bij dereclassering [An extra pair of eyes for a broader perspective: how volunteers and professionals
work together in three probation projects]. Hogeschool Utrecht, lectoraat Werken in Justitieel
Kader.
Hillier J., & Mews, A. (2018). Do offender characteristics affect the impact of short custodial
sentences and court orders on reoffending? Analytical Services, Ministry of Justice.
Hucklesby, A. (2009). Understanding offenders' compliance. A case study of electronicallymonitored curfew orders. Journal of Law and Society, 36(2), 248-271.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2009.00465.x
Hucklesby, A. (2008). Vehicles of desistance? The impact of electronically monitored curfew
orders. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 8(1), 51-71.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895807085869
Hucklesby, A. & Holdsworth, E. (2020). Electronic monitoring in probation practice. Academic
Insights 2020/08. HM Inspectorate of Probation.

27◼ TITLE - Annex

Hyatt, J.M., & Barnes, G.C. (2017). An experimental evaluation of the impact of intensive
supervision on the recidivism of high-risk probationers. Crime & Delinquency, 63(1), 3-38.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128714555757
Kirk, E.M. (2021) Community consequences of mass incarceration: sparking neighbourhoodsocial problems and violent crime, Journal of Crime and justice,https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2021.1887751
Lappi-Seppälä, S. (2003). Enhancing the community alternatives. Getting the measures accepted
and implemented. In: United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the prevention of crime andtreatment of offenders. Enhancement of Community-Based Alternatives to Incarceration at all
Stages of the Criminal Justice Process. Report no 61.
Lewis, S., Maguire, M., Raynor, P., Vanstone, M., & Vennard, J. (2007). What works inresettlement? Findings from seven pathfinders for short-term prisoners in England and Wales.
Criminology and Criminal Justice, 7(1), 33-53.
Lowenkamp, C.T., Latessa, E.J., & Holsinger, A.M. (2006). The risk principle in action. What have
we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs? Crime & Delinquency, 52(1),77-93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128705281747
Marder, I.D. (2020). Building restorative probation services. Academic Insights 2020/04. HM
Inspectorate of Probation.
McIvor, G. (2017). What is the impact of community service? In F. McNeill, I. Durnescu & R.
Butter (Eds). Probation. 12 essential questions. Palgrave Macmillan.
McIvor, G. & Graham, H. (2015). Scottish and International Review of the Use of Electronic
Monitoring. Part 1- Purposes, Uses and Impact of Electronic Monitoring: Part 2 – Comparing
Electronic Monitoring Technologies. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.
McMurran, M. (2009). Motivational interviewing with offenders. A systematic review. Legal andCriminological Psychology, 14(1), 83-100. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532508X278326
McNeill, F. (2018) Rehabilitation, corrections and society: the 2017 ICPA Distinguished Scholar
Lecture. Advancing Corrections Journal, 5, 10-20.
McNeill, F., Farral, S., Lightowler, C., & Maruna, S. (2012). How and why people stop offending:
discovering desistance. The Institute for Research and Innovation in Social Services.
Menger, A., Van der Heijden, K., Keuning, B., Van Mil, J., Nibbeling, I., Pot, C., & Erinkveld, S.
(2019). Practical wisdom in probation. Portrait of the working alliance with mandated clients. HU
University of Applied Sciences, Research Centre Social Innovation.
Mowen, T.J., Wodahl, E., Brent, J.J., & Garland, B. (2018). The role of sanctions and incentives inpromoting successful reentry. Evidence from the SVORI data. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
45(8), 1288-1307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818770695

28◼ TITLE - Annex

Paparozzi, M.A., & Gendreau, P. (2005). An intensive supervision program that worked. Service
delivery, professional orientation, and organizational supportiveness. The Prison Journal, 85(4),445-466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885505281529
Pitts, S. & Tigges, L. (2021). Probation in 2030. Pitfalls and possibilities. Advancing Corrections,11, 93-111.
Porporino F. (2015, February). Implementing community alternatives to imprisonment:
answering the why, what and how? Seminar on promoting community-based treatment in the
Asian region. Thailand Institute of Justice.
Raynor, P., Ugwudike, P., & Vanstone, M. (2014). The impact of skills in probation work. A
reconviction study. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 14(2), 235-249.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895813494869
Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Chapman, B., Dignan, J., Howes, M., Johnstone, J.,
Robinson, G. & Sorsby, A. (2007). Restorative justice: the views of victims and offenders. The
third report from the evaluation of three schemes. Centre for Criminological Research,
University of Sheffield.
Trotter, C. (2013). Reducing recidivism through probation supervision. What we know and don't
know from four decades of research. Federal Probation, 77(2), 43-48.
Walmsley R. (2020). World Prison Population List (twelfth edition) [Internet].London: World
Prison Brief.
https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/wppl_12.pdf
Ward, T. & Marchall, B. (2007). Narrative Identity and Offender Rehabilitation. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51(3), 279-297.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X06291461
Wermink, H., Blokland A., Nieuwbeerta, P., Nagin D. & Tollenaar, N. (2010). Comparing theeffects of community service and short-term imprisonment on recidivism: a matched samples
approach. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6(3), 325-349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292010-9097-1
Wodahl, E.J., Garland, B., Culhane, S.E., & McCarty, W.P. (2011). Utilizing behavioral
interventions to improve supervision outcomes in community-based corrections. Criminal Justiceand Behavior, 38(4), 386-405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810397866
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2007, p 74). Handbook of basic principles andpromising practices on alternatives to imprisonment. Criminal Justice Handbook Series. United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime – Vienna.

29◼ TITLE - Annex