An exploration of the purposes and outcomes of probation in European jurisdictions

Abstract

The theme of this article was developed at a conference organized by Conférence Permanente Européenne de la Probation (CEP) together with the Ministry of Justice of Estonia which took place in Tallinn, September 2007. The title of the conference was 'Unity and Diversity in Probation'. Within this context, this article aims to examine issues and dilemmas in evaluating probation effectiveness in different jurisdictions. According to the published aims of various probation services, probation systems in EU countries could be divided into four main types: probation services based on promoting community measures and sanctions; probation services based on the model of assisting the judiciary; probation services based on the rehabilitation model/public protection; and probation services based on a punishment or enforcement model. These different types require different criteria for evaluating probation effectiveness, but each criterion has some important risks, which need to be carefully assessed. The article's focus therefore is on the methodological dilemmas and not on the ethical aspects of defining probation's purposes and objectives.

Punishment in Society: The Improbable Persistence of Probation and Other Community Sanctions and Measures

“…In the jurisdictions of the USA, there were more than twice as many people (over 5 million in total) on probation or parole as there were people in custody (around 2 million) at the end of 2007 (Glaze and Bonczar 2009). European figures are harder to establish given the wide range of definitions and forms of community sanctions and differences in official recording of their use but Von Kalmthout and Durnescu's (2008) extensive recent survey suggests Page 2 of 26 considerable expansion of the use of such sanctions in almost all European jurisdictions. Durnescu (2008) estimates that about 2 million people were incarcerated in Europe at the time of his survey, and about 3.5 million were subject to some form of community sanction.…”

“…European figures are harder to establish given the wide range of definitions and forms of community sanctions and differences in official recording of their use but Von Kalmthout and Durnescu's (2008) extensive recent survey suggests Page 2 of 26 considerable expansion of the use of such sanctions in almost all European jurisdictions. Durnescu (2008) estimates that about 2 million people were incarcerated in Europe at the time of his survey, and about 3.5 million were subject to some form of community sanction. The fact that almost all prisoners are (eventually) released, often under some form of supervision, means of course that many "custodial" sentences also involve community-based supervision, whereas the converse is not the case.…”

Reexamining Evidence-Based Practice in Community Corrections: Beyond “A-Confined View” of What Works

“…Drawing on his survey of probation systems with van Kalmthout, Durnescu (2008) distinguishes, on the basis of their expressed purposes and 'missions', between four main types of European probation services which prioritise respectively: promoting the use of community sanctions and measures (often as a way of reducing the costs of imprisonment); assisting judicial decision-making; rehabilitation/public protection; and punishment or enforcement. Clearly this taxonomy is not without its problemseach of these purposes may be pursued in quite different ways, and several of them may be pursued in concert.…”

“…In the context of a paper about EBP, the key point to take from this discussion is that the relative priority given to different objectives for community corrections impacts profoundly on the kinds of evidence at stake in evaluations of the services concerned (see also Durnescu, 2008). By way of illustration, the following table represents a development of Durnescu's taxonomy of purposes and suggested measures of the effectiveness of probation: However, having opened up the possibility of thinking about evidence and effectiveness in diverse ways, we want (paradoxically perhaps) to turn back to the more familiar question which underlies EBP in this field: What works to reducing reoffending?…”

Taking Probation Abroad

“…Evaluation of the transfer is inseparable from the wider question of the evaluation of the performance of probation in any country. And as Durnescu (2008) shows, countries set a range of purposes for probation, requiring different -and typically multi-modal -methods of evaluation. But it may also be that, apart from the inherent methodological problems, when representatives of both parties to a transfer are enthusiastic, it becomes politically less necessary to inquire searchingly into the purpose of the initiative.…”