Structured decisions about Dutch probation service interventions

Abstract

There is convincing evidence that structuring decision making leads to better decisions. Comparing structured and unstructured professional decisions on a wide variety of topics in medicine, psychology or social welfare, it was found that structured decisions were as good as and often better than unstructured decisions. This can be explained by the fact that professionals, like anyone else, make errors of judgement. In different professional settings decision support tools have therefore been developed and implemented. As far as probation is concerned, tools for risk assessment are currently used in many countries. Assessment of the risks of recidivism and criminogenic needs thus have become structured, yet decisions on interventions are still to a large extent a matter of professional judgement. This is problematic, since this decision is fundamental in the probation process, and can have a large impact on the effectiveness of probation and on the life of the offender. Dutch probation practice shows that the quality of intervention planning indeed leaves something to be desired. Structuring the decision process for intervention planning, without replacing the professional, may improve the quality of probation work. It would seem to be a logical next step in the development of assessment tools.

Agreement About Intervention Plans By Probation Officers

“…In general, structuring a decision process can lead to more agreement. This conclusion has been confirmed over and over again since the famous study of Meehl in 1954 (Bosker, Witteman, & Hermanns, in press; Dawes, Faust, & Meehl, 1989; Garb, 1998, 2005; Grove, Zald, Lebow, Snitz, & Nelson, 2000; Meehl, 1954). The decision process about intervention plans could be structured in several ways.…”

The Probation Institute

“…From this perspective, the objectives of probation-managed drug interventions and the specific role of practitioners should be to promote those factors that can serve to mitigate negative influences, which is consistent with the approaches outlined earlier in Beth Weaver's article. The importance of the individual's own production and ownership of the interventions they receive is further reaffirmed in the practitioner response to structured decisions about Dutch probation service interventions (Bosker et al, 2013) by Dave Wood.…”

Probationer-directed interventions

“…Much of our effort has been focused on attempting to develop a far more engaging manner of working with probationers, and in particular the co-production and ownership of the sentence plan. As such it was with much interest that I read Bosker et al’s comment piece in the June 2013 edition of the Probation Journal . Their idea − of creating a more structured approach to interventions − appeared to be based not so much on probationer engagement but more on structured thinking and the assessed criminogenic need.…”