An exploration of the purposes and outcomes of probation in European jurisdictions
| Date | 01 September 2008 |
| Published date | 01 September 2008 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550508092814 |
| Author | Ioan Durnescu |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Comment
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Copyright © 2008 NAPO Vol 55(3): 273–281
DOI: 10.1177/0264550508092814
www.napo.org.uk
http://prb.sagepub.com
An exploration of the purposes and outcomes
of probation in European jurisdictions
Ioan Durnescu, University of Bucharest, Romania
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; proba-
tion 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.
Keywords effectiveness, evaluation, intermediate outcomes, probation
Introduction
Just as more and more countries from the new democracies have started to develop
probation services, long-established countries have also begun to redesign proba-
tion services in order to fit into changing political agendas. Some countries intend
to use probation primarily as a means to lower the number of prisoners by develop-
ing community measures and sanctions (e.g. Estonia, Turkey, etc.); other countries
emphasize the role of the probation service in assisting the judiciary in making
the best decisions when sentencing (e.g. Italy, Romania, etc.); other countries aim
first to rehabilitate offenders and protect the public (e.g. France, Ireland, Austria,
Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Northern Ireland, Norway,
273
274 Probation Journal 55(3)
Germany, Bulgaria, etc.); whilst others prioritize community punishment and its
enforcement, sometimes alongside rehabilitation (e.g. England and Wales). Some
probation services already face very intense scrutiny (UK, Italy, etc.) and others will
have to demonstrate in the near future that they are effective and provide good
value for money. The question is how they will do that?
This article’s intention is to explore just a few of the many potential ways of evalu-
ating probation and to examine some common difficulties faced in this task. The
focus of this article will be on the methodological and practical aspects of this enter-
prise. Aspects like ethics, political influence and so on are recognized to be very
important but the author’s intention is just to touch upon the different method-
ologies relevant in different countries. Obviously there are many ways of evalu-
ating probation and there are various ways of defining effectiveness, but for the
purpose of this article effectiveness is defined simply as the capacity of a program/
organization ‘to produce the intended results’ (Canton and Hancock, 2007: 112).
But what are these results? The definition above may look simple but one should
bear in mind that almost all probation services across Europe have more than one
objective. The brief discussion of the four types of probation systems above shows
how the emphases or priorities of European probation services can vary. Let us
take, for example, the former objectives of the Romanian Probation Service as
shown in the mission statement:
The Romanian Probation Service serves the courts and the public by supervising
offenders in the community in order to reduce crime and the cost and
consequences of unnecessary imprisonment.
(Probation Department, Ministry of Justice, Romania, unpublished)
Or the mission statement of the Correctional Services System of Malta, which is:
. . . to contribute to a safer community by: exercising appropriate, secure and
humane control over criminal offenders; stimulating offenders to become
productive, law-abiding members of society; aiding crime victims in their recovery;
and assisting communities as they confront the conditions that contribute to crime.
(Scicluna, forthcoming)
Given such polymorphous and complex missions – which cover the first three types
of probation – the only way for evaluating probation effectiveness is a pluralistic
model based on a sophisticated and sensitive methodology (McNeill, 2000; Tournier,
2004). Although different forms of evaluation are introduced in the following
somewhat in isolation from one another, they should be regarded as interrelated
and integrated when implemented in real life.
Probation services aiming to promote community
measures and sanctions
Where probation services aim to promote community measures and sanctions, the
question in evaluation is whether probation, as a measure or sanction, is imposed
Durnescu ● An exploration of the purposes and outcomes of probation 275
with a high frequency or not. The assumption in this case is that effectiveness is
essentially about market share; in most cases increased use of community sanctions
is expected to reduce the use of imprisonment. Within the framework of the Council
of Europe (Annual Penal Statistics) there are two indices for measuring the incidence
of a measure or a sanction (Tournier, 2004): a global...
To continue reading
Request your trial