Experiencing offender supervision in Europe
| Author | Ioan Durnescu,Louise Kennefick,Ines Sucic,Renata Glavak Tkalic |
| Published date | 01 March 2018 |
| Date | 01 March 2018 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0264550517748360 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Experiencing offender
supervision in Europe:
The Eurobarometer –
Lessons from the
pilot study
Ioan Durnescu
University of Bucharest, Romania
Louise Kennefick
Maynooth University, Ireland
Ines Sucic and Renata Glavak Tkalic
Institute of Social Sciences Ivo Pilar, Croatia
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to describe and evaluate, as a potential research template,
a pan-European quantitative survey, the Eurobarometer on Experiencing Supervision
(EES). The tool was developed and tested across eight jurisdictions in order to evaluate
its accuracy and utility with regard to comparative research. In addition, the paper
illustrates the type of data this tool can generate and how this data can be used to
improve supervision practices around the world. In brief, EES covers eight core
domains of supervision: supervision as a human service, offender’s perception
regarding the supervisor, the relationship between the offender and the supervisor,
supervision and practical help, supervision and compliance, breach practice, super-
vision and rehabilitation and the offender’s involvement and participation. Overall,
the tool is considered useful and promising. However, further research is required in
order to demonstrate its full potential.
Corresponding Author:
Ioan Durnescu, University of Bucharest, Sociology and Social Work, B-dul Schitu Magureanu, Bucharest 9,
Romania.
Email: idurnescu@gmail.com
Probation Journal
2018, Vol. 65(1) 7–26
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0264550517748360
journals.sagepub.com/home/prb
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Keywords
comparative research, Eurobarometer, experiencing, offender supervision, probation
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to describe and evaluate, as a potential research
template, a pan-European quantitative survey, the Eurobarometer on Experiencing
Supervision (EES). The survey was developed during a COST Action on Offender
Supervision, and piloted in eight jurisdictions during 2015: Croatia, England, Ire-
land, Lithuania, Norway, Romania, Serbia and Spain.
1
The overall aim of the EES is
to address the lacuna in current literature regarding the experience of the offender
under supervision, specifically at a comparative level, as identified by Durnescu
et al. (2013). To fulfil this aim, the EES employs the following core objectives: a) to
capture a description of supervision from the perspective of the individual service
user, and b) to gain a broader view of the collective experience of supervisees
across eight European jurisdictions. This paper examines the methodology and
substantive content of the EES, before discussing how the survey meets the required
objectives. It is submitted that the EES has the potential to serve as a useful tool in
gaining a deeper, comparative understanding of supervision in Europe, from the
unique perspective of the offender.
Since the 1960s, offenders’ voices have become an important factor for cor-
rectional services in conducting criminal career research (Wootton, 1959; Bottoms
and McWilliams, 1979; Davies, 1979). Briefly, this line of research argues that the
situated and subjective experience of offenders is essential in predicting the way in
which they will react to punishment, and, ultimately, to anticipating the outcome of a
criminal justice intervention (e.g. Bieker, 1982). More recently, the focus on the
experience of the offender has been augmented by studies in the area of desistance,
which suggest that effective interventions are those that: engage with offenders in a
positive and respectful way (Maruna and Farrall, 2004; Rex, 1999); encourage
them to co-participate in the supervision process (Rex, 1999; McCulloch, 2013);
facilitate the subjective transformations of self (Maruna, 2001); use wisely the
potential of a ‘good relationship’ (Burnett and McNeill, 2005; Morash et al., 2015;
Skeem et al., 2007); and provide practical help when needed (Farrall, 2002).
Weaver and Barry (2014) state that the process of change which is fundamental for
the intended outcomes of supervision (community safety, social rehabilitation and
reintegration) cannot be achieved without the offender’s participation and active
involvement in the process, and Ansems and Braam (2016) found that probation
officers realize the importance of involving probationers and act upon this belief.
Studies on compliance argue that although practitioners are often focused on
short-term compliance (e.g. attending meetings, reaching specified goals, etc.) it is,
in fact, long-term compliance that facilitates desistance (Tyler, 1990; Bottoms,
2001). Long-term compliance describes the offender’s active and meaningful
engagement with the requirements of the criminal law. McCulloch (2013) associ-
ates short-term and long-term compliance with Robinson and McNeill’s (2008)
8Probation Journal 65(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial