EuroVista
ISSN: 2042-7026
PROBATION AND COMMUNITY JUSTICE
EuroVista
V O L U M E
V O L
IN THIS ISSUE
2
|
N U M B E R
3
|
2 0 13
...
MAIN ARTICLES WHAT’S IN A NAME: PENOLOGICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CONNOTATIONS OF PROBATION OFFICERS’
LABELLING IN EUROPE - MARTINE HERZOG-EVANS / EMPLOYMENT, REINTRGRATION AND REDUCING RE-OFFENDING - A
2
SHORT LOOK INTO OFFENDER RESETTLEMENT WITHIN EUROPE - NATALIE WOODIER / THROUGHCARE FOR PRISONERS
WITH PROBLEMATIC DRUG USE: A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE - MORAG MACDONALS, JAMES WILLIAMS AND DAVID KANE /
N O
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE PREVALENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH DISORDERS IN AN ENGLISH PROBATION POPULATION: AN
3
THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICES OF THE NORDIC COUNTRIES. KEY RESULTS AND PERSPECTIVES - RAGNAR KRISTOFFERSEN
OVERVIEW - CHARLIE BROOKER AND CORAL SIRDIFIELD / OLDER PEOPLE IN PRISON - GREG LEWIS / RELAPSE STUDY IN
/ “VINN” - AN ACCREDITED MOTIVATIONAL PROGRAM PROMOTING CONVICTED WOMEN’S SENSE OF COHERENCE AND
2 0 13
COPING - TORUNN HØJDAHL, JEANETTE H. MAGNUS, ROGER HAGEN AND EVA LANGELAND / REVIEWS
Contents
EuroVista
Probation and Community Justice
Editorial
117
EuroVista: Probation and Community Justice
Guidelines for Contributors
Main Articles
Vol.2 No.3
Published 3 times a year
Executive Board
Rob Canton (Co-Editor)
John Deering
(Book Reviews Editor)
Ioan Durnescu
Tina Eadie
David Faulkner
Ann James
Daria Janssen
Gerhard Ploeg (Co-Editor)
John Raine
Peter Raynor
Editorial Board
Aline Bauwens
Nicola Carr
Deirdre Healy
Will Hughes
Christine Morgenstern
Gabriel Oancea
Sandra Scicluna
Guy Schmit
Thomas Ugelvik
Beth Weaver
Guidelines for Contributors
Summary notes appear on the inside back cover.
What’s in a name: Penological and
institutional connotations of probation
officers’ labelling in Europe
Martine Herzog-Evans
Employment, reintegration and reducing
re-offending - a short look into a offender
resettlement within Europe
Natalie Woodier
119
132
EuroVista Administrator:
142
An Investigation into the Prevalence of
Mental Health Disorders in an English
Probation Population: An Overview
Charlie Brooker and Coral Sirdifield
152
Older people in prison
Greg Lewis
159
As well as the main articles, each issue of EuroVista includes a Forum section for which the editors welcome
shorter thought-provoking and idea-developing articles aimed at stimulating debate within academic and
practitioner circles. The journal also includes a book review section.
166
Editorial review and evaluation
All submissions are assessed by two assessors before a decision is made about publication. Authors will be
informed of assessor comments and asked to take them into account. The final decision to publish is made by
the editors.
[email protected]
Subscriptions and Purchases
£60.00 for three issues
£25.00 for single issues
Relapse study in the correctional services
of the Nordic countries. Key results and
perspectives
Ragnar Kristofferson
£10.00 for single articles
Please visit the eShop via the following link:
http://shop.bham.ac.uk/browse/extra_info.asp?
compid=1&catid=244&modid=1&prodid=0&deptid=
0&prodvarid=42
Books for review should be sent to:
Readership
The journal aims to publish articles that are relevant and accessible to practitioners, managers and policy makers
in a wide range of criminal and community justice agencies, especially probation. It is also read by students,
researchers and scholars of criminal justice. It is a journal of relevance to both practice and academic communities
and contributors are asked to take this into account.
Throughcare for prisoners with problematic
drug use: a European perspective
Morag MacDonald, James Williams
and David Kane
Detailed guidelines are available from the Editor.
Contributions should be emailed to Amanda Williams,
EuroVista
EuroVista (www.euro-vista.org) is published by the University of Birmingham in conjunction with CEP, the
European Probation organisation. Published up to three times a year, EuroVista is dedicated to linking research
with policy and practice in probation and community justice throughout Europe. The journal seeks to share
experience of good practice and responses to challenges that may have relevance to other countries.
Writing for EuroVista
Articles are welcomed from policy-makers, academics, managers, practitioners and other stakeholders in probation
and community justice. Papers may set out new research, but other articles may present or apply research
findings published elsewhere in order to enhance probation and community justice policy and practice. This
dissemination will add to the impact that research findings will have on policy and on practice. We are also
pleased to receive papers that describe and reflect on policy and practice innovations.
Readability is a key consideration. We encourage authors to avoid or minimise use of jargon and bureaucratic
language, and to explain theoretical issues clearly and simply, using specific practical examples wherever possible.
“VINN” - An accredited motivational
program promoting convicted women’s
sense of coherence and coping
Torunn Højdahl, Jeanette H. Magnus,
Roger Hagen and Eva Langeland
175
EuroNews
189
Books Received
191
Reviews
192
The typical length of contributions for the Main Articles Section is about 4,000 words, although we are flexible
and will happily accept longer or shorter pieces of good quality. Shorter articles are preferred for the Forum
Section of around 2,000-3000 words.
John Deering the School of Health and Social
Sciences, University of Wales, Newport, Caerleon
Campus, Newport NP18 3QT
Email: [email protected]
Advertising: Enquiries to the Editor
Email: [email protected]
Address for correspondence:
Amanda Williams
Format
Please indicate the title and word-length of the article when submitting material. Plain unformatted text is
preferred, though most processing formats are acceptable. Double-spacing is preferable and references should
follow the Harvard convention. Depending on the numbers of articles received, every effort is made to publish
contributions within one year of acceptance.
Contact
Articles for submission should be sent to Amanda Williams, EuroVista Administrator, by email:
[email protected]
School of Government and Society
The University of Birmingham
Cover Photographs
Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT
From left to right
[email protected]
Broken car window
Túrelio (via Wikimedia-Commons), CC-BY-SA)
Court room of the European Court of Human Rights
Djtm at the German language Wikipedia
The Hague, International Criminal Court
Designed, typeset and printed by:
Pauline Thorington-Jones
The University of Birmingham
This issue published: March 2013
Vincent van Zeijst
Suggestions for books to be reviewed (or offers to write reviews) should be sent to the book review editor, Dr
John Deering at University of Wales, Newport ([email protected])
For more detailed guidance, or for pre-draft discussion about a possible article, authors are welcome to contact
the Editors, Professor Rob Canton, De Montfort University ([email protected]) or Dr Gerhard Ploeg, Ministry
of Justice and the Police Department of Corrections, Oslo ([email protected])
Editorial
As the final edition to be published in hard copy, this issue represents a turning point in the history of
EuroVista. From now on, EuroVista will be published online only and free of charge. Whole issues and/
or individual articles may be downloaded from the EuroVista website (http://www.euro-vista.org/). The
reasons for making this change were set out by Gerhard Ploeg in the editorial introduction to Volume 2
Number 2. The single most important consideration is our ambition to make the journal more easily
accessible and therefore, we hope and expect, much more widely read. Do please tell all your friends and
colleagues the good news!
This development affords a welcome opportunity to express our thanks to everyone who contributed to
bringing the journal to its present position. We are grateful first of all to our subscribers, many of whom
have supported the journal from its earliest days. We hope that they will continue to enjoy the journal in its
new format. We are grateful too to our sponsors – originally the Association of Chief Probation Officers
(ACOP), more recently the European Probation Organisation (CEP) – whose support has ensured the
journal’s viability. CEP’s continuing sponsorship into this next phase of our history is warmly appreciated.
We are also keen to express our thanks to colleagues at the University of Birmingham who have been
responsible for formatting, printing and publication. The journal has always been attractively presented,
thanks to their care and professionalism. We are both grateful and relieved that our administrator, Amanda
Williams, who has so ably managed the processes of publication, is remaining in her role as the journal
goes online. She will continue to work closely with colleagues in CEP, especially Daria Janssen, to make
sure that standards of presentation are sustained. Members of our editorial board, which is now truly
international, review submissions to the journal and offer feedback in a positive and encouraging spirit,
while retaining standards of rigour appropriate to an academic journal. Finally, the editors wish to thank
the members of the Executive Board, many of whom have participated in nurturing the journal for many
years and whose wisdom and experience are indispensable.
At this turning point, it may be timely to reflect also on the journal’s history. The first edition of EuroVista
was published in 2009, when the Board decided that this should become a European publication and
joined with CEP to launch EuroVista: Probation and Community. But EuroVista was born from a wellestablished English journal, Vista, which first appeared in May 1995. The first editors, Jenny Roberts
(whose inspirational career was celebrated in EuroVista Volume 1 Number 3) and Colin Thomas, both
Chief Probation Officers in England, reflected in their editorial upon a time of unprecedented change in
probation in England – a period which now seems positively tranquil compared with the current turbulence
in English probation. They heralded their new journal: ‘This publication is intended to fill a gap in the range
of journals dealing with justice and penal issues, offering a focus on the management of probation service
work. While not seeking to compete with learning and academic publications, we hope it will interest a
wide audience, particularly senior managers and criminal justice agencies, but also practitioners, trainers
and policy makers.’ This is the audience that we still aspire to reach.
EuroVista
117
71
Vol. 2 no. 3
Editorial
The first edition carried articles on social work ethics, the use of marketing ideas by the probation service
to develop relationships with courts, the phenomenon of repeat victimisation and what could be learnt from
‘lessons from New York City’. The journal then, from the outset, was interested in a wide range of probation
and wider community and criminal justice concerns. Several contributions over the years have testified to
Vista’s awareness of - and interest in - practice in countries other than England. Prominent examples
include articles on Electronic Monitoring in Sweden (Norman Bishop) and ‘The Rehabilitation of Young
Offenders into the Labour Market in Germany’ (Doris Meyer), but there have also been accounts of
probation practice in the Czech Republic, Argentina, New Zealand, Zimbabwe, South Africa and the
USA! As EuroVista, the editors and the Board have tried to make the journal truly European and to
encourage a broad range of probation and criminal justice interests. Our belief, like CEP’s, is that probation
agencies across Europe can gain enormously by exchanging ideas, research findings, policy and practice
developments and confronting together problems that are often common to several different countries.
This issue includes a number of articles that demonstrate the quality and scope of the journal. Martine
Herzog-Evans offers a fascinating reflection on the words used to refer to probation, probation officers
and their clients. Collating and presenting evidence from experts from fifteen countries, she shows how
identical words, notably the term probation itself, have different connotations depending not only on the
language, but also on national culture and political context, ranging from punitive associations to ‘the
embodiment of social work’.
Natalie Woodier explores the associations between employment and desistance and describes the work
of the ‘Ex-Offender Community of Practice’ (ExOCoP) learning network, which was established to identify
and improve education, training and employment services for ex-offenders across the member states of
the European Union. Her paper points out the shortage of robust research into the effectiveness of
employment-linked initiatives and makes proposals for how evaluation should be undertaken and interpreted
in future.
Three papers explore the challenges of working with offenders with distinctive needs. Morag MacDonald,
James Williams and David Kane discuss throughcare work with problematic drug users. Their review of
European practice uncovered some examples of good practice, but also found that provision is uneven
and services often limited. The authors suggest possible reasons for this and, urging a more rigorous
approach to evaluating throughcare, insist on the importance of a full assessment of the needs of the
prisoners themselves in order to identify their difficulties and to deliver treatment.
Charlie Brooker and Coral Sirdifield describe a study that piloted a methodology for assessing the prevalence
of mental health disorder and substance misuse among offenders on probation. Inadequate information
about prevalence can vitiate service planning and delivery. Their research included interviews with both
probation staff and service users. The confidence and ability of probation staff to identify and record
mental health factors was found to be very variable - a finding with clear implications for staff training.
Greg Lewis explores the reasons why there are increasing numbers of older people detained in prisons in
England and Wales. He considers the challenges this poses for prison and probation services to make sure
that their work with older prisoners is appropriate, effective and fair. He further describes the work
undertaken by Age UK to challenge services and to support them in meeting these responsibilities.
Vol. 2 no. 3
118
70
EuroVista
Editorial
Ragnar Kristoffersen gives a concise account of a major (and continuing) research study into reconviction
in the Nordic countries. His analysis compares reconviction and resentencing of prisoners and offenders
on a community sentence and demonstrates that reoffending rates among different offender groups reflect
national differences in the criminal sanction system, as well as the distribution and proportions of offender
groups serving prison sentences as compared to those on probation. His article also examines the type of
subsequent crimes – an important consideration that is often overlooked in research into reoffending. He
concludes with some proposals for further research and some cautious suggestions about the policy
implications of this analysis. Although the comparison here is among the Nordic countries, the methodology
and findings are full of implications for other countries too.
Torunn Højdahl, Jeanette H. Magnus, Roger Hagen and Eva Langeland write about VINN, an accredited
programme for female offenders. Among the many reasons why the editors were very pleased to receive
this paper are that it focuses on provision for female offenders (when so much of the literature is ‘malestream’);
that it discusses a programme developed in Norway (rather than North America or the UK); and that it
introduces less familiar concepts - notably the idea of salutogenesis which focuses on health and wellbeing and so represents a strengths-based approach in harmony with a ‘good lives’ model. As the authors
show, new and different paradigms can be used to complement established approaches. Indeed practice
needs the stimulus of new insights: ‘what works?’ should always remain a question.
We are confident, then, that this issue continues the high standards of scholarship and the scope of interest
that have characterised (Euro)/Vista throughout its history. It is a fitting and worthy final hard copy! Our
next edition – the first to be available only online – is to be a special issue. Guest-edited by Dr Beth
Weaver of the Glasgow School of Social Work, Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde and member of
the EuroVista Editorial Board, our theme is desistance. The articles are written by people from many
different countries who are themselves in the process of desistance or who have put their offending behind
them. Careful attention to and respect for people’s own accounts has been a hallmark of the best desistance
research. We believe that this may be the first time that an academic journal has been compiled in this way.
Criminology has so often treated people as ‘objects’ of research and relatively rarely inquired into their
own understanding and experiences of offending and punishment. Desistance research has begun to
redress this and our forthcoming volume will offer personal accounts of experiences of offending and
desistance about which criminology speculates and which criminal justice practitioners try to influence.
We hope to achieve something very rare, if not unique – a collection of papers in an academic journal that
those who are serving or have served a sentence in prison or in the community might be inspired to read.
Rob Canton
EuroVista
119
71
Vol. 2 no. 3
Editorial
Vol. 2 no. 3
120
70
EuroVista
What’s in a name: Penological and
institutional connotations of
probation officers’ labelling in
Europe 1
Professor Martine Herzog-Evans
Université de Reims, faculté de droit/ University of Rheims, Law Faculty
INTRODUCTION
‘What’s in a name?’ asks Ros Burnett (Burnett,
2007: 221), who, trying to define probation for the
Dictionary of Probation and Offender
Management, adds that probation ‘is a brand name
that has international recognition’.
Practitioners and academics use the word
‘probation’, which has become a form of universal
label for offender supervision, and yet do those who
use this term assign the exact same meaning to it?
When managers, practitioners and scholars from
different countries meet to exchange ideas and
endeavour to work together, do they share the same
definition, and attach the same connotations and
values to this word? When reading the European
Probation Rules (EPR), for example, do French,
Dutch or Romanian practitioners understand the
same thing? This article, drawing on discussions and
information received from colleagues in several
different European countries, explores this question
in some depth and concludes that many terms –
and, crucially, the word ‘probation’ itself - have quite
different connotations depending on the language,
national culture and context.
EuroVista
121
71
The EPR were written in English, and then translated
into other languages. Thus, it is English words, with
their English connotation that were chosen first to
draft the EPR. Would other nations have chosen
the term ‘probation’?i Would it not have been a
better idea to translate EPR by their national
equivalent rather than using this generic word?
Words carry with them history and culture, and since
English is the Lingua Franca, it is Anglophone
history and culture that is inevitably imposed onto
other nations. The very denomination of ‘Probationii
Rules’, refers nearly word for word to the first
attempts to regulate probation at national level in
England and Wales at the beginning of the 20th
century (see Mair and Burke, 2012).
Words also convey policies. For instance, in the
EPR, Rule 66 refers to risk, need, responsivity, and
positive (protective?) factors. This reflects research
which puts emphasis on protective factors in risk
assessment (see Lösel and Bliesener, 1990) and,
more recently, in desistance (McNeill, 2009), in
particular under the influence of the Good Lives
Model (Maruna, 2001, Ward and Maruna, 2007).
Indeed risk assessment tools increasingly include
such factors (V. de Vogel, C. de Ruiter, Y. Bouman,
Vol. 2 no. 3
What’s in a name: Penological and institutional connotations of probation officers’ labelling in Europe
M. de Vries Robbes, 2009). Still, when the French
official version of EPR literally translates Rule 66 as
‘les risques, les facteurs positifs et les besoins… la
réceptivité’, this raises two concerns. First,
‘réceptivité’ will not make any sense, nor ring any
bells in a context where French readers have never
heard of the RNR literature; second, they will be
totally oblivious of the context and consequences
of the decision to add ‘protective factors’ to the
list.
For more in depth information and analysis, I
contacted all CSM members again with a written
questionnaire. Twelve responded in writing, giving
information for ten countries (Sweden, Scotland,
Norway, Northern Ireland, England and Wales,
Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Romania,
Austria) and offering more details as necessary in
further correspondence. Four others were
interviewed. There was some further discussion with
academic colleagues.
Words, and in particular official labels, can also
convey political and policy changes and I posited,
based on the French experience (see below), that
this would be particularly the case with the title given
to probation officers. One common denominator
in European probation (van Kalmthout and
Durnescu, 2009) is a backdrop of rapid evolution
– if not revolution. Overall, and despite important
differences (see special edition of Probation
Journal, 2012, no 1), probation has become more
punitive, more managerial, more accountable, less
supportive, more evidence-based, more private
sector based, involves more case management,
more work, more structured work, more
institutional control, and can also be plagued with
prison thinking.
As a last minute thought, I added into the
questionnaire an item concerning the labels used to
designate offenders, both in probation services and
in a legal context, as I assumed that this would give
additional information on the goals and ethics of
probation services.
For all these reasons it seemed to me that it would
be useful to raise a few linguistic questions. What
connotations are attributed to the words ‘probation’
and ‘officer’ in various European languages and
contexts? Do other jurisdictions use different terms
to designate their probation officers and has this
changed, due to political or institutional
developments, in the recent past. These questions
were the origins of a small research inquiry, initiated
in the Community Sanctions and Measures (CSM)
subgroup of the European Society of Criminology
at a meeting in Edinburgh in April 2011.
METHODOLOGY
I first drafted a simple table with several items: the
official name of probation officersiii in each country;
its literal translation and, when relevant, the equivalent
in English; whether this has changed and when;
whether the expression ‘social worker’ was used.
Several members of the CSM group filled in the
table, yielding information for fifteen jurisdictions.
Vol. 2 no. 3
122
70
FINDINGS
1) Probation officers
a) Use and connotation of the word ‘probation’
The word probation is still widely used in Europe
to label services, missions and staff. France,
Hungary, Northern Ireland, the Island of Jersey,
Romania, Germany, Austria, and Sweden use the
term to refer to their staff. What the research
strikingly reveals is that probation conveys vastly
different meanings in each one of the fifteen European
countries which have participated.
Probation as a talisman to defend
against… the worst excesses of the
culture of control’
(Burnett, 2007:221). Historically, probation meant
a period of testing: being on probation implies that
the person is given a trial period during which he/
she has to prove something. In England and
Wales, probably because of this literal sense, but
also because of the 1907 Act which stated that the
purpose of probation supervision was to ‘advise,
assist and befriend’, it has always had a very positive
connotation, linked to its welfarist and even former
‘missionary’ dimension. In such a context, it may
appear to be a precious treasure which needs to be
defended against the tides of the culture of control.
The positive connotation attached to ‘probation’ is
shared by its close neighbour, Jersey, where the
expression ‘probation officer’, has always been
EuroVista
Main Articles
used. It designates social workers appointed by
the Court as ‘délegués’ in criminal and non-criminal
family matters. In Austria, ‘Bewährungshelfer’,
likewise means those who support, care and help
offenders under probation, probation meaning
personal and social support during a probation
period.
Not all authors are as positive, however. Mike
Nellis wrote (personal communication): ‘My
continuing reservation in the 21st century about
probation as it was understood traditionally, is that
it does not connote anything about restorative justice
- it is unduly focused, in an anachronistic way, just
on individual offenders. We should not lose sight of
that, or of rehabilitation, but equally we should bring
in concern for victims, as restorative justice does,
and also the wider community context in which
offenders live - as Justice Reinvestment strategies
do.’
Indeed, probation, whether traditional or more
punitive, certainly leaves out issues such as human
rights, legitimacy of justice (but see Durnescu, 2010,
Connolly and Ward, 2008; van Zyl Smit,
forthcoming), and is rather silent concerning rights
to fair legal procedures, or with matters of consent,
and indeed, more often than not, ignores altogether
the victim (Cario, 2004, Herzog-Evans, 2008),
which may still be relevant in the course of carrying
out a sentence (Herzog-Evans, 2011-2012). In this
respect, if expressions such as probation officers,
agents, supervisors, or helpers, may well apply to
probation staff in charge of supervision, other
designations may apply to the field in which they
operate. For instance, in France, probation as a
field is called ‘sentences’ implementation’ or
‘sentence management’.
As a matter of fact, ‘probation’ does not have an
‘anti-culture of control’ meaning in all languages and
cultures. On the contrary, probation can
sometimes convey the worst excesses of the
culture of control. In France, it is used to counterbalance the word ‘insertion’ – roughly the operative
word for desistance – in the official label of probation
officers (the unnecessarily complicated ‘Penitentiary
insertion and probation counsellors’ - CPIP.) France
thus attempts to reconcile what it regards as
contradictory terms. In Northern Ireland, the word
EuroVista
123
71
‘probation’ conveys the following: ‘Public protection
through risk management, enforcement and
offending programmes’. In other countries,
probation may be simply descriptive and neutral,
as I was told was the case in Romania.
Laws sometimes define exactly what probation
is. In Scotland, for example, probation is defined
in the national standards as a disposal which
‘requires the offender to work towards an
acknowledgement of responsibility for offending
behaviour and seeks to reduce the risk of
reoffending by combining supervision and
control with help, encouragement and challenge’
(Social Work Services Group 1991, para. 7.1). A
similar complex mix of goals is apparent in French
law. The mission of probation officers has recently
been defined by the Prison Act of November 24,
2009 (art. 13), as being in charge of the preparation
and execution of judicial decisions pertaining to both
insertion and probation, which implies that they
implement insertion and prevention of recidivism
policies, supervise or control offenders and prepare
their release, both in prison and community settings.
b) Use and connotation of the word
‘officer’
Four countries still use the word ‘officer’ to this
day: Hungary, Northern Ireland, Jersey, Sweden.
Such was formerly also the case in England and
Wales, where it seems to have originated. Other
countries, whilst adhering to the word ‘probation’,
prefer to add other terms to it. Some use the word
counsellor. Such is the case of both Romania and
France (respectively ‘consilier’ and ‘conseiller’),
a word which aims at being neutral and descriptive.
However, at least in French, it may be seen as an
echo of the English 1907 Act ‘advise’, as the verb
‘conseiller’ can precisely be translated into ‘advise’.
Other countries refer to helpers. Two German
speaking countries echo the second famous 1907
Act emblem, i.e. ‘assist’: Germany and Austria
call their probation officers, ‘Bewährungshelfer’ those who help with probation. It seems to also
mean, but to a lesser degree, those who supervise.
The word ‘officer’ appears to come along with its
own burden of ambiguity. It can mean both ‘a
person in the armed services who holds a position
Vol. 2 no. 3
What’s in a name: Penological and institutional connotations of probation officers’ labelling in Europe
of responsibility, authority, and duty ...…
‘and a ‘government official’ (http://
www.collinsdictionary.com). In other words, it
can be both punitive and descriptive and neutral.
In American English, according to Hans Toch,
writing in the context of prison settings, ‘the fact
that prison officers are called “officers”… has invited
us to envisage their mission and organisation as
police-like, or as resembling the mission and
organisation of the military’ (Toch, 2011:437). In
French, the word officer would cause strong
opposition as it exclusively conveys a military or
police meaning. In a previous research on
desistance (Herzog-Evans, 2011), probation
officers were asked what they imagined they would
become five years from then and one answered: ‘a
criminologist with a gun in a holster’. This is the
sort of image that the word ‘officer’ would convey
in French.
In Jersey, if the word ‘officer’ is still used, its meaning
seems to be blurred by the French heritage and the
vocabulary that goes with it. Brian Heath explained:
‘We talk about “probation officers” in English but
the official translation of our Law refers to a
“delegate”; the original and still correct title is
“délégué.” Some more recent legislation refers to
“probation officer” but with the definition referring
back to “délégué.” (Legislation is now in English.)
We do not use the term social worker but refer to
probation officers using social work skills.’ In Jersey
probation officers are still seen, for the most part,
as officers working for the courts. Most
jurisdictions, however, use the classic ‘officer’ label.
2) Other Titles
a) Mixed Titles
As we have seen, in France, a complex label is
used in order to reflect the opposite meanings that
this country attaches to supervision and ‘insertion’.
To this already complex label a recent decree (Dec.
2010) recently added ‘penitentiary’, in order to
underline the ever growing ties to the prison services.
This also reflects a cultural trait: France is above all
a country of lawyers – and probably of ‘labellers’ –
and given the syllogistic nature of its legal reasoning,
it always tries to refer to an exact label which
conveys precisely what a person is or does. Other
nations prefer to use more subjective titles.
Vol. 2 no. 3
124
70
b) Carer, supporter and helper
Norway clearly stands out as the only country in
our research which refers exclusively to care. It
designates its probation officers with the rather
poetic term of ‘Friomsorgsmed-arbeidere’, i.e.
literally ‘those employed in care in freedom’. It
refers to carers who work in the community, or rather
in the free world as opposed to prison. However,
in practice, it seems that staff use a term that
translates as ‘probation worker’.
Other countries also refer to the help that probation
officers can give to probationers, as in Germany
and Austria. In The Netherlands, the label
‘reclasseringwerker’ means ‘employees/workers
concerned with social recovery’. This is worlds
apart from countries which use more punitive labels.
c) Offender managers
In England and Wales, with the creation of NOMS
in 2004, ‘offender managers’ replaced the traditional
‘probation officer’ title. Both ‘probation’ and
‘officer’ have disappeared from laws, guidelines and
official documents, whilst still being used by
practitioners and probably by service users.
Superimposing this new title over the familiar label
of ‘probation’ is a definite move towards the abovementioned ‘culture of control’: the rather afflictive
word ‘offender’ puts emphasis on the offender’s
personal responsibility, on the offence and on risks
(see section 5), rather than on the individual’s
environment and needs. Replacing ‘officer’ by
‘manager’ reflects the increasing managerialism
which is plaguing many European probation services
(Kalmthout and Durnescu, 2008).
Spain also uses the word ‘manager’. However, it
does not link it to offenders, but to measures
executed in the community. In that context, it is
rather close to the French concept of ‘sentence
management’ (see supra) and refers to the idea that
sentences are not static, but can be adapted as time
passes to the person’s changing circumstances.
Precisely, it belongs to a group of countries which
looks for more neutral terminology.
EuroVista
Main Articles
d) Sentence assistants
Several countries prefer to refer to the role that
probation officers play in the implementation of
sentences. Such is the case of Spain with its
Servicios de gestión de penas y medidas
alternativas which translates as ‘Management of
alternative sanctions and measures services’. Italy
too refers to Operatori UEPE, which literally means
‘External Penal Execution worker’. Belgium refers
even more directly to the judicial mandate, calling
probation officers ‘Justitie assistant/assistant de
justice’, i.e. justice assistants’. It is not surprising
that these countries would refer to their judicial
mandate given the fact that courts still play an
important role in the post sentenciam phase of the
penal process (Padfield et al, 2010). This does not
mean that they are more punitive, more sentenceoriented, nor that they have necessarily forsaken
social work.
3) Use of social work
The use of the term ‘social work’ has been
described as a ‘potent symbol of the organisation’s
… heritage and aspirations’ (Nellis, 2004: 120).
Some 10 countries still use the term ‘social
worker’ to various degrees. Scotland, for
instance, has ‘Criminal justice social workers’.
However, while only a few have made it their official
label, several countries use the expression ‘social
worker’ in practice - in Hungary, Austria,
sometimes in Italy and, occasionally, but increasingly
rarely, in France.
Other countries do not use the expression ‘social
worker’, but nonetheless refer to resettlement,
support, help, rehabilitation, etc. These countries
are: Germany, Austria, Romania, The
Netherlands and Norway. In other countries
probation officers may not necessarily be called
social workers but they do have a social worker
background or training. Such a training is required
in the following 8/15 jurisdictions: Scotland,
Northern Ireland, Jersey and British Isles, Spain
(and apparently also in Catalonia), Belgium,
Romania, the Netherlands and in Sweden.
EuroVista
125
71
In Romania, approximately 40% of probation
officers are in fact social workers, whilst 60% are
lawyers, educators or sociologists. In Sweden,
recruiters look for people who have a degree in
social work or a similar training, i.e. who have a
university degree in social sciences, behavioural
sciences or law. Perhaps 50 to 65% have a social
work background. In Catalonia it has been
estimated that 90% of probation officers have a
social worker background, the other 10% being
psychologists.
Should part or all probation officers be trained social
workers is a question which this article does not
endeavour to address. And indeed, in other
countries, a clear difference is made between
probation and social work. Such is the case in:
Jersey, Northern Ireland, and Sweden. In
England and Wales, ‘POs were always “officers
of the court” and answerable to the court - rather
than social workersiv. Another respondent added:
‘There was a time in our history when probation
officers saw themselves as social workers in the
criminal justice system and they trained … in the
same way as social workers. This was set aside for
political reasons, since their task was redefined as
punishment in the community, and social work
gave unwanted implications of help and support’.
In other words, social work has been deemed not
in line with current punitive policies. In France, the
same tendency is apparent: most probation officers,
except those who were recruited a long time ago,
typically say that social work is not their job. This
can be explained by an increasing emphasis on
control and supervision in its literal sense, by
enormous caseloads and by a changed recruitment
and training system (Herzog-Evans, 2011, 2012).
In other countries, social work may well have a
negative connotation. Italy is one of the
jurisdictions which have changed the official label
of probation officers in order to reflect policy or
institutional changes. Rarely if ever is the term ‘social
workers’ used as an alternative to ‘operatori’. This
is partly because it is thought important to
differentiate between those who work in the field of
social work and probation services.
Vol. 2 no. 3
What’s in a name: Penological and institutional connotations of probation officers’ labelling in Europe
4) Changing titles to reflect changes
“Any new name should convey, in
shorthand, what the service is, does
and aspires to be, and also provides a
peg on which the public can eventually
hang a deeper understanding of its
work” (Nellis, 1999)
Very few countries have experienced no change
at all in modern times, although in Jersey the label
‘probation officer’ seems to have existed from the
beginning. In Germany, since probation services
were created in 1953, probation officers have been
called in exactly the same way. This may reflect a
consistency in their mission over the last decades.
Indeed, one can detect the inevitable signs of
managerialism and some restructuring in certain
Länder or privatisation in others, but the core
missions of these officers have not changed.
Likewise, in Austria, there has been no attempt to
change the designation of probation officers.
One of the goals of this research was to determine
whether recent changes in probation and
probation services and their goals had been
reflected in the way probation officers were
designated. Such was the case in 11/15 countries:











France (2010)
Scotland (1970; 1991)
England and Wales (2004)
Belgium (1999)
Sweden (1989)
Italy (2005)
The Netherlands (2006)
Norway (2001)
Northern Ireland (roughly in 1950)
Spain (2011)
Romania (2006)
However, the reasons behind such changes vary
considerably.
a) Change of title to reflect institutional
changes
In seven countries, reforms essentially convey
institutional changes; however, as we shall see, in
several of them they also reflect policy agendas. The
case of Belgium is particularly interesting. Here
Vol. 2 no. 3
126
70
staff used to be called ‘probation officers’, but this
label was abandoned after the infamous 1996
Dutroux case and replaced by ‘justice assistant’.
This reform, which took place in 1999 (Act of 13
June 1999), can be explained by the fact that the
Dutroux case had questioned the functioning of
police services, and of the penal system as a whole.
The very legitimacy of the entire Belgian political
system became the subject of an intense societal
debate and prolonged media attention. Pressure
was placed onto politicians to act and reform in a
significant way. A first move consisted in merging
all community social work services and to assign
them to unique buildings, called ‘Houses of Justice’.
These Houses would host a variety of personnel:
-
external social workers of the Prison Service;
probation workers;
Victim Support Service workers;
Employees of the Penal Mediation Service.
A common label, ‘justice assistant’, was chosen in
order to designate all these practitioners. Houses
of Justice were to be responsible to offer initial legal
aid to all citizens, in both penal and civil spheres.
Justice was first and foremost a service due to
citizens and should, consequently, be close to them
and easily available. In other words, the label change
reflects both an institutional and philosophical
revolution (Bauwens, 2011).
Changes in other countries have not been as radical.
Previously, in Spain, there was no clearly official
name for probation officers, but since 2011 they
have been called ‘Delegat de gestión de penas y
medidas alternativas’ – i.e. delegates for the
management of alternative sanctions and measures.
This change probably reflects the creation of a new
body, the ‘Service for the Execution of Alternative
Sanctions and Measures’which has more autonomy,
and distinguishes more clearly between those who
work in prison settings and those who work in the
community and makes them more visible than
before.
In The Netherlands a reorganisation of services in
2006 created two different types of
‘recolasseringswerker’: on the one hand, ‘adviseurs’
(advisors), i.e. workers in charge of assessing
probationers and preparing pre-sentence reports;
EuroVista
Main Articles
on the other hand, ‘toezichthouders’ (offender
supervisors), i.e. workers in charge of supervising
probationers. However, in Dutch, ‘supervisor’
refers to supervising the compliance of offenders
with the judicially designed obligations of the order
or sentence. These officers also oversee other
professionals who are in charge of helping the
offender comply.
In Italy, at first glance, the change of label appears
slight. Originally called CSSA workers (Centre for
Adult Social Services workers), they became UEPE
workers (operatori) in 2005 (Law 27 July n. 154,
2005), i.e. Office for the External Penal Execution
workers. The slight change intends to reflect that
these social workers operate in the field of
sentence’s implementation, making it clearer that they
are a ‘specialised service’, in charge of the post
sentenciam phase of the penal process, in
partnership with specialised Supervision Courts.
With the Probation Act of 1950, Northern Ireland
went (without much debate) from ‘police court
missionaries’ to ‘probation officers’. This followed
a 1946 agreement whereby Northern Ireland would
benefit from the same level of social services as the
rest of the United Kingdom. Probation was severed
from its original court connection and became the
responsibility of the Ministry of Home Affairs,
bringing better funding, recruitment and organisation
(Fulton, 2008). Unsurprisingly, staff would be called
probation officers, attending the same training
programme as in England, and developing from a
traditional charity base to a professionalised
probation service, as in England (Mair and Burke,
2012).
In Norway, the change from ‘Those employed in
care in freedom related to criminality’ to ‘Those
employed in care in freedom’, which occurred in
2001 ( the Execution of Sentences Act), only echoed
an organisational change. Before 2001, probation
officers were managed directly at national level and
yet were at the same time and to a large extent
autonomous in practice. With the law reform of
2001, a regional management-level was introduced
between the national and the local (individual unit)
level. Prison and probation were to have joint
management at both national and regional level, while
remaining separate at the local unit level.
EuroVista
127
71
Semantically, it is interesting that the words ‘care’
and ‘freedom’ were kept, whereas ‘related to
criminality’ was deleted raising a question about
whether there was some deeper meaning to this
change. One explanation may be that a new form
of punishment, community sentence, was
introduced. Before 2001, there had been a
community service, in the form of unpaid work for
the benefit of the community. The unpaid work
element remained in the community sentence, but
became one of the numerous possibilities to fill the
number of hours imposed by the court. The
probation service now had the authority to decide
what the content of the sentence would be. About
40% of this order consists in activities related to
improving employment or educational possibilities,
receiving treatment, programme participation or
mediation. In other words, rehabilitation is now part
of the sentence. This change, mirrored by the
probation officers’ designation, can thus be
interpreted as having reduced the punishing,
retributive character of the court sentence. At the
same time, the reform of 2001 has, in a Foucaldian
way, drawn these rehabilitative activities – which
were previously carried out by the community at
large – into the retributive context of a court
sentence. If that is the case, then there might be a
hidden punitive connotation to the reform and the
change in label.
The French situation is equally complex. Before
1993, probation officers did not really have an
official label. They were recruited in the ranks of
educators and social assistants. Prison and
community services were also separated. In 1993,
probation officers obtained a new status and were
called ‘insertion and probation counsellors’ (CIP)
which, as noted previously, was meant to reflect
what was seen as the dual penological goals of these
services: insertion and probation. Former educators
and social assistants were strongly encouraged to
change their status and name; a lot were reluctant,
regarding the new name as emphasising a new
punitive trend (because of the use of probation and
the absence of reference to social work), but most
gave in as there were strong financial incentives. In
1999, prison and community services fully merged
– a first step to an ever growing prison service
colonisation of probation services (Herzog-Evans,
2012a; forthcoming). Indeed a decree passed in
Vol. 2 no. 3
What’s in a name: Penological and institutional connotations of probation officers’ labelling in Europe
December 2010 for the application of a 2009 Prison
law, which had considerably increased the prison
orientation of their missions and goals, changed the
name of probation officers to ‘penitentiary insertion
and probation counsellors’. This was the flag that
was planted in the prison service’s newly fully
conquered terrain. The decree also eradicated from
the Criminal Procedure Code any mention of ‘social
worker’ and replaced it by the new CPIP label. In
other words, the reform does reflect a fully achieved
institutional colonisation; in addition, it reflects a more
punitive trend: it is about not doing social work
anymore, which was already apparent in the field –
except with ‘older’ practitioners. Probation officers
recruited after 1993 and 1999 have fully accepted
this shift.
b) Change of title to reflect punitive changes
So indeed, in four countries, changes do reflect
punitive changes, which vary in intensity. In 1989,
Sweden went from ‘treatment assistants’ to ‘free
work inspectors’, reflecting a change in policy, from
assisting treatment to controlling in the community.
This also coincided with a new focus, made
apparent in the legal system, from an assessment of
how the offender could be enabled to change to a
focus on the nature of the crime and value of the
punishment. It was also in the line of societal changes
due to difficult economic times, which led to many
changes in the welfare state (Kuhnle, 2012).
As was mentioned above, England and Wales has
forsaken the traditional ‘probation officer label’ for
a new more managerial and more offender centred
‘offender manager’. In practice, the traditional label
is still used, but almost all official documents refer
to ‘offender managers’. As noted previously, this
shift is resented by many practitioners because of
its punitive and managerial connotations.
Respondents remarked that ‘Management sounds
very efficient and business-like’ and ‘The changes
reflect the arrival of new public management, a
growing belief that probation was not delivering
effective sanctions in the community, and anxiety
about loss of public faith in the probation service.
Thus, the changes in the Probation Service mirror
changes in late modernity and the emerging ‘culture
of control’ as a consequence’. It was felt that
probation services barely escaped the North
Vol. 2 no. 3
128
70
American label of ‘correctional officers’, thanks in
part to the role played by Napo (the professional
association and trade union).
Peter Raynor asks whether probation is still
possible, explaining: ‘The word ‘probation’ itself
survives mainly in the titles of jobs and organisations,
though in the former case it appears precarious: the
term ‘offender manager’ is increasingly replacing
‘probation officer’, and the most durable continuing
use of the term appears to be in titles like Probation
Trust, or in organisations such as the Probation
Association, the Probation Chiefs’Association, the
Inspectorate of Probation and the National
Association of Probation Officers (NAPO). Some
of these residual uses may be less secure or
prevalent if the vision outlined in the recent Green
Paper comes to pass (Ministry of Justice 2010)’
(Raynor, 2012).
Mike Nellisv is of a slightly different opinion,
howevervi: ‘I was not actually as wedded to keeping
probation as some of my colleagues and spent a
while pushing the idea that in order to resist having
a bad name imposed on us we should promote our
own new name - so I suggested we should move to
the term “community justice service”. I intended
“community justice” to connote not “social work”
as such but three inter-related things: anticustodialism (a minimalist approach to using prison),
restorative justice (which can encompass the needs,
rights and interests of both victims and offenders,
and community safety (reducing crime and creating
a positive sense of security and wellbeing). I was
never in a majority on this - most colleagues
preferred to press for keeping probation, because
of its traditional connotations and because it was a
term that still had international credibility. I am not
unhappy to see probation survive, but as I worried
at the time, it has survived while having its realmeaning hollowed out - we fought successfully to
preserve a word but not what the word stood for.’vii
From this perspective, the situation in Scotland may
prima facie seem ideal as the expression ‘social
worker’ still prevails. One must remember that this
new label was adopted in 1970: previously Scotland
used the English ‘probation officer’ label. With the
1991 reform, however, these practitioners have
been called ‘Criminal justice social workers’, and
EuroVista
Main Articles
not merely ‘social workers’. This does reflect a
change towards a more punitive penology.
Respondents said ‘Since 1991, the intent of
governments has been to make community sanctions
more effective and more credible with sentencers
and the public, both so as to reduce the use of
custody (which has in fact gone up) and so as to
better protect the public by reducing reoffending.
The old welfarist approach was seen as being too
lax, and so there has been more of a focus on deeds
as well as needs, on tackling offending as well as
social problems’. But the change was also meant
to reflect organisational changes. Services would
be ‘required to re-organize the delivery of offender
services along specialist lines to facilitate strategic
planning and funding processes. This led in larger
regions to the creation of specialist teams and in
smaller authorities to the identification of designated
specialist staff with caseloads devoted solely or
primarily to 100 per cent funded criminal justice
work’.
One country stands out as it has opted for a new
name as the result of a desire to acquire the label
‘probation’. Romania went from ‘counsellor of
social reintegration and supervision’ to ‘probation
counsellor’. Civil servants wanted ‘probation’ to
be included in their designation and obtained
satisfaction in 2006.
5) Addendum: probationers label
As mentioned, a question was inserted about the
way probationers were designated both by
practitioners and in the law. I had become interested
in the designation of offenders in the course of
another research, on the professional culture of
French sentence’s implementation judges. I had
noticed that in their rulings, some judges would call
offenders ‘Mr’ or ‘Mrs’ whilst others would simply
call them First Name SURNAME and I started to
draw statistics and to try and link this to the nature
of their rulings. In this endeavour, I was strongly
convinced by the legitimacy (Tyler, 2006 and 2007)
and therapeutic jurisprudence (Petrucci, 2002)
literature emphasis on respect for offenders. I was
also influenced by the convict criminology
movement. As Jones, Ross, Richards, and Murphy
(2009: 166) argued: ‘The group has also called for
a careful review of stigmatizing language commonly
EuroVista
129
71
used in criminal justice articles and textbooks. For
example, the use of the term “offenders” is
derogatory and detrimental to defendants, convicts,
and ex-convicts trying to re-enter the community.’
I only obtained answers from ten out of the fifteen
countries. Oddly, a few people did not quite get
the meaning of my question: enquiring about how
probation officers should be defined was instantly
understood, but wondering how probationers were
labelled seemed to have taken quite a lot of my
colleagues aback. Of those ten countries, two
categories emerged: those who tried and be neutral;
those who had no problem with using the word
‘offender’.
a) Neutral and/or respectful labels
In the first group, the word ‘offender’ seems to be
carefully avoided and a more neutral term preferred.
Some do this by referring exactly to probationers’
legal status. It may be argued that this is not entirely
neutral or descriptive but still emphasises their
offending history. However, it also reflects a careful
attempt to avoid using the more derogatory term of
‘offender’, which only refers to the offence.
Conversely, referring to the person’s legal status
implies that this is just a moment in his or her life,
whilst referring to the fact that he or she is subjected
to supervision.
In this vein, in France, laws and court cases refer
to ‘the sentenced’ or ‘the interested’ (literal
translation), whilst practitioners use ‘the sentenced’,
or ‘the probationer’ or even ‘the proba.’ for short.
People who are supervised by probation services
whilst incarcerated are called ‘detainees’ (les
détenus) – rather than ‘the prisoners’ (les
prisonniers), both in legal documents and in
practice. In fact, the recent Prison Law (2009) has
even carefully replaced in all legal documents, codes
and norms the former expression ‘the incarcerated’
by ‘the incarcerated person’ in order to emphasise
that a detainee is first and foremost a person and
should be treated as suchviii. It is plain that all
practitioners, be they judges or probation officers
do try hard not to use derogatory labels. The lawyer
in most of them also dictates that they should use
words that are as precise as possible and reflect
exactly what the legal status of a person is.
Vol. 2 no. 3
What’s in a name: Penological and institutional connotations of probation officers’ labelling in Europe
Equally, in Italy, practitioners and the law usually
refer to ‘the person’, and less frequently to ‘the
sentenced person’. During the post sentenciam
phase, they also refer to ‘the probationer’ or, again
‘the person’. These words, like in French, are
designed to describe at what stage of the penal
process the person is. Similarly before someone
has been tried, he is called ‘the charged’ or ‘the
accused’, but also, again, the ‘person’. With the
same intent, in Romania, probationers are called
‘convicted persons’ or ‘supervised persons’
(Persoane condamnates or Persoane
supravegheate). In Jersey, laws refer to the French
old term ‘l’inculpé’ix, but policy documents and
practitioners use ‘Probationer’ or ‘child’ or other
non-derogatory terms wherever possible, though the
word ‘offender’ is still used from time to time. In
Germany, laws use the expression ‘convicted
person’ (die verurteilte Person). A respondent
explains: ‘The professional language of probation
workers has moved from “Proband”, which, I think
would be probationer, to “Klient” – easy: client. The
website of the institution in our Federal State speaks
of “fellow citizens who have offended”, not as a
technical term but to show who are the people they
work with’. In Spain and Catalonia, courts are
very formal, and refer to ‘the accused’, ‘the
sentenced person’ (el condenado). Probation
services also use ‘the sentenced person’. Offender
is never used, and in fact, just like in French, ‘does
not even sound right in Spanish’.
In Belgium, in the Houses of Justice, an offender is
referred to as ‘justitiabele’ (Dutch) or ‘justiciable’
(French). In France, ‘justiciable’ is also used to
describe any person in contact with the justice
system and is often used by probation staff or
sentence implementation judges. It implies that the
‘justiciable’ is entitled to receive a service from the
Justice Public Service. Since Houses of Justice deal
equally with offenders, victims and other members
of the population in need of legal assistance, the
word ‘justiciable’ suits their overall reach to the entire
population.
Scandinavian countries stand out as they use words
which are intended to be neutral, but which are not
necessarily based on the judicial and penal process.
In Sweden, people who are incarcerated are
referred to as ‘inmates’ and people who are in the
Vol. 2 no. 3
130
70
community are referred to as ‘clients’. Equally, in
Norway, those in prison are called ‘inmates
(innsatte) – but, like in France, not ‘prisoners’
(fanger). In the course of probation, the word
‘client’ is also in use, along with a more continental
and legal ‘domfelte’, i.e. ‘those who are sentenced’.
A respondent said: ‘In general, one might say that
semantics indicate that offenders are considered to
be “people who have broken the law”, instead of
“law-breakers” or “criminals”. An offence is
considered to be something that at some point
happened in someone’s life, an incident in an
otherwise different life. It is not a sign of a permanent
characteristic that will define him or her as a person.’
Such is not the case with the more derogatory word
‘offender’.
b) Offender
Other countries seem to have no problem with the
word offender or equivalents. In Northern Ireland,
they are called “offenders”, which some feel
contradicts the aim of enabling them to change their
identity and behaviour. This term is also widely used
in England and Wales. However, in this jurisdiction,
terminology may vary in the law, in the courts or in
probation services. For instance, in the courtroom
the person being prosecuted or tried is referred to
as ‘the defendant’, but those who have already been
convicted and who are on a Community Order are
called ‘offenders under supervision’. One must
remember at this point that probation officers are
now called ‘offender managers’. Still, practitioners
also refer to ‘probationers’. While ‘the official
language is “offender”, the back-stage language
might be “probationer”’ x.
CONCLUSION
As we posited, identical words, and crucially, the
word ‘probation’ itself, have different meanings
depending on the language and the national culture
and context, ranging from being perceived as
punitive to being perceived as the embodiment of
social work. Language does reflect the penology
and organisational structure of probation. Labels
are indeed intended to convey meaning. They are
also vectors which draw attention to change and
express its nature. If most European probation
services have been trying to become better
organised, more professional and sometimes more
EuroVista
Main Articles
accountablexi, they also have for a good part – but
with interesting exceptions – become more punitive
and/or more controlling, which has usually been
flagged in the official terminology. Conversely, when
designating probation services’ clients, these punitive
trends are not apparent: most countries stay away
from derogatory or stigmatising labels which would
reduce a person to its offence. It is to be hoped
that things remain that way.
ix
x
xi
NOTES
Official European translations can get it seriously wrong.
For instance, the French official translation has
regrettably translated ‘assessment’ by ‘appreciation’
(see Rules 66 to 71). It could not have been a poorer
choice. In French, ‘appreciation’ is never used in such
a context. To put it bluntly, in EPR, it has no
understandable meaning, and certainly does not mean
assessment. The correct translation would have been
‘évaluation’ (and for risk assessment: ‘évaluation du
risque’).
ii
While the term is borrowed from the English language,
4
it actually originates in the Latin word, ‘probatio’.
iii
Even using the expression ‘probation officer’, a near
universal designation in the literature, risks supporting
the English language (unintentional) ‘imperialism’!
iv
However, according to Ros Burnett, “The duality of
the role was made explicit when I worked in the service
during the 1970s and 1980s. We prided ourselves on
being social workers attached to the court and in being
able to perform both roles, though the ‘care-control’
balance would shift depending on the specific case
and circumstances. It also varied with each
practitioner’s character and working style”.
v
He also presents a series of periods with various goals
and guiding philosophies: From the 1890s to the 1920s,
probation was about saving souls (in the Christian
sense); from 1920 to the 1960s, it was more about
‘treating’ the offender (in the psychodymanic sense);
from the 1970s to the 1980s, it became ‘providing
alternatives to custody’; in the 1990s, it was about
challenging offending behaviour; since 2000, it has
become about protecting the public.
vi
However, in the Cambrian Law Review he earlier did
write about ‘the end of English probation in the early
21st century’ (Nellis, 2004: 115).
vii
Personal communication with the author.
viii
A rather contradictory move given that over the last
ten years French prisons have changed for a more
punitive and American type of governance (Chantraine,
2010). However, this can also be explained by the
increasing judicial overview over French prisons
(Herzog-Evans, 2012b).
In France, this term only applied to untried offenders.
Interestingly in this country, it was abandoned in 2000
because of its stigmatising connotation and because it
implied that the person was already guilty. Instead, a
more descriptive ‘person put under scrutiny’ (‘mis en
examen’ – roughly the equivalent of the US ‘person of
interest’) was chosen. If, in practice ‘inculpé’ is not
used any more, the public soon understood that ‘mis
en examen’ meant to be suspected of being guilty and
the new label has become just as stigmatising as the
old one: labels can convey reality; they cannot change
it.
Interestingly, one or two voluntary sector organisations
avoid using the word ‘offender’ wherever possible.
Whether they have succeeded is another question.
i
EuroVista
132
71
ENDNOTES
1
With the kind help of Aline Bauwens, Miranda Boone,
Ros Burnett, Robert Canton, Tim Chapman, Jane
Dominey, Ioan Durnescu, Loraine Gelsthorpe, Brian
Heath, Elena Larrauri, Gill McIvor, Fergus McNeill, Mike
Nellis, Christine Morgenstern, Gerhard Ploeg, Luisa
Ravagnani, Peter Raynor, Hans Jörg Schlechter and
Kerstin Svensson.
REFERENCES
Bauwens, A. (2011). ‘Organisational change,
increasing managerialism and social work values in
the Belgian Houses of Justice, Department of
Offender Guidance’, European Journal of
Probation, no. 3(3): 15-30.
Burnett, R. (2007). ‘Probation’, in R. Canton and
D. Hancock (eds.), Dictionary of Probation and
Offender Management, Willan Publishing: 220221.
Cario, R. (2004). ‘La place de la victime dans
l’exécution des peines ‘, Recueil Dalloz, Chron.,
145.
Chantraine, G. (2010). ‘French prisons of yesterday
and today: two conflicting modernities - a sociohistorical view’, Punishment and Society, no.
12(1): 27-46.
Connoll, M. and Wart, T. (2008). Morals, rights
and practice in the human services: Effective
and fair decision-making in health, social care
and criminal justice, Jessica Kingsley.
Vol. 2 no. 3
What’s in a name: Penological and institutional connotations of probation officers’ labelling in Europe
De Vogel, V., de Ruiter, C., Bouman, Y. and de
Vries Robbes, M. (2009). SAPROF, Structured
Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence
Risk, Utrecht, Netherlands, Forum Educatief.
Durnescu, I. (2010). ‘Pains of Probation: Effective
Practice and Human Rights’, International Journal
of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, vol. 20(10): 11-16.
Fulton, B. (2008). ‘Northern Ireland’, in A. M. van
Kalmthout and I. Durnescu (eds.), Probation in
Europe, Nijmegen, Wolf Legal Publishers: 725763.
Herzog-Evans, M. (2008). ‘Les victimes et
l’exécution des peines. En finir avec le déni et
l’idéologie’, Ajpénal, pp. 356-360.
Herzog-Evans, M. (2011). ‘Desisting in France:
What probation officers know and do. A first
approach’, European Journal of Probation
(Ejprob), no. 3(2): 29-46, available at http://
www.ejprob.ro
Lösel, F. and Bliesener, T. (1990). ‘Resilience in
adolescence: A study on generalizability of protective
factors’. In K. Hurrelman et F. Lösel (dir.), Health
Hazards in Adolescence, New York: de Gruyter:
299-32.
Mair, G. and Burke, L. (2012). Redemption,
Rehabilitation and Risk Management. A history
of probation, Routledge.
Maruna, S. (2001). Making Good, How exconvicts reform and rebuild their lives, American
Psychological Association.
McNeill, F. (2009). Towards effective practice
in offender supervision, the Scottish Centre for
Crime and Justice Research, Report, 01/09.
Nellis, M. (1999). ‘Politics, probation and the
English language’, Vista, vol. 4(3): 233-240.
Nellis, M. (2004). “Into the fields of corrections”:
the end of English probation in the early 21st century’,
Cambrian Law Review, 35; 115-133.
Herzog-Evans, M. (2011-2012). Droit de
l’exécution des peines, 4th ed., Paris, DallozAction.
Padfield, N., van Zyl Smit, D. and Dünkel, F.
(2010). Release from Prison. European Policy
and Practice, Cullompton, Willan, 2010.
Herzog-Evans, M. (2012a). ‘Probation in France:
Some things old, some things new, some things
borrowed, and often blue’, Probation Journal, no.
58(4): 345-354.
Petrucci, C. J. (2002). ‘Respect as a component
in the judge-defendant interaction in a specialized
domestic violence court that utilizes therapeutic
jurisprudence’, Criminal Law Bulletin, no. 38(2):
263-295.
Herzog-Evans, M. (2012). Droit pénitentiaire,
2nd ed., Paris, Dalloz-Action.
Herzog-Evans, M. (forthcoming). ‘Explaining
French Probation: Social Work in a Prison
Administration’, in I. Durnescu and F. McNeill
(eds.), Who Works? Understanding and
developing probation practices, Hart Publishing.
Jones, R. S., Ross, J. I., Richards, S. C. and
Murphy, D. S. (2009). ‘The first dime: A decade of
Convict Criminology’, The Prison Journal, no.
89(2): 151-171.
Kuhnle, S. (2012). ‘The Scandinavian path to
welfare’, in S. Snacken and E. Dumortier (eds.),
Resisting Punitiveness in Europe? Welfare,
human rights and democracy, Routledge: 73-85.
Vol. 2 no. 3
132
70
Raynor, P. (2012). ‘Is probation still possible?’,
Howard Journal, no. 51(2): 173-189.
Social Work Services Group (1991). National
Objectives and Standards for Social Work, Services
in the Criminal Justice System, Edinburgh, The
Scottish Office.
Toch, H. (2011). ‘Furnishing care, custody and
data for research’, European Journal of
Criminology, 2011, no. 8(6): 437-439.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why People Obey the Law,
New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 2nd ed.
Tyler, T. R. (ed.) (2007). Legitimacy and Criminal
Justice. International Perspectives, Russell, Sage
Foundation, New York.
EuroVista
Main Articles
Van Zyl Smit, D. (forthcoming). ‘Non-custodial
sanctions and European human rights law’, for a
Festschrift for Andrew Ashworth, Oxford University
Press.
Ward, T. and Maruna, S. (2007). Rehabilitation,
Routledge.
Ward, T. and Connolly, M. (2008). ‘A humanrights based practice framework for sexual
offenders’, Journal of Sexual Aggression, 2008,
no. 14(2): 87-98.
EuroVista
133
71
Vol. 2 no. 3
Employment, reintegration and
reducing re-offending – a short look
into offender resettlement within
Europe
Natalie Woodier
International Research Development Manager, NOMS
ABSTRACT
“Offence after offence and sentence after
sentence appear to be the inevitable lot of him
whose foot has once slipped. Can nothing be
done to arrest the downward career?” – Frederic
Rainer (1876)
Criminological research and statements made by
Governments across the EU on measures taken to
assist offenders often make assertions on the levels
of re-offending and importantly, how the crisis of
re-offending can be resisted. Education, Training
and Employment (ETE) provisions for (ex)offenders have become increasingly prominent
across EU criminal justice sectors as evidence links
the provision of them to the process of desistance.
The diverse range of European funding programmes
provides an opportunity for the sharing and
dissemination of good and promising practice in this
field.
of Practice (ExOCoP) learning network helped to
identify some of the key evaluations of ETE
interventions across Europe, considering what
outcomes these evaluations intend to measure and
subsequently increase knowledge and understanding
of successful interventions.
INTRODUCTION
The following article begins by outlining some of
the research and practice in employment and reoffending across Europe and specifically focuses on
evaluations currently identified, the types of
evaluations or monitoring systems in place and the
type of data collected. Following this is a short
review of a primary research study in this field
conducted as part of a multi-lateral Europe wide
learning network aimed at enhancing employment
prospects and subsequently, reducing recidivism in
offenders and ex-offenders.
BACKGROUND
Despite the increasing empirical knowledge of what
needs to be addressed in this field, there is still not
enough of an evidence base with regards to the most
effective interventions. The Ex-offender Community
Vol. 2 no. 3
134
70
The “Ex-Offender Community of Practice”
(ExOCoP) learning network aimed to identify and
improve EU wide services with regards to
EuroVista
Main Articles
Education, Training and Employment (ETE).
ExOCoP proposed close collaboration with
decision makers in the fields of justice, labour and
education, as well as with third sector
representatives. It supported the construction of a
European network to ensure that the best available
evidence and resources are available EU wide with
regards to ETE reintegration measures1. The
learning network was funded by the Director
Generals Employment, Inclusion and Justice of the
European Commission.
accounting for all variables that can affect an intended
outcome. Lum and colleagues found that evaluation
design has a systematic effect on intended outcomes
in criminal justice studies; the weaker the design,
the more likely a study is to report in favour of an
intervention or treatment. Despite this, Brazier et al
(2006) comment that the rather distinct and
generalised outcome of ‘reduction in re-offending’
does not always tell us enough about the details of
the programme, how the programme works (if it
does), and the clients it targets.
An evaluation sub-project which formed part of
ExOCoP focused on the link between employment
and desistance. The initial aim was for the subproject to contribute towards an enhanced EU
understanding of ‘what works’ in improving offender
resettlement across Europe. Primarily, it intended
to demonstrate the importance of employment and
skills related strategies in reducing re-offending and
exemplify the importance of evidence based practice
in confirming ‘what works’.
Despite studies demonstrating the links between
unemployment and re-offending, we are still faced
with a restricted evidence base that provides limited
hard data or statistics to confirm the link between
employment and desistance. Davis et al (2008)
comment that there are several interesting and
informative evaluations of community based
employment and skills training programmes,
however “none of these incorporate a sufficiently
strong research design to clearly measure the
effects of its programme on employment or
recidivism” (Davis et al 2008). This also suggests
that we do not yet know enough with regards to
what extent these programmes and interventions
meet both the needs of the (ex)-offenders as well
as current labour market requirements. Tarling
(1982) noted that the relationship between
unemployment and crime is interactive; both
problems being related to, or being the effects of,
social and economic disadvantage (Hearnden et al
2000); having a criminal record is both at the source
of unemployment as well as a barrier to getting a
job.
CONTEXT
“The number of unemployed offenders in Europe
is likely to run into millions” according to the
European Offender Employment Forum (EOEF)
report published in 2003 (EOEF 2003); but what
relevance does this have to crime and re-offending?
Studies by Gendreau et al 1996, Lipsey 1995 and
Finn 2008, document the high risk of unemployment
for offenders and the links between unemployment
and recidivism. It is evidence of a relationship
between unemployment and re-offending and the
factors that affect it that is required for interventions
to be developed and to be effective with the right
people.
The quality and breadth of research in criminal justice
is variable. There are few European studies on the
effects of ETE on re-offending and these have
differing effect sizes, research designs and levels of
methodological rigour. Experimental designs using
statistical data and meta-analyses are often identified
as more reliable in their data outputs (Lum et al
2001). Their rigorous designs produce results which
are subsequently used to inform policy and practice.
However, such designs are limited in this field of
criminal justice, largely due to the difficulties of
EuroVista
135
71
Unemployment is identified as a persistent problem
for ex-offenders, whether this is related to the stigma
of the term ‘ex-offender’ or the low educational and
skills base that a large proportion of the offending
population hold (Davis et al 2008). Hearnden et al
(2000) suggest that the link between unemployment
and crime is well established and subsequently
criminal justice agencies introduce a range of
employment opportunities and training with the key
aim of preventing further offending. This is
supported by the UK government through a green
paper released in 2010 which contained a large
emphasis on employment for ex-offenders, and the
notion of the ‘working prison’. Prisoners can work
Vol. 2 no. 3
Employment, reintegration and reducing re-offending – a short look into offender resettlement within Europe
up to and above 20 hours a week (HMP Maidstone,
UK, encourages a 33 hour working week). The
‘working prison’ encourages prisoners to become
acquainted with a normal working week, preparing
them for reintegration and employment on release.
The National Offender Management Service
(NOMS), UK, is committed to reducing reoffending and making communities safer through
successful reintegration and rehabilitation of
offenders. NOMS developed a Good Practice
Guide for Skills and Employment related
interventions as a practical guide to assist those
working directly with offenders (Ministry of Justice
2008). The guide supports the notion of working
across Government bodies to develop a coherent
strategic framework within which providers and
practitioners work. It accepts that more needs to
be done to increase provisions, ensure they are
flexible and relevant to individual requirements, and
work across a number of issues and ‘barriers’ to
desistance. In addition, skills and employment
interventions cannot exist in isolation and therefore,
the guidance reinforces the notion of working across
different networks and for all involved to have an
understanding of the wider context that affects the
offender.
CURRENT RESEARCH AND EVIDENCE
Considerable efforts are being made to further
introduce employment related interventions to
prisoners and ex-offenders across the EU and a
number of studies have sought to evaluate these.
Prison work and vocational training ‘do work’
according to the criteria developed by Sherman et
al (1997). Further studies concerning the efficacy
of job training and educational programmes within
the prison setting by Bushway and Reuter (1997)
and Lipsey (1995) also look to prove effectiveness.
Many of these evaluations focus on success of the
programmes in terms of numbers into employment,
length in employment and skills development. Whilst
this may appear that we are lacking rigorous data it
shows a causal link between successful employment
interventions and reducing re-offending, these
evaluations that test for programme success against
some pre-determined criteria provide valuable data
with regards to ‘what works’ and on whom within
employment interventions.
Vol. 2 no. 3
136
70
The INCIPIT programme in Italy and the Chance
programme in Germany are two examples of
programmes that rely on data on numbers into
employment, types of jobs gained and length in
employment when determining their effectiveness
(ExOCoP 2012). These programmes deliver
vocational training courses to support ex-offenders
into employment. The courses not only concentrate
on labour market guidance, job searching and CV
skills but also the emotional and social support during
the transition into society and reintegration. These
programmes have the opportunity to develop and
enhance their services as the evaluation results they
generate continue to show positive outcomes.
When considering employment to be one of the most
critical factors in aiding desistance, the first challenge
to address is overcoming barriers to employment.
Although offenders perceive employment as a key
pathway to their reintegration, they are often
presented with many obstacles to getting a job such
as poor educational and skills background, literacy
or numeracy issues, lack of work experience, lack
of accommodation and health and social care issues.
Brazier et al (2006) identified the four main barriers
to employment to be:
1. Offenders have lower levels of education and
qualifications compared to the general
population;
2. Offenders are more likely to have psychological
and/or drug related issues;
3. Offenders are more likely to have unstable and
insecure living conditions;
4. Employers may stigmatise an ‘ex-offender’.
The question to consider is whether all of these
barriers need to be addressed to enhance
employment prospects or whether interventions
should be tailor made? Bouffard et al 2000 suggest
that the more interventions applied then the harder
it is to determine what caused the outcome,
subsequently applying an element of uncertainty to
an evidence base promoting positive outcomes
(Brazier et al 2006).
It is important to acknowledge that the factors
affecting unemployment and offending and the
subsequent treatment required will depend on the
nature and circumstances of the individual. For
EuroVista
Main Articles
example, a drug abuser may be unable to sustain a
job due to their habit, commit drug related crimes
and require drug related treatment. However, a
person just released from prison with poor literacy
and numeracy skills will require entirely different
treatment to support their route into employment.
According to Tony Ward’s ‘Good Lives Model’, a
strengths based case management approach helps
offenders identify and achieve their specific valued
goals and seek constructive ways to realise prosocial and meaningful lives. This recommends a
flexible approach to working with offenders that
accounts for individual circumstances, abilities and
ambitions (Brown and Ward 2004). Nevertheless,
despite the plethora of individual reasons for
unemployment; a lack of legitimate means of earning
money, lack of structure to one’s day and the
demoralising effects of being turned away from jobs
are just a few factors that could be linked to offending
behaviour. Consequently, employment is identified
as one of the key pathways to reducing re-offending
and desistance.
In Finland, 70% of all offenders and 90% of young
offenders return to prison after serving their first
sentence (EQUAL 2006). The PoMo development
programme funded through the European Social
Fund (ESF) tackles this through intervention and
support programmes for young offenders to deal
with a range of issues from drug/alcohol abuse,
dealing with criminal tendencies, providing positive
role models and quite significantly, providing
guidance on education, careers and social benefits
and engaging the young people with employers
where possible. Feedback from ex-prisoners
showed how the support encouraged them to lead
normal lives and provided them the guidance and
positive role models they needed to better their lives.
Research on employment schemes run by the
National Association for the Care and Resettlement
of Offenders (NACRO) showed that many
offenders felt there were few jobs available to them,
and due to their lack of skills and qualifications, the
jobs that were available tended to be predominantly
part time, temporary, menial and low paid
(Hearnden et al 2000). In support of this, Fletcher
et al’s (1998) research found that a criminal record,
attitudes of employers and a lack of skills and
qualifications hindered ex-offenders from getting a
EuroVista
137
71
job (Hearnden et al 2000). They also found that
low self esteem, confidence and motivation, which
resulted from poor educational attainment, also
hindered employment prospects. Finally, they found
that ex-offenders were more likely to function within
segregated social networks which meant that not
only were they less aware of the diversity of
employment opportunities, but that they lacked the
informal contacts which were proven to be invaluable
in supporting individuals into employment.
Lipsey (1995) conducted a meta-analysis of 400
control or comparison group studies from 1950–
1990 and reported on various types of interventions
for offenders. The results from a sample of over
40,000 juveniles showed that for these individuals,
the single most effective factor in reducing reoffending was employment stability. In support of
this, Gillis et al (1996) found in their work that
offenders themselves considered getting a job post
release to be critical in stopping them turning back
to crime (Brazier et al 2006); this was based on the
understanding that a job not only keeps you busy
and provides structure to your life, but primarily, it
brings in income which previously, may have been
generated by illegitimate means.
Finn (1999) studied four prison based programmes
in the US that prepared offenders in custody for
employment on release. They found that all
programmes succeeded in supporting large numbers
of ex-offenders into employment, and the main
reasons for this were the excellent collaboration with
outside agencies and the continued support services
available for offenders upon release. Furthermore,
Roberts et al (1997) reinforced the notion of strong
local partnerships on ensuring the level of support
required for the (ex)-offender’s reintegration is met
and that each local agency provides their expertise
where necessary (Hearnden et al 2000).
The FALPREV programme in France supports this
notion through employing local stakeholders to work
with prison and probation services to support
offenders in preparing for their release and
reintegrating into the local communities (ExOCoP
2012). The Nordic Prison Education Report
(Baldursson 2009) reinforces the notion that good
co-operation between authorities such as the prison
and probation services and other associated
Vol. 2 no. 3
Employment, reintegration and reducing re-offending – a short look into offender resettlement within Europe
organisations, is a key factor in satisfying prisoners’
education and training needs. If the attitudes of local
employers and stakeholders can be re-appraised
through lobbying, partnerships and even developing
a new policy for employing ex-offenders then there
would be increased confidence in such groups
welcoming offenders back into society.
practice in this field by making it more robust and
to identify the current obstacles to achieving this.
By the time the survey was closed in April 2012
there were only 39 useable responses across 12
different EU member states. Unfortunately not all
data sets were complete as many of the responses
were missing answers to ad hoc questions.
The UK Department for Education Rapid Evidence
Assessment found that although the interventions
under study tended to provide a range of skills
applicable to the work place, in some prison based
programmes out of date equipment was being used
to train offenders (Brazier et al 2006). Prisoners
were also being taught skills for work that was not
going to be available in the community. The Nordic
Prison Education Report (Baldursson 2009)
acknowledges that modernised provisions and
services are necessary for prisoners to be able to
develop the skills and knowledge that can be
applied in current society. The introduction of new
ICT systems to meet prison security needs would
be a simple and effective way of accessing a
broader range of services through one portal,
potentially allowing for cost savings in the future.
The report recommends to the education authorities
in the Nordic countries that legislation should aim
to provide prisoners with the same rights and access
to education as those in mainstream society;
including keeping up to date with current labour
market demands.
The full evaluation sub-project report, available at
www.exocop.eu provides a detailed table of all the
programmes that responded, their aims and
objectives, their client groups and evidence of
evaluation and effectiveness. For the purposes of
this short article we have drawn out some of the
specific information surrounding evaluations of
programmes across Europe, specifically focusing on
the types of evaluations evident, outcome
measurements and challenges and obstacles to
measuring effectiveness.
EXISTING EVALUATION METHODS
The following information emerged from the
ExOCoP evaluation E-survey which aimed to
identify some of the evaluations linked to
employment programmes for ex-offenders across
Europe. The ExOCoP programme survey
supported by some of the literature and research
evidenced earlier in this article, have shown that
there are a plethora of programmes, interventions
and services across Europe that target the education,
training and employment needs of (ex)-offenders.
However, the evaluations of such programmes and
evidence base surrounding the effects of employment
related strategies on reducing re-offending is
somewhat restricted and limited in the information
it provides. In the longer term the ExOCoP survey
results would intend to assist in improving evaluative
Vol. 2 no. 3
138
70
Regarding the responses to the ExOCoP E-survey,
Figure 1 details the countries where responses were
received from and the types of organisations they
related to. Evidently, the largest number of
responses came from the UK, where the survey
was administered from, accounting for 46% of the
overall responses. To get full coverage in the future,
sufficient resources are needed to either undertake
the survey in each member state or use a core team
to organise other more inclusive methods such as
focus groups. The majority of responses were
received from Justice Organisations (36%) or ‘other’
(33%). Of the ‘other’ responses, three of these
came from private sector companies, four from
charities and the remainder from training and careers
advice providers.
Responses indicated that ideally, all programmes
would strive to deliver well-structured evaluation
methodologies that measure the programmes key
criteria as well as determining whether stakeholders’
requirements had been met. Evaluations perform a
regulatory function and provide reassurance to
funding bodies that programmes are compliant, cost
effective and the intended outcomes are being met.
Publicising the results of evaluations promotes the
dissemination of good practice to demonstrate that
programmes are effective, represent value for money
and help inform policy development.
EuroVista
Main Articles
FIGURE 1
The survey indicated a broad spectrum of
engagement in and use of evaluations between
organisations. The ‘model’ of evaluation an
organisation or programme adopts varies according
to the requirements of funders, type of organisation
(public, private or NGO), the size of the
organisation, the resources available to it and the
scale and complexity of the programmes. However,
in the current climate it is evident that cost
effectiveness and value money are the key criteria
driving evaluations. It was generally agreed that
the aim of evaluation is to provide information on
what works and what does not and to make
improvements accordingly. At a time where demand
for services rises above supply and resources
available to deliver services are limited, organisations
are increasingly under pressure to show what they
are doing ‘works’ and that they are in parallel with
the pace of change in society.
Client follow up was aspired to by all programmes
included in the survey, however only 50% of them
were able to provide this service. It is evident that
limited funding and resources and an inability to
maintain contact and track clients are just a number
of reasons why programmes do not always gather
long term post programme data; this subsequently
prevents reconviction data being drawn upon. As
EuroVista
139
71
Brazier et al (2006) note, these evaluations with
differing and often more in depth data can often tell
us more about the programme itself, the areas of
success and the clients it appears to work best with.
Nevertheless, from the survey responses it was
evident that programme developers did
acknowledge that follow up would provide added
value to their evaluations and aid the future
development of their programmes, allowing them
to monitor and record the sustainability of
programme effects.
Standard types of evaluations were most common
based on the evidence gathered. It is important to
recognise the disparity in understanding of what a
‘type’ of evaluation may entail. For example, within
the survey we provided a basic definition of what
we categorised standard, advanced and
comprehensive evaluations as, however, these
definitions are open to interpretation and what may
be deemed as a standard evaluation in one
jurisdiction could be regarded as advanced in
another. One future recommendation would be the
development of a common European framework
of evaluation that assists jurisdictions to categorise
their evaluations within a standardised framework
which would allow for consistency across Europe.
Vol. 2 no. 3
Employment, reintegration and reducing re-offending – a short look into offender resettlement within Europe
Responses to the survey indicated that it is relatively
common to be required to produce regular financial
information either for a governing organisation or
for external funders. Funders will often require
programmes to use standardised data collection
systems; national programmes and ESF projects in
particular use common data management
information systems. Co-ordinating organisations
often offer resources to help ensure data collected
on their behalf is of sufficient quality and can provide
the required information. Smaller organisations
however, can often struggle to cope with what can
be a bureaucratic burden and are often reliant on
commissioners or lead contractors to help with their
capacity requirements.
Evidently, a primary driving force for evaluation is
to provide information on progress and outcomes
to funding bodies. Funders need to ensure money
is being spent correctly and that programme
deliverables are adhered to. In addition, contractual
agreements often state that programmes must
produce data with regards to effectiveness or simply
as evidence that outputs are visible. The type of
evaluation will largely depend on what information
is required, for example for re-offending,
comprehensive evaluations with data collection from
offenders post programme completion is required,
and ideally a comparison group should be used.
There are, of course, ethical considerations to be
taken into account when a control group is used, in
that some individuals will be deprived of an
employment service. However, for personal
perceptions of whether a programme is effective,
less structured evaluations that document individual
feedback and opinions is all that is required.
It was also acknowledged that programmes must
be given the opportunity to run for long enough for
any improvements to be realised and for substantial
outcomes to be recorded (Hearnden et al 2000).
Some funders ask for effectiveness results after one
year, which proves very difficult as it can take at
least two years for a programme to become settled
into its environment. Short term results often show
a programme not to be as effective as would be
intended for the longer term and, subsequently, some
programmes may be prematurely discontinued. As
organisations strive for consistent innovation,
procurement services often ensure programmes are
Vol. 2 no. 3
140
70
discontinued before being given the chance, in order
to make room for the next innovative service.
Therefore, programmes require plenty of time to
become embedded into processes and
organisations. They need to be tested, allowed to
adapt to the environment and be refined based on
the needs of the clients they are piloted on.
It was not possible to make any generalisations
regarding types of evaluations across different
countries from the survey results due to the limited
responses received and only 12 of the 27 member
states being represented. Despite this, the survey
gathered some interesting data regarding innovative
projects across Europe, the types of evaluations they
undertake, their goals of evaluations and much
more. This data enabled us to present some useful
programme specific information and provides an
insight into what evaluations are evident across
Europe, their limitations and how programme
developers would like to see evaluative practice
improve in the future (ExOCoP 2012).
DISCUSSION
It is important to note the limited range of available
evidence regarding evaluations of employment
related programmes across Europe. The information
gathered from available research is predominantly
UK based, with a few examples from the US and
the Nordic States. Despite there being a plethora
of such programmes across Europe, it appears that
there are few studies to rigorously test their
effectiveness. Countries should be encouraged to
undertake evaluations, even if starting off with basic
local investigations. Evidence needs to be shared
and disseminated across Europe more effectively
to ensure EU justice organisations are making the
most of the effective and innovative practice
available to them.
It is also worth noting that much of the evidence
that is available only shows effectiveness based on
pre-determined criteria. Evidence currently does
not highlight the impact of some of the key factors
that affect the types and style of interventions that
are needed. These key factors include: age (young
offenders needs differ significantly to adult
offenders’), gender (male and female offenders have
different needs), setting (prison or community) and
EuroVista
Main Articles
ethnic group (ethnic minorities are over-represented
within the criminal justice system; they face
additional discrimination in the labour market and
have specific needs as a result). Therefore there is
an additional dimension on top of employment
related needs and social barriers which should also
be addressed as factors within this dimension have
a significant effect on the nature of the intervention
required and how effective it may be.
There needs to be some identified differentiation
between the need for employment related services
(CV skills, training, educational qualifications) and
social barriers (substance misuse, mental health,
homelessness) when determining which offenders
utilise what services. This comes down to effective
risk and need assessment; one offender may need
qualifications to enter the labour market but their
added substance abuse problem would additionally
need to be supported to ensure they could maintain
an educational programme. It is often difficult to
determine whether it is the employment skills that
need to be addressed or in fact the general social
skills. Full assessment of initial needs and barriers
to employment is essential for case managers to
identify the circumstances of the offender and apply
interventions appropriately.
Evidently programmes are limited by the evaluations
they can introduce and the type of data they produce.
Planning ahead to secure a budget and resources
for evaluation, ensuring clients are followed up and
evaluation data can be gathered 12 to 24 months
post programme completion would lay foundations
for more rigorous evaluations. Where possible, a
budget should be allocated to an individual and
follow them ‘through the gate’ to pay for further
support and allow for the prison to retrospectively
share any success.
It is extremely difficult to identify any direct reoffending data to determine the effectiveness of
employment related interventions. This could be
attributed to the diversity of factors and behaviours
that can contribute to, and have an effect on, the
likelihood of re-offending. Therefore the majority
of studies reviewed set more realistic criteria for
programme effectiveness and measure success in
relation to these. The common measurements include
numbers into employment, sustainability of
EuroVista
141
71
employment and identification of the factors that the
individuals themselves feel are important in
preventing recidivism.
It is important to acknowledge that the reduction in
re-offending is the long term goal of interventions.
There is a whole wealth of processes that need to
be addressed prior to this result being achievable.
Obtaining a job is commonly recognized as criteria
for success for many interventions, but once again,
there are a number of areas to address prior to the
job being obtained. These areas include basic
literacy and numeracy skills, CV work, building selfconfidence, developing skills in education and
training, building knowledge of the workforce,
adaptability to a lifestyle that works around a career,
stable housing and supportive families. These are
just a fraction of the factors that affect employment
and the journey towards desistance from crime.
With such a breadth of factors it will continue to be
difficult to research and quantify their impact when
so much of it is done in isolation by different criminal
justice agencies.
A number of recommendations can be provided with
regards to how interventions could be run more
successfully. Firstly, skills and training must be aligned
to the needs of contemporary job markets. If
provisions are out of date this could further hinder
chances of (ex)-offenders meeting requirements of
current employment opportunities. Secondly, strong
local partnerships and co-operation between
agencies is a key recommendation to ensure that all
provisions link up and that the offender is supported
in every way possible (Hearnden et al 2000). The
new Integrated Offender Management (IOM) in
England and Wales encourages a joined up
approach of managing offenders, with a number of
agencies (police, probation, local authorities,
voluntary partners) working together to tackle the
offenders that cause the most harm in their
communities. Although this has not yet been
evaluated, it is evidently a positive step in working
towards stronger partnerships and utilising the skills
and experience of different agencies to tackle reoffending. A joined up approach does however raise
implications for evaluators who must consider who
and what organisations are involved in and have an
effect on the reintegration processes.
Vol. 2 no. 3
Employment, reintegration and reducing re-offending – a short look into offender resettlement within Europe
The final ExOCoP policy forum held in Berlin on
18th and 19th June 2012 further disseminated the
expert European knowledge that the network
gathered on the concepts, strategies and practices
with regards to the resettlement of ex-offenders.
Director Generals and Senior Officials from a
number of European Countries attended the forum.
The policy forum raised discussions surrounding:





European Social Fund (ESF) policies in the
prison and resettlement context
Future policy perspectives on active inclusion
Future funding and objectives of European
Commission DG Employment
Evaluation of ETE strategies across Europe
Commonly agreed European frameworks and
strategies for the resettlement of ex-offenders
For further information please refer to
www.exocop.eu
NOTES
1
The task of the partnership was the development and
extension of a European Leaning Network focused on
the exchange, transfer and standardisation of expertise
amongst participating member states, with the overall
aim of developing a joint strategy for improving the
conditions necessary for the successful reintegration
of ex-offenders at regional, national and European level.
The ExOCoP network ran from 2009-2012 with more than
40 partners from public administrations, ESF and nonprofit umbrella organisations across 14 member states.
REFERENCES
Baldursson, E. et al. (2009). Nordic Prison
Education: A lifelong Learning perspective.
Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen 2009.
Brazier et al. (2006). Rapid Evidence Assessment
of Interventions that Promote Employment for
Offenders. Research report RR747, Institute of
Education, Department for Education and Skills.
Brown, M. and Ward, T. (2004). ‘The Good Lives
Model and Conceptual Issues in Offender
Rehabilitation’. In: Psychology, Crime and Law,
10 (3), pp. 243 – 257.
Vol. 2 no. 3
142
70
Bushway, D. and Reuter, P. (1997). ‘Labour
markets and crime risk factors’ In Preventing
Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s
Promising. A Report to the United States Congress,
prepared for the National Institute of Justice,
Chapter 6.
Davis et al. (2008). A synthesis of literature on
the effectiveness of community orders. Prepared
for the National Audit Office; Rand Corporation.
EOEF. (2003). What Works with Offenders:
European networking for the identification of
successful practices in preparing ex-offenders for
employment integration. ESF.
EQUAL (2006). Approaches and Thematic
Clusters within EQUAL: Ex-offender
development partnerships. ESF funded EQUAL
programme, co-funded by member states 20002006.
ExOCoP. (2012). ExOCoP Sub-evaluation final
report. The Ex-Offender Community of Practice
European Network, Partial European Social Fund
Project (unpublished). Available at: http://
www.exocop.eu [Accessed 29th June2012]
Finn, P. (2008). ‘Job Placement for Offenders in
Relation to Recidivism’ In: Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 28 (1-2), pp. 89-106.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C. and Little, T. (1996). A
Meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender
recidivism: what works! In: Criminology, 34 (4),
pp. 575-608.
Hearnden et al. (2000). Working their way out of
offending: an evaluation of two probation
employment schemes. Home Office Research
Study 218.
Lipsey, M. (1995). ‘What do we learn from 400
research studies on the effectiveness of treatment
with juvenile delinquents?’ In McGuire, J. (ed.)
What Works: Reducing Reoffending – Guidelines
from Research and Practice. Chichester: John
Wiley and Sons.
Lum, C., Petrosino, A. and Weisburd, D. (2001).
‘Does Research Design Affect Study Outcomes in
Criminal Justice’. In: The ANNALS of the
American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 578: 50-70.
EuroVista
Main Articles
Martinson, R. (1974). ‘What Works? - Questions
and Answers about Prison Reform’ In: The Public
Interest, 35: 22-54.
Ministry of Justice. (2008). Skills and Employment
Practice Guide. ECOTECH Research and
Consulting Ltd.
Sherman, L., Gottfredson, D., Mackenzie, D., Eck,
J., Reuter, P. and Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing
Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s
Promising. Report to the United States Congress,
National Institute of Justice: Washington.
EuroVista
143
71
Vol. 2 no. 3
Throughcare for prisoners with
problematic drug use: a European
perspective
Morag MacDonald, Director, James Williams, Senior Researcher and
David Kane, Senior Researcher
Social Research and Evaluation Unit, Faculty of Education, Law and Social
Sciences, Birmingham City University
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
Throughcare is widely regarded as an essential part
of successfully reintegrating prisoners into society.
Prisoners with problematic drug use are a
particularly difficult group to resettle because they
require continuity of access to treatment services to
deal with problematic drug and alcohol use that often
underlies their offending. They also comprise a
significant proportion of prisoners. However, there
is very little research evaluating throughcare services
in EU prisons. This paper is based on research that
was carried out to explore the extent and
effectiveness of throughcare services in the European
Union, using interviews and focus groups with prison
and NGO staff and prisoners. The results indicate
that throughcare services are limited, owing to a
range of structural and ideological barriers.
However, there are pockets of good practice which
indicate that early needs assessment, collaborative
working with a range of experts and monitoring and
evaluation are key elements in providing effective
throughcare.
There is increasing recognition that effective
throughcare services are essential in supporting
prisoners with deep seated health issues (Møller et
al, 2007). This is particularly true for prisoners with
problematic drug use. Evidence indicates that where
throughcare services are in place, ex-prisoners are
less likely to return to their drug use or to re-offend
(Holloway et al, 2005).
Vol. 2 no. 3
144
70
Throughcare is still an under-researched field in many
member states. Most primary studies conducted
with sound methodology are from the United States
or the UK, and focus on interventions which are
broadly similar (Webster, 2004). Within the
European context, however, the extent and
effectiveness of throughcare services has received
little attention amongst practitioners and scholars.
This is particularly acute in respect of throughcare
for those with problematic drug use. Here, provision
and research is often focused on access to drug
services (methadone programmes, therapeutic
communities) rather than on holistic provision.
EuroVista
Main Articles
Previous research (MacDonald et al, 2008;
MacDonald 2005; Walmsley, 2003)1 indicated that
throughcare was limited in many EU countries often
due to the lack of a joined up approach across the
criminal justice system. It has been acknowledged
that the provision of throughcare is often problematic
and an area that is still developing. Similarly, the
crucial role for NGOs in the delivery of throughcare
services has also been noted. However, to facilitate
partnerships between NGOs and prisons, there
needs to be collaboration with the national prison
system administration and commitment from
individual prison governors. Walmsley’s (2003)
identified that there was a need:
To develop pre-release programmes
to assist prisoners in returning to
society, family life and employment
after release and to develop coordination with Centres for Social
Work in the community, where such
exist (Walmsley, 2003:111).
BACKGROUND - CONCEPTUALISING
THROUGHCARE
The term ‘Throughcare’ refers to ‘arrangements for
managing the continuity of care which started in the
community or at an offender’s first point of contact
with the criminal justice system through custody,
court, sentence, and beyond into resettlement’ Fox
et al, (2005: 49). Throughcare, according to this
definition, necessitates a ‘package of support that
needs to be in place after [an] offender reaches the
end of a prison-based treatment programme,
completes a community sentence or leaves
treatment’ (Fox et al, 2005: 50). Throughcare is
not a single treatment process but involves a range
of support for different issues, which the individual
prisoner faces, including mental health,
accommodation, finance and debt, family
relationships, education, training and employment.
The throughcare literature is more developed in the
UK than in the partner countries and a range of
throughcare initiatives (often referred to as
resettlement) are in place for prisoners leaving
prison. This provision, however, is not replicated in
other partner countries. Even in the UK, there are
major differences in provision of throughcare
regionally and, specifically, provision for vulnerable
groups such as women, ethnic minorities and foreign
nationals.2
EuroVista
145
71
WHY SHOULD THROUGHCARE BE
PROVIDED FOR PRISONERS?
While it is accepted that prison is about punishment,
it is also important to remember that the sentence
itself is the punishment and that prisons and
community agencies have a role to play in
rehabilitation. A key element in the provision of
throughcare is to involve and motivate individual
prisoners.
The failure to ensure a smooth transition from prison
to community can be detrimental to the health and
wellbeing of the prisoners and their families. For
prisoners with problematic drug use, this can even
have fatal consequences. Effective throughcare can
have a positive impact on recidivism. According to
the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
(UNODC) (2008) report:
Recidivism and relapse rates for
released prisoners who have
participated in prison drug treatment
programmes are slightly lower than for
control groups that have received no
treatment at all. However prisoners
who complete both in-prison treatment
programmes and who attend residential
aftercare programmes have
significantly lower rates of drug use and
re-arrest.
DESISTANCE
Maguire and Raynor (2007) provide a useful
summary of the current models of desistance from
crime that are pertinent to the discussion of why
throughcare should be promoted. The key issues
from the various desistance models are firstly the
importance of ‘agency’ where research
demonstrates that re-offending is influenced as much
by offender’s thinking as by their circumstances
(Zamble and Quinsey, 1997). A study of offenders
in Liverpool (UK) argued that people may well
react differently based on:
their personal understandings or
accounts of their situations and
behaviour—what he calls different
kinds of ‘narrative’, some of which
support continued offending and some
Vol. 2 no. 3
Throughcare for prisoners with problematic drug use: a European perspective
of which support desistance. A key
element of desistance narratives was a
belief by the offender that s/he had
begun to take control of his or her own
life: ‘Whereas active offenders . . .
seemed to have little vision of what the
future might hold, desisting interviewees
had a plan and were optimistic that they
could make it work’ (Maruna, 2000:
147 quote in Maguire and Raynor,
2007).
the chances of the throughcare services arranged
being successful (Maguire and Raynor, 1997; Lewis
et al, 2003).
APPROACH
Secondly, models of desistance have identified that
this is not a simple linear process but one where
relapse is common. Burnett (2004) refers to it as a
‘zigzag’ rather than a linear process. Thirdly,
motivating and sustaining motivation is crucial to
initiating change (Maruna, 2000; Farrall, 2002).
Addressing social problems is necessary to help exprisoners in the process of desistance as their
motivation can be seriously undermined by housing
and financial problems. Farrall (2004) argues that
as people change they need to acquire both human
capital and social capital so that they have the skills
and opportunities to progress.
These desistance models clearly underpin the
philosophy behind the throughcare toolkit produced
as part of the research under discussion here. The
key issues that need to be considered by those
providing throughcare packages are:





That it is important to understand and respond
to individual circumstances and be aware of their
current motivation i.e. to be aware that ‘one size
fits all’ throughcare is not effective;
that the process of change is seen as a joint
enterprise with the offender;
that empathetic support that sustains the
offender ’s motivation, assists in skill
development and acknowledges that setbacks
may occur is provided;
that help in solving practical problems and social
problems is provided;
that relapse may occur and this should not be
seen as evidence of failure.
Research has also indicated the importance of
commencing planning for release with prisoners at
an early stage of their sentence, as this may increase
Vol. 2 no. 3
146
70
This paper explores the overall extent and
effectiveness of throughcare services across Europe
and is drawn from research carried out as part of
the European project ‘Throughcare for Prisoners
with Problematic Drug Use’, funded by the
European Commission Directorate General Justice.
This project was designed to produce a toolkit to
assist practitioners in implementing effective
throughcare services, primarily for those prisoners
with problematic drug use, but which also can be
used for establishing throughcare for other prisoners
(MacDonald et al, 2012)3.
Owing to resource limitations, the sample was limited
to six member states. However, the partnership was
broadly representative of different regions within the
Union. Countries represented were Bulgaria,
Estonia, Germany, Italy, Romania and the United
Kingdom. As Nelken (2010) notes, comparative
research is never easy and it is important to aware
of:
the risk of being ethnocentric –
assuming that what we do, our way of
thinking about and responding to crime,
is universally shared or, at least, that it
would be right for everyone else. On
the other hand, there is the temptation
of relativism, the view that we will never
really be able to grasp what others are
doing and that we can have no basis
for evaluating whether what they do is
right. To get beyond these alternatives
requires a careful mix of explanatory
and interpretative strategies
(Nelken1994). We need to recognize
that, although criminal justice practices
gain their sense from the setting that
shapes them and the conditions with
which they have to deal, they can also
be understood by outsiders and need
to be evaluated according to
cosmopolitan and not only local criteria
(Nelken, 2009:292).
EuroVista
Main Articles
The throughcare project addressed these problems
by using researchers native to the country under
study and by prolonged discussions between
partners with the aim of creating a shared
understanding of key terms such as throughcare and
probation. Criminal justice systems in Europe are
likely to experience similar problems and issues and
it can be instructive to understand how other systems
engage with issues such as the resettlement of
offenders. The learning from such comparative
endeavour can impact on policy transfer (Pakes,
2010).
Material is drawn from the literature review and
fieldwork research phases of the project. A broad
qualitative approach was taken to the fieldwork,
which involved interviews with key staff, in and out
of prisons and focus groups with prisoners. Each
partner was responsible for the research in their own
country but a common list of prompts was agreed
by the project partners and used as a loose guideline
during the interviews. In addition, key words and
phrases were discussed to ensure, as far as possible,
a shared understanding of their meaning. The
concept of probation, for example, has different
meanings in different countries. The toolkit
constructed from the research in each country was
designed to provide a framework for providing
throughcare for prisoners and acknowledges
different cultural contexts rather than advocating a
prescriptive approach based solely on the
experiences of the six project partners.
Each partner country provided an account of the
prison systems within their countries, the extent of
drug use, particularly as it relates to prisoners and
throughcare services that are currently available to
problematic drug users. This paper synthesises the
data received and presents an overall picture of
contemporary issues including throughcare
initiatives, examples of good practice, gaps in
provision and perceived difficulties faced by the
partner countries at this time4.
GAPS IN PROVISION
The partner research has identified a number of
issues that impact on the delivery of throughcare in
their respective countries.
EuroVista
147
71
A mixed understanding of throughcare?
The first clear issue is that there is a very mixed
understanding of what is meant by the term
‘throughcare’. Not only are there various definitions
of the word itself, but different words are used to
mean similar processes. Perhaps more importantly,
there is a lack of understanding about the underlying
philosophy of throughcare. The profusion of terms
and definitions reflect at best a variety of
understandings of the key principles underlying
throughcare. For example, an initial concern of
throughcare is health, but a range of other factors
including housing, education, training and
employment, children and families, finance and
benefit are of equal importance. It is evident that
there needs to be recognition of the general
principles of throughcare and that it should be a
holistic, collaborative, participatory and a seamless
transition (MacDonald et al, 2012).
Continuity of services
One of the underlying principles of throughcare is
that there is a need for continuity of services between
the community and the prison and vice versa.
Arguably, continuity of health services is crucial for
successful treatment of prisoners, as with other
patients. However, evidence indicates that this is
not occurring in many prisons across the partner
countries. Prisoners and staff frequently commented
on the discontinuity of services. For example, in
Bulgaria a problematic drug using prisoner said that
‘I was on methadone but after I was sentenced to
deprivation of liberty, I had to quit…No methadone
here, no money for buying methadone, no experts…’
Ensuring continuity of services is problematic in many
prisons across Europe for a variety of reasons; one
of the main causes can be the complexity of the
transfer process. It is not simply that prisoners have
been transferred from the community health care
system to the prison and then out again but that they
are transferred from community to police custody
then to the courts and then to prison.
Throughcare is ideally seen as a continuum in which
treatment continues seamlessly from community into
prison and into the community again. However, in
many cases across Europe, in-prison treatment and
aftercare services are often perceived by staff and
Vol. 2 no. 3
Throughcare for prisoners with problematic drug use: a European perspective
prisoners as not being part of the same continuum.
In many cases, prisoners are the responsibility of
the prisons but ex-prisoners are not. This is partly
a practical consideration as it is difficult to monitor
people after release and difficult to ensure they
continue taking part in programmes already begun
in prison. However, it is also partly an ideological
issue: prison is often viewed as a separate world
from that of the community, a world where the focus
is on isolation from the community.
Addressing prisoners’ primary needs
Prisoners are individuals and have specific
experiences and needs. A comprehensive
evaluation upon admission to prison or detention
and an early needs assessment together with
appropriate planning of necessary measures, in
consultation with the detainee, would be helpful in
establishing effective throughcare. The primary
needs of problematic drug users after release, for
example, are social adaptation, accommodation and
employment; there is often a lack of activities to
address these real needs. The partner research
indicated that although some of the prisoners’
requirements were being addressed, attention in
some areas was lacking.
The research has also indicated there is often a lack
of activities to address these real needs. Some
instances of good practice in these areas have been
identified however. In the UK, for example, two
tools have been developed to assist in the process
of evaluating prisoners’ needs at the point of entry.
The Offender Assessment System (OASys) and
Asset attempt to apply the principles of risk/need
assessment in England and Wales, with lessons to
be learned from their strengths and weaknesses. The
Offender Assessment System (OASys) assesses
offenders on both their risk of re-offending and the
factors that have contributed to their criminal
behaviour (Debidin, 2009). These can include lack
of a job or a home, or a problem like drug or alcohol
abuse. Generally, the higher the total score on the
OASys assessment, the higher the individual’s risk
of re-conviction and/or risk of harm to the public
(Insidetime, 2009). An OASys assessment will
generally be carried out at the stage that a presentence report is produced with further
assessments conducted periodically throughout the
Vol. 2 no. 3
148
70
sentence (whether in custody or in the community)
and at the end of a sentence when the offender might
be on licence (Moore, 2009).
A similar tool has also been developed in the UK
for use with young offenders. Asset is a structured
assessment tool to be used by Young Offender
Teams in England and Wales on all young offenders
who come into contact with the criminal justice
system (Youth Justice Board, 2011). It aims to
examine the young person’s offence or offences and
factors or circumstances, ranging from lack of
educational attainment to mental health problems
that may have contributed to such behaviour. The
information gathered from Asset can be used to
inform court reports so that appropriate intervention
programmes can be drawn up. It will also highlight
any particular needs or difficulties the young person
has, so that these may also be addressed. It is
important to recognise, however, that OASys and
Asset are not the only tools available to conduct
risk assessment. Indeed, both have been criticised
as over-prescriptive and as taking too much
practitioner time away from work with offenders
(Case and Haines 2009). Other concerns are that
the assessment is highly subjective and the
information generated can be interpreted differently.
Indeed, it has been noted that risk assessment is
not an exact science; Webster (2006), for example,
argues that:
risk assessment devices have not taken
sufficient account of the role of
accelerated social and economic
change in engendering and
concentrating risk factors in
destabilized neighbourhoods among
their inhabitants. Neither do they take
account of unpredictable life events. In
isolating individual risk factors from
their context in biography, place and
social structure, such devices offer
ways of managing offenders rather than
addressing the causes and cessation of
individual offending (Webster, 2006;
18).
However, tools such as OASys and Asset can be
useful starting points in countries where there are
currently no assessment tools.
EuroVista
Main Articles
In the Netherlands, a self-help manual has been
produced to assist prisoners to address their
offending behaviour. Stoppen met criminaliteit,
Werkboekvoor (ex) gedetineerden (Nelissen and
Schreurs, 2011), is divided into three parts and
offers prisoners a guide to cognitive transformation,
which enables them to explore how far they are open
to change and to choose to change. The manual
also invites the client to engage as soon as possible
in a process of active change and prepares them
for solution-focused coping with worst-case
scenarios in conditions or environments of adversity.
such as the EVP model or the Berlin Throughcare
model in Germany, the Bulgarian AVODP scheme,
or the Estonian Convictus approach, each of which
is a network of agencies, each supporting the
individual prisoner (MacDonald et al, 2012).
Gaining employment on release has been identified
in the throughcare project partners’ research as one
of the primary requirements. Although the research
has indicated that this is an area that requires further
attention, some examples of good practice have
been identified. In the UK for example, the shoe
repair company Timpson are providing very
practical support to ex-offenders, by working
closely with a number of prisons (Timpson, 2011).
Timpson actively recruit ex-offenders to work for
them and have also set up full-time training facilities
at HMP Liverpool and HMP Wandsworth in
London, where Timpson staff train prisoners in a
prison workshop environment.
There are many barriers to collaborative working
practices. For example, in Bulgaria, interviews
indicate a failure of collaboration as a result of
differing perspectives. A Director of a Bulgarian
Social Service pointed out that ‘we follow some
principles, the other institutions share others… That
is why it is sometime very difficult to cooperate
effectively with prisons…’
Specific prisoner groups
Prisoners are diverse in nature and yet interviews
undertaken by partners indicate that they are often
treated as a homogeneous group. Prison
populations have long comprised a high proportion
of ethnic minorities and younger people, but they
are experiencing a growth in the numbers of women
and older people. In addition, the composition of
the foreign national groups is changing significantly.
Differences between gender, age and ethnic
background are well known to be reflected in very
different needs, whereas services offered to
prisoners often fail to take into account the
differences amongst these groups (MacDonald et
al, 2012).
Collaboration
Collaborative working between agencies and
prisons has been identified by partners as one of
the pre-requisites for effective throughcare. There
are several examples of good collaborative practices,
EuroVista
149
71
However, although the extent of collaborative
working varies enormously, it appears to be patchy
and spasmodic in all the partner countries. In most
cases, it appears to be the result, primarily, of
personal interest. An Estonian NGO observed that
‘collaboration often depends on the success of
personal relationships, on established networks’.
A further good example of collaboration was
identified in the UK and centres on an initiative to
provide assistance for ex-offenders identified as
being at high risk of harm. The Heantun Housing
Association, in partnership with the local MultiAgency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA)
in Staffordshire, provides an intensive floating
support scheme that provides additional support and
surveillance through regular home visits with excellent
feedback to individual offender managers
(Department for Communities and Local
Government, 2008, pp. 40–41).
There are also collaborative initiatives taking place
outside the partner countries that deserve attention.
In the Netherlands, for example, the Work Wise
initiative brought together fourteen custodial
institutions (Workwise, 2007). Work Wise worked
with the prisoners to ensure that they followed and
completed a training course, found and held onto
jobs and also found safe and permanent places to
live. Every prisoner participating in Work Wise
received his or her own individual employment
counsellor to guide them through the programme.
It linked work-related activity to wider social
activity so that attention was also paid to building
up and maintaining a positive social network for the
offender to fall back on.
Vol. 2 no. 3
Throughcare for prisoners with problematic drug use: a European perspective
On release
Release is a crucial point in the prisoner’s journey
and it is here that the danger of recidivism is greatest.
A Bulgarian prisoner observed that ‘your problems
start when [you] leave the prison-you have no job,
no house, no links…’
It can be a frightening moment for the prisoner. One
German prison officer observed that ‘inside prison,
prisoners are often in a good way. Upon release
this often changes really quickly to the worse. A
daily routine is essential.’An Estonian prison officer
pointed out that ‘some prisoners have been in this
prison over ten years… They have learned to live
in prison and before release some start panicking…
Drug dependent prisoners don’t have a support
system outside. No sober friends or family’.
The reasons for this are manifold. In Estonia, for
example, interviews indicated that the key principle
of equivalence between health services in prison and
community settings is difficult to ensure particularly
when prison and community health systems are
distinct and administered by different ministries.
‘Through the Gate’ services are beginning to be used
in various parts of Europe, but they are still not
common. Park and Ward (2009) describe a
particularly successful scheme in the UK, where
individual prisoners are accompanied to support
services. This approach is gaining in popularity. For
example, a German prison social worker noted that
‘we definitely are looking at where the detainee can
go to, how he is going to get there and if he has
enough money to do so.’ One Estonian prison
officer felt that ‘it was good if there would be some
supporting person, who would be able to support
the ex-prisoner and follow him on the way from the
prison – at the moment of release, when he comes
to the criminal supervision, and when his individual
plan is made –such person could help him to realize
such a plan’.
Information needs of prisoners
Participants feel that there is a need for
comprehensive information to be made available to
prisoners about institutions offering appropriate
services. There is recognition that it is important to
provide prisoners with information that will enable
Vol. 2 no. 3
150
70
them to negotiate any difficulties they might
encounter upon release. Participants are also clear
about the type of information that should be made
available. Similarly, participants can identify the
structures that are necessary to deliver information
and who should have responsibility for providing
the same. It is felt that a range of different individuals
should take a role in providing information, including
prisoners themselves. They are also clear about how
information should be mediated. Information needs
to be provided in a way that is culturally sensitive,
taking account of groups such as different ethnic
and national groups. It should also be mediated in
a way that recognises different abilities, such as
literacy levels.
A participatory approach
One major issue arising from the partner research
is the realisation that detainees are often not included
in the process of determining their throughcare plan.
For example, in Bulgaria, a prisoner complained: ‘I
know I am not a drug expert but I expect the experts
to discuss with me everything concerning my
treatment…now it is as if we are little children and
not able to think normally and have no idea what
our needs are’.
Interviews undertaken with prisoners suggest that,
in many cases, individual prisoners are often aware
of their issues. This is particularly noticeable in
discussions of problematic drug use. It is recognised
however, that there are problems in introducing a
participatory approach in the prison setting. This
might be as a result of genuine concerns relating to
security or issues relating to ingrained cultural
attitudes surrounding prison. Throughcare should,
however, be a genuine collaborative service involving
all parties – including prisoners.
Family Support
An area that is often neglected is the support
required by remaining family members when an
individual is imprisoned; the resulting effects of
imprisonment, particularly on children can be great.
Initiatives to support family members can be found
however. In the UK, the national drug strategy
outlined by the government in 2008 centres on a
whole family approach. The strategy is designed to
EuroVista
Main Articles
meet the needs of the entire family by involving them
in the planning and process of treatment, extending
family interventions and supporting parents with
problematic drug use to gain access to treatment
(Home Office, 2009).
In Northern Ireland, for example, the Northern
Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement
of Offenders (NIACRO) runs a scheme called
Family Links. This initiative provides both practical
advice and emotional support to family members
(NIACRO, 2011). Services offered include:








One-to-one on-going support for adults,
children and young people;
Telephone support;
Home visits;
Information on other agencies that can offer help
and how to access them;
Advice and information on benefits, housing and
debt;
Transport to any of the three prisons in Northern
Ireland;
Help with childcare;
Links to visitors’ centres and prison-visit staff.
In 2010–11 Family Links sent out 1130 information
packs, made 705 home visits and on 1258
occasions put families in touch with other relevant
sources of help and information.
Evaluation, monitoring and staff training
The research revealed a worrying lack of evidence
relating to policy and programme effectiveness.
Where it occurred, evaluation was often viewed as
a tick box exercise to be done at the end of a project
and, sadly, even this appears not to be achieved in
many cases. Simple monitoring and evaluative
processes appear to be lacking.
The partner research also indicates that there is
widespread recognition that it is essential to train
staff effectively to enable them to deal with the
throughcare needs of prisoners. It is also evident
however, that there are a lack of trained experts in
prison settings. It is also apparent however, that
participants are generally a little unclear as to what
is meant by ‘training’. In most cases, training was
interpreted as meaning raising staff awareness of
key issues relating to throughcare. In particular, this
EuroVista
151
71
included awareness of definitions, meaning and
objectives of throughcare, trends and statistics, rights
of prisoners, consequences of diseases and
addictions, locally specific issues and the need for
collaborative working and shared purpose
(MacDonald et al, 2012).
Barriers to effective throughcare
The partner research has identified a number of
issues that act as barriers to the implementation of
an effective throughcare system. A primary concern,
and one identified by most participants, is the issue
of funding. With the removal of funding,
programmes can be curtailed or even closed. The
research indicates that most NGOs that provide
services in the community have only short term
financing. This often results in an inability to plan
and develop services. The representatives of NGOs
noted the problems they experienced with flexibility
and focusing on long-term goals.
CONCLUSIONS
Research into throughcare in many EU member states
is still in its infancy. This study has focused on the
extent of throughcare services in some European
countries and identified a number of gaps in
provision. The research also indicates that currently,
there is no coherent approach to throughcare across
EU member states. As can be seen from the
examples noted above, examples of good practice
can be found in the partner countries and beyond.
Importantly, however, it has also indicated that there
is little systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of
throughcare initiatives and services.
The research has identified important issues relating
to understanding of throughcare and what it entails.
Full assessment of the needs of the prisoners
themselves, from the point of arrest, is key to
diagnosis and treatment. Treatment plans are
dependent on collaborative working and this
emerges as an essential element in all the examples
of successful practice of throughcare but it is a
challenge, for both ideological and practical reasons.
Above all, the research identifies resource barriers
to effective throughcare. Prison services appear to
be suffering reduced budgets and do not have
enough qualified staff. Throughcare is a costly
Vol. 2 no. 3
Throughcare for prisoners with problematic drug use: a European perspective
activity yet its potential benefits are enormous for
both the individuals and the wider community.
NOTES
1
2
3
4
The countries covered by MacDonald, 2005, 2008
studies were Bulgaria, Romania, Czech Republic,
Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia
and Slovenia. Walmsley 2003 involved the prison
systems of central and Eastern Europe 25 countries in
total.
A useful discussion of the history of resettlement in
England and Wales can be found in Lewis et al, 2007,
What Works in resettlement? Findings from seven
pathfinders for short-term prisoners in England and
Wales, Criminology and Criminal Justice 2007 7: 33.
The Throughcare Toolkit was launched in February
2012 and can be found on the project website: http://
www.throughcare.eu/
Individual partner literature and research reports can
be found online at: http://www.throughcare.eu/
partnerreports.html
REFERENCES
Debidin, M. (ed.) (2009). A Compendium of
Research and Analysis on the Offender
Assessment System (OASys) 2006-2009. Ministry
of Justice Research Series 16/09. Online: http://
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/researchanalysis-offender-assessment-system.pdf
[Accessed 17/10/2011].
Department for Communities and Local
Government (2008).
Needs Analysis,
Commissioning and Procurement for HousingRelated Support. London: Crown Copyright.
Farrall, S. (2004). ‘Social Capital and Offender
Re-integration: Making Probation Desistance
Focused’, in S. Maruna and R. Immarigeon (eds)
After Crime and Punishment: Pathways to
Offender Reintegration, pp. 57–84. Cullompton,
Devon: Willan.
Farrall, S. (2002). Rethinking What Works with
Offenders. Cullompton, Devon: Willan.
Vol. 2 no. 3
152
70
Fox, A., Khan, L., Briggs, D., Rees-Jones, N.,
Thompson, Z. and Owens, J. (2005). Throughcare
and aftercare: approaches and promising
practice in service delivery for clients released
from prison or leaving residential rehabilitation.
Home Office Online Report 01/05. London: Home
Office.
Holloway, K., Bennett, T. and Farrington, D.
(2005). The Effectiveness of Criminal Justice
and Treatment Programmes in Reducing DrugRelated Crime: A Systematic Review. Home
Office Online Report 26/05. London: Home Office.
Home Office (2009). Around Arrest Beyond
Release. London: Home Office. Online: http://
www.dur.ac.uk/publichealth.library/NLPHdocs/
Around%20Arrest%20Beyond%20
Release%202.pdf [Accessed 24/02/2012].
Insidetime (2009). OASys: Fact sheet. Online:
http://www.insidetime.org/information/
fact_sheets/Legal_Fact_sheet_OASys.pdf
[Accessed 12/10/11
Lewis, S., Vennard, J., Maguire, M., Raynor, P.,
Vanstone, M., Raybould, S. and Rix, A. (2003).
The Resettlement of Short-Term Prisoners: An
Evaluation of Seven Pathfinders. RDS
Occasional Paper 83. London: Home Office.
Macdonald, M., Weilandt, C., Popov, I., Joost, K.,
Alijev, L., Berto, D. and Parausanu, E. (2012).
Throughcare for Prisoners with Problematic
Drug Use: A Toolkit. Birmingham: Birmingham
City University.
MacDonald, M. with Atherton, S., Berto, D.,
Bakauskas, A., Graebsch, C., Parasanu, E., Popov,
I., Qaramah, A., Stover, H., Sorosi, P. and Valdaru,
K. (2008). Service Provision for Detainees with
problematic Drug and Alcohol Use in Police
Detention: A comparative Study of Selective
Countries in the European Union, Helsinki,
HEUNI.
MacDonald, M. (2005). A Study of Health Care
Provision, Existing Drug Services and Strategies
Operating in Prisons in Ten Countries from
Central and Eastern Europe. Helsinki, HEUNI.
EuroVista
Main Articles
Maguire, M. and Raynor, P. (2007). How the
resettlement of prisoners promotes desistance from
crime: Or does it? Criminology and Criminal
Justice Vol: 6(1): 19–38 accessed 17 April, 2012
from: http://www.caction.org/rrt_new/
professionals/articles/MAGUIRERESETTLEMENT%20OF%20PRISONERS.pdf
Park, G. and Ward, S. (2009). Through The Gates
— Improving the effectiveness of prison
discharge: first half-year evaluation, August
2008 to January 2009. St Giles Trust. Online: http:/
/www.hlg.org.uk/getattachment/f9237acc-2b3f4b0c-b93d-147891152402/Homelessness-Codeof-Guidance-(2).aspx [Accessed 23/02/2011].
Maguire, M. and Raynor, P. (1997). ‘The Revival
of Throughcare: Rhetoric and Reality in Automatic
Conditional Release’, British Journal of
Criminology 37(1): 1–14.
Timpson (2011). ‘About Timpson’. Timpson
Website. Online: http://www.timpson.co.uk/
about/80/timpson-foundation [Accessed 14/10/
11].
Maruna, S. (2000). Making Good. Washington:
American Psychological Association.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
(UNODC) (2008). World Drug Report. Accessed
24/02/2011: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/
data-and-analysis/WDR-2008.html
Møller, L., Stöver, H., Jürgens, R., Gatherer, A.
and Nikogosian, H. (2007). Health in Prisons: A
WHO guide to the essentials in prison health.
Copenhagen: World Health Organisation. Online:
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/
0009/99018/E90174.pdf [Accessed 12/10/2011].
Moore, R. (2009). Predicting Re-offending with
the OASys Self-assessment Questionnaire.
Ministry of Justice.
Online: http://
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/oasysresearch-summary-05-09.pdf [Accessed 12/10/
11].
Nelissen, P. and Schreurs, M. L. (2011). Stoppen
met criminaliteit, Werkboekvoor (ex)
gedetineerden. Amsterdam: Dutch Prison Service.
Nelken, D. 2009. Comparative criminal justice:
beyond ethnocentricism and relativism, European
Journal of Criminology, volume 6(4) 291-311.
Northern Ireland Association for the Care and
Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO) (2011).
Family Links. Online: http://www.niacro.co.uk/
our-services/working-with-prisoners-theirfamilies-and-children/projects/16/family-links/
[Accessed 14/10/11].
Walmsley, R. (2003). Further Developments in
the Prison Systems of Central and Eastern
Europe: Achievements, Problems and
Objectives, Helsinki, HEUNI.
Webster, C. (2006). Predicting criminality? Risk
factors, neighbourhood influence and desistance,
Youth Justice, 2006 6:7.
Webster, R. (2004). Assessing the Aftercare and
Throughcare Needs of Drug and Alcohol
Misusers in Havering: A draft report. July 2004.
Havering London Borough.
Work-Wise (2007). The Routing. Zutphen: WorkWise.
Youth Justice Board (2011). Asset – Young
Offender Assessment Profile. Online: http://
www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/youth-justice/
assessment/asset-young-offender-assessmentprofile.htm [Accessed 12/10/11].
Zamble, E. and Quinsey, V. (1997). The Criminal
Recidivism Process. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Pakes, F . Comparative Criminal Justice, 2010.
2nd Edition, Devon, Willan.
EuroVista
153
71
Vol. 2 no. 3
An Investigation into the Prevalence
of Mental Health Disorders in an
English Probation Population: An
Overview
Charlie Brooker
Honorary Professor of Mental Health and Criminal Justice, University of Lincoln
Coral Sirdifield
Research Assistant, University of Lincoln
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND
Existing literature and policy papers suggest that
there is a paucity of research both within England
and across Europe on the prevalence of mental
illness and substance misuse amongst offenders
under probation supervision. This paper provides
an overview of a study which piloted a methodology
for assessing the prevalence of mental health disorder
and substance misuse amongst this group in the
county of Lincolnshire, UK, and argues for the
importance of conducting similar research in other
areas of the UK and Europe. In addition, to the
above, the study summarised here investigated
offenders’ self-reported health needs, and the extent
to which they felt they were being met by existing
service provision; the extent to which probation staff
in this area were aware of and recording offenders’
mental health and substance misuse problems and
access to health services; and staff and offender
views on what facilitates and prevents access to
health services for offenders.
In many European countries there is an increasing
shift away from imprisonment and towards the use
of community sentences, and the number of people
subject to community sanctions and measures is
greater than the number of prisoners (Durnescu,
2010: 16; Ploeg and Sandlie, 2011). There are
moral, public health and economical arguments for
ensuring that offenders with mental illness or
substance misuse problems are identified and
receive appropriate health care (Brooker et al,
2009; Salize et al, 2007). However, such arguments
need to be supported by an evidence-base from
which the need for mental health services amongst
offenders can be demonstrated. Thus, the
prevalence of mental illness and substance misuse
appears to be an important topic to consider in a
European wide context in terms of establishing a
case for appropriate service provision. In addition,
it is important in the light of impetus from the Council
of Europe for closer working between probation
services across Europe, and discussions about a
European model for probation training (Durnescu
and Stout, 2011).
Vol. 2 no. 3
154
70
EuroVista
Main Articles
Although debate exists about the role of probation
both within and across different European countries,
and there is variation in the way in which probation
services are configured throughout Europe, it is
arguable that the ability to at least identify, if not
address mental illness and substance misuse
problems in offenders is a core competency for all
probation staff (Durnescu and Stout, 2011; Sirdifield
et al, 2010).
Dressing et al, (2007) compared the frameworks
underpinning diversion and treatment of offenders
with mental illness in 24 European countries and
pointed to a general lack of national statistics on
both the prevalence of mental illness amongst
prisoners, and the range of psychiatric treatments
available to prisoners across Europe. Similarly, there
is a paucity of research into the prevalence of mental
illness amongst offenders on probation and
pathways into treatment for these individuals across
Europe. In the UK, this gap in the literature has
featured in many recent policy papers (DH/NOMS,
2011, Lord Bradley, 2009 and DH, 2009).
To the authors’ knowledge, the majority of existing
research into the prevalence of mental illness and/
or substance misuse amongst offenders on
probation has been conducted in the UK and the
USA. Often, existing studies focus on specific subsamples of offenders on probation, such as those
housed in Probation Approved Premises in the UK
(see for example Geelan et al, 1998; Hatfield et al,
2004). Offenders in Probation Approved Premises
are likely to be convicted of serious offences, and
as such, are unlikely to be representative of the
wider population of offenders on probation. In
addition, the existing research is methodologically
diverse, with some studies using proxy measures
such as previous use of mental health services, or
staff opinions to estimate prevalence (see for
example Pritchard et al, 1991), whilst others attempt
to measure it directly using structured screening tools
(see for example, Lurigio et al, 2003). Moreover,
they measure different ranges of disorders, over
different timeframes, making direct comparison of
findings problematic. A full review of the mental
health literature is provided in Sirdifield (2012).
EuroVista
155
71
This paper presents an overview of a study which
aimed to build on the strengths of existing research
and address some of its weaknesses to create a
template for measuring psychiatric morbidity and
substance misuse in a probation population. In
addition, the study investigated offenders’ selfreported health needs and their access to services;
the extent to which mental illness is recognised and
recorded by probation; and both staff and offender
views on what facilitates and limits access to health
services for offenders. A brief overview of the design
and key findings of each stage of the research is
provided below, followed by a discussion on the
need for further research of this nature across
Europe.
STAGE ONE
Design
The first stage of the research measured psychiatric
morbidity and substance misuse amongst offenders
under probation supervision in Lincolnshire (UK).
It also examined offenders’ self-reported needs, and
the extent to which offenders felt that their needs
were being met by existing service provision. The
probation service in England and Wales classifies
all offenders into one of four tiers of risk. The
researchers selected a random sample of offenders
from across one English county which was stratified
by probation office and tier of risk. Interviews were
then conducted with a total of 173 participants,
consisting of demographic information and a number
of established screening tools. Substance misuse
was investigated in all participants using the Alcohol
Use Disorders Test (AUDIT) (Babor et al, 1992)
and the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST)
(Skinner, 1982). In addition, all participants were
screened for ‘likely cases’ of personality disorder
using the Standardised Assessment of Personality
– Abbreviated Scale (SAPAS) (Moran et al, 2003,
see also Pluck et al, 2012), and for ‘likely cases’ of
mental illness using an amended version of the Prison
Screening Questionnaire (PriSnQuest) (Shaw et al,
2003). Individuals screening positive on the latter
tool completed three further assessments – current
and past/lifetime mental health disorder was
investigated using the Mini International
Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) (Lecrubier et
al, 1997; Sheehan et al, 1998), health needs were
investigated using the Camberwell Assessment of
Vol. 2 no. 3
An Investigation into the Prevalence of Mental Health Disorders in an English Probation Population: An Overview
Needs Forensic Version (CANFOR-S) (Phelan et
al, 1995), and access to services was investigated
using an amended version of the Client Sociodemographic and Service Receipt Inventory
(European version) (CSSRI-EU) (Beecham and
Knapp, 1992). In addition, a sub-sample (n=17)
of participants who screened negative on the
PriSnQuest tool also completed the MINI as a
false-negative check.
Examination of self-assessed needs using the
CANFOR-S produces mean scores for ‘total
needs’, ‘met needs’ and ‘unmet needs’. Participants
with a mental illness had a mean ‘total need’ score
of 10.53, compared to 4.59 for those without a
mental illness. Furthermore, a Mann-Whitney ‘U’
test revealed a statistically significant difference
between these two groups in terms of their mean
scores for ‘met’ and ‘unmet’ needs at the p=<0.05
level.
Findings
Participants were found to be representative of the
wider caseload on probation in Lincolnshire in terms
of gender and ethnicity. Weighted estimates (which
account for false-negatives on the PriSnQuest tool)
were calculated for the prevalence of current and
past/lifetime mental illness across several diagnostic
categories (Dunn, 1999). Figures were rounded to
the nearest whole number, producing the following
prevalence rates and, where comparable, the figures
in brackets show the equivalent figures for the
general population in the United Kingdom
(McManus et al, 2009):









Any current mental illness: 39%
Any past/lifetime disorder: 49%
Mood disorder, current: 18% [2.3%]
Anxiety disorder, current: 27% [4.4%]
Psychotic disorder, current: 11% [0.4%]
Eating disorder, current: 5%
‘Likely case’ of personality disorder: 47%
Score of 8+ on AUDIT (strong likelihood of
hazardous/harmful alcohol consumption): 56%
[24.2%]
Score of 11+ on DAST (substantial or severe
level of drug use): 12% [0.5 %]
The rate of co-morbidity of personality disorder with
mental illness was also investigated, revealing that
89% of participants with a current mental illness were
also identified as ‘likely cases’ of personality disorder
using SAPAS. In addition, rates of dual diagnosis
(combined mental illness and substance misuse) were
investigated, revealing that 72% of those who were
PriSnQuest positive and screened positive for a
current mental illness on the MINI also had a
substance misuse problem (defined as scoring 8+
on AUDIT or 11+ on DAST).
Vol. 2 no. 3
156
70
Finally, findings from the CSSRI-EU tool on access
to mental health services indicated a
disproportionately low level of access given the
prevalence rates reported above. For example,
60% of participants with a current mood disorder
did not report accessing any kind of mental health
service. This was also true of 59% of current anxiety
disorder cases, half of current psychotic disorder
cases, three-quarters of those with a current eating
disorder, and 55% of ‘likely cases’ of personality
disorder. Similarly, there was a low level of access
to alcohol services, with just 40% of those scoring
8+ on AUDIT reporting accessing a substance
misuse service. However, 88% of those scoring
11+ on DAST reported accessing a substance
misuse service.
STAGE TWO
The second stage of the project investigated the
extent to which probation staff were aware of and
recording offenders’ mental health and substance
misuse problems, and information about offenders’
access to health services. This was achieved by
comparing information in probation case files to the
findings from the clinical interviews conducted in
stage one. Qualitative data from case files were also
analysed to investigate barriers to health service
access for offenders.
Design
A researcher examined the probation case files for
a purposive sample of participants in stage one –
namely those who screened positive for both a
current and a past/lifetime mental health disorder.
A data-collection tool was designed from scratch
to enable the researcher to collect quantitative data
for every file to show whether or not a disorder had
been recorded in the file, and qualitative data for
EuroVista
Main Articles
every fifth file. Information from some files had been
removed as the files had been archived.
Consequently, the analysis presented below focused
on ‘complete’ files only. Quantitative data were
analysed in SPSS using descriptive statistics.
Qualitative data were manually coded into themes
using the constant comparative method.
service access for offenders on probation. These
were: a lack of motivation on the part of an
offender to address a health issue/engage with
services; services refusing to work with offenders
with a dual diagnosis; and offenders failing to meet
the referral criteria for some services – suggesting a
need to widen provision.
Findings
STAGE THREE
There was a considerable degree of variation across
disorder types in the extent to which the mental health
disorders identified in the clinical interviews had been
recorded in probation files. The most frequently
recorded category of disorder was current mood
disorders, where 73% of cases identified during the
clinical interviews were also recorded in the
probation files. However, just 47% of those
identified as having a current anxiety disorder had
this recorded in the case file. Only a third of current
psychotic disorder cases were recorded, 21% of
‘likely personality disorder’ cases, and none of the
cases of eating disorder were recorded in the case
files. There was more agreement between the two
data sources in the recording of substance misuse
problems however, with 83% of those identified as
having a drug problem during the clinical interviews
having this recorded in their files, and 79% of those
identified as having an alcohol problem having this
recorded in their files.
The third stage of the study involved a series of
eleven semi-structured interviews with a purposive
sample of probation offender management staff, and
nine interviews with offenders on probation across
the county to investigate what facilitates and prevents
access to health services for offenders.
In terms of access to services, comparing the clinical
interview data with case file data suggested that in
two-thirds of cases in which an offender had told a
researcher that they were accessing a mental health
service, this was recorded in their probation case
file. 70% of the files examined also contained
information about access to services which was not
identified during the clinical interviews. This is likely
to result from differences in timeframes covered in
the interviews and in the case files – as interviews
focused on recent service use, whilst case files may
cover large time periods. However, combining the
‘interview’ and ‘file’ data together suggests that 23%
of participants with a current mental illness had no
contact at all with a mental health service.
Findings
Barriers to Service Access: Qualitative Data
Finally, analysis of the qualitative data extracted from
case files highlighted three potential barriers to health
EuroVista
157
71
Design
Interviews were conducted by two researchers and
two service user representatives working as pairs.
Participants were selected to ensure representation
from individuals with relevant knowledge/experience
from each of the probation offices across the county.
Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim,
and analysed in NVivo8 using the constant
comparative method. Staff and offender views were
analysed separately and compared, but are
presented together below for the purposes of this
paper.
Enablers for access to services largely centred
around communication and relationships between
people – in terms of conducting joint meetings
between offenders, health service staff and criminal
justice staff, having clear communication between
agencies, probation staff having an identified point
of contact within a health service that they know
and can work with to refer offenders into a service,
and having a good relationship between criminal
justice staff and offenders. The issue of a positive
relationship with probation was not only reported
by staff, but also by offenders who stressed the
importance of being honest with probation, and the
help that probation had provided them with. In
addition, access to services appeared to be easier
in cases where services were co-located, where
services could guarantee confidentiality, and where
probation staff were confident that they had sufficient
Vol. 2 no. 3
An Investigation into the Prevalence of Mental Health Disorders in an English Probation Population: An Overview
training to be able to identify the signs and symptoms
of mental illness and to make referrals to appropriate
services. Thus, when asked about positive
experiences of either facilitating access to services
(staff) or accessing services (offenders), participants
stated that they valued services with straightforward
referral systems and a flexible approach to engaging
with clients, and which offered a clear explanation
to offenders about their health problem.
As one might expect, many of the barriers to service
access identified were the converse of the above.
For example, silo working, poor communication
between services, insufficient mental health
awareness training for probation staff, and offenders
needing to travel long distances to access services.
In addition, both staff and offenders identified
referral systems as problematic in some cases – with
regards to the criteria used, and waiting lists
encountered. Moreover, both groups pointed to
the stigma encountered by some mentally ill offenders
when trying to access services, and to a lack of
service provision/resources for some problems – in
particular alcohol misuse. Staff also pointed to a
lack of flexibility in service provision – particularly
in relation to offenders with complex needs, and to
a reluctance on the part of mental health
professionals to treat complex cases and/or accept
responsibility for mental health treatment
requirements which can be given as part of
probation orders in England and Wales. Finally,
both staff and offenders pointed to an unwillingness
and/or inability of offenders to engage with health
services at times.
When discussing negative experiences around
accessing/facilitating access to services, participants
also highlighted issues such as continuity of care,
ensuring that offenders weren’t simply ‘fobbed off’
with medication, and ensuring that offenders
received frequent appointments rather than having
to wait extended periods between attending
healthcare services.
Finally, when asked to consider ways in which
healthcare service provision for offenders on
probation could be improved, participants made
many suggestions which built on the above – for
example more flexible working, improving
communication, increased co-working across
Vol. 2 no. 3
158
70
agencies, and expanding service provision in some
areas. Staff also made suggestions around having
mental health specialists working in probation.
DISCUSSION
This paper has presented a brief overview of the
design of a project centred around assessing and
addressing the mental health and substance misuse
needs of offenders on probation, together with key
findings from the research. This provided the
researchers with valuable learning around
methodological decisions involved in research of this
nature, for example in terms of recruitment strategies,
collecting health data from probation case files, and
providing estimates of likely prevalence to inform
sample size calculation in future studies.
The research points to a high prevalence of mental
illness and substance misuse amongst offenders in
this area of the UK. These data can be used to
inform things like probation training, healthcare
service provision and the provision of resources for
liaison/diversion services for offenders with mental
health and/or substance misuse problems. However,
future research is needed to know if similar findings
would be reproduced elsewhere. To what extent
will factors such as the purpose/focus of probation
in different countries, and the varying structure and
nature of health service provision affect likely findings
of such research?
In addition, the research highlighted considerable
variation in the extent to which different types of
mental illness and substance misuse identified during
clinical interviews were recorded in probation case
files. As stated earlier, arguably it is a central part
of the role of probation workers to identify mental
illness and substance misuse amongst offenders, and
there are strong arguments for ensuring that
offenders receive appropriate treatment. Future
research could examine this issue on a wider scale,
for example considering the potential impact of the
extent of mental health awareness training received
by probation staff in different countries, or the extent
to which probation is focused on punishment or
rehabilitation on these findings.
The research presented here highlights that in
Lincolnshire, many of offenders’ health needs are
EuroVista
Main Articles
unmet and that there are a number of ongoing
barriers to access to health services for them,
particularly for those with complex needs. In
addition, offenders may feel ambivalent about
engaging with health interventions. Is this likely to
be the case in other areas of Europe, or do other
countries have better models of healthcare provision
for this group or different ways of working with
offenders with health problems - for example, the
provision of mental health specialists in probation
or more advanced screening and diversion services?
Can we identify models of best practice which could
be utilised elsewhere?
Overall, based on the findings of this research, one
can only conclude that there is a need for the mental
health and substance misuse needs of offenders to
be given a higher priority in terms of service delivery,
education and research. Information from this report
can be used to provide an evidence base from which
commissioners can work to ensure that appropriate
services are provided to meet the needs of this hardto-reach group and that steps are taken to address
some of the ongoing barriers to service access for
offenders in the community. Having such an
evidence-base to draw on would arguably be hugely
beneficial for informing service provision in any area
of the world. Thus it would be highly valuable to
extend this research to examine the prevalence of
mental illness and substance misuse and models of
health support to probationers across Europe.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper presents independent research
commissioned by the National Institute for Health
Research (NIHR) under the Research for Patient
Benefit Programme. The views expressed in this
paper are those of the authors and not necessarily
those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of
Health.
REFERENCES
Babor, T. F., de la Fuente, J. R., Saunders, J. and
Grant, M. (1992). AUDIT the Alcohol Use
Disorders Identification Test: Guidelines for use
in Primary Health Care, WHO.
Beecham, J. and Knapp, M. (1992). Costing
psychiatric interventions, In Thornicroft, G., Brewin,
C. and Wing, J. (Eds) Measuring mental health,
London: Gaskell.
Bradley, L. (2009). The Bradley Report: Lord
Bradley’s review of people with mental health
problems or learning disabilities in the criminal
justice system, London: Department of Health.
Brooker, C. and Ullman, B. (2009). Inside Out:
Solutions for mental health in the criminal justice
system, London: Policy Exchange.
Brooker, C., Sirdifield, C., Blizard, R., MaxwellHarrison, D., Tetley, D., Moran P., Pluck, G., Chafer,
A., Denney, D. and Turner, M. (2011). An
Investigation into the Prevalence of Mental
Health Disorder and Patterns of Service Access
in a Probation Population, University of Lincoln.
Available at: http://www.lincoln.ac.uk/cjmh/
RfPB%20Executive%20Summary.pdf
Department of Health. (2009). Improving Health,
Supporting Justice: The National Delivery Plan
of the Health and Criminal Justice Programme
Board, London: Department of Health.
Department of Health/National Offender
Management Service. (2011). Consultation on
the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway
Implementation Plan, London: Department of
Health/National Offender Management Service.
Dressing, H., Salize, H. J. and Gordon, H. (2007).
Legal frameworks and key concepts regulating
diversion and treatment of mentally disordered
offenders in European Union member states,
European Psychiatry, 22: 427-432.
Dunn, G., Pickles, A., Tansella, M. and VazquezBarquero, J. L. (1999). Two-phase epidemiological
surveys in psychiatric research, British Journal of
Psychiatry, 174: 95-100.
EuroVista
159
71
Vol. 2 no. 3
An Investigation into the Prevalence of Mental Health Disorders in an English Probation Population: An Overview
Durnescu, I. (2010). Community sanctions and
measures in Europe, Some results from a recent
survey, EuroVista, 1(1): 10-18.
Durnescu, I. and Stout, B. (2011). A European
approach to probation straining: An investigation into
the competencies required, Probation Journal,
58(4): 395-405.
Phelan, M., Slade, M., Thornicroft, G., Dunn, G.,
Holloway, F., Wykes, T., Strathdee, G., Loftus, L.,
McCrone, P. and Hayward, P. (1995). The
Camberwell Assessment of Need: the validity and
reliability of an instrument to assess the needs of
people with severe mental illness, British Journal
of Psychiatry, 167: 589-595.
Geelan, S., Griffin, N. and Briscoe, J. (1998). A
profile of residents at Elliott House, the first
approved bail and probation hostel specifically for
mentally disordered offenders, Health Trends,
30(4): 102-105.
Pritchard, C., Cotton, A., Godson, D., Cox, M.,
and Weeks, S. (1991). Mental Illness, Drug and
Alcohol Misuse and HIV Risk Behaviour in 214
Young Adult (18-35 Year) Probation Clients:
Implications for Policy, Practice and Training, Social
Work and Social Sciences Review, 3(3): 227-242.
Hatfield, B., Ryan, T., Pickering, L., Burroughs, H.,
and Crofts, R. (2004). The mental health of
residents of approved premises in the Greater
Manchester probation area: A cohort study,
Probation Journal, 51(2), 101-115.
Salize, H. J., Dressing, H. and Kief, C. (2007).
Mentally Disordered Persons in European Prison
Systems – Needs, Programmes and Outcomes
(EUPRIS), Mannheim: Central Institute of Mental
Health.
Lecrubier, Y., Sheehan, D.V., Weiller, E., Amorim,
P., Bonora, I., Sheehan, K. H., Janavs, J. and
Dunbar, G. C. (1997). The Mini-International
Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). A short
diagnostic structured interview: reliability and validity
according to the CIDI, European Psychiatry, 12:
224-231.
Shaw, J., Tomenson, B. and Creed, F. (2003). A
screening questionnaire for the detection of serious
mental illness in the criminal justice system, The
Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology,
14(1): 138-150.
Lurigio, A .J., Cho, Y. I., Swartz, J. A., Johnson, T.
P., Graf, I. and Pickup, L. (2003). Standardized
Assessment of Substance-Related, Other
Psychiatric, and Comorbid Disorders Among
Probationers, International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47(6):
630-652.
McManus, S., Meltzer, H., Brugha, T., Bebbington,
P. and Jenkins, R. (2009). Adult Psychiatric
Morbidity in England 2007: Results of a Household
Survey. The NHS Information Centre, London.
Moran, P., Leese, M., Lee, T., Walters, Pl,
Thornicroft, G. and Mann, A. (2003). Standardised
Assessment of Personality – Abbreviated Scale
(SAPAS): preliminary validation of a brief screen
for personality disorder, British Journal of
Psychiatry, 183: 228-232.
Vol. 2 no. 3
160
70
Sheehan, D. V., Lecrubier, Y., Sheehan, K. H.,
Amorim, P., Janavs, J., Weiller, E., Hergueta, T.,
Baker, R. and Dunbar, G.C. (1998). The MiniInternatinal Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.):
The Development and Validation of a Structured
Diagnostic Psychiatric Interview for DSM-IV and
ICD-10, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 59(S20):
22-33.
Sirdifield, C., Gardner, M. and Brooker, C. (2010).
The Importance of Mental Health Awareness
Training in a European Probation Training
Curriculum, European Journal of Probation, 2(2):
23-38.
Sirdifield, C. (2012). The Prevalence of Mental
Health Disorders amongst Offenders on Probation:
A Literature Review, Journal of Mental Health,
(in press).
Skinner, H. A. (1982). The drug abuse screening
test, Journal of Addictive Behaviour, 7(4): 36371.
EuroVista
Older people in prison
Greg Lewis
Programme Manager, Age UK
INTRODUCTION
This paper examines the current state of provision
for older prisoners in England and Wales and
considers what improvements are possible.
BACKGROUND
The recent enactment of the Legal Aid, Sentencing
and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 has focused
attention not only on the perennial issue of law and
order, but also on the growing prison population
and the ability of the system to cope with any further
significant influx of inmates; even as the Act was
receiving Royal Assent, the number of imprisoned
people had reached record levels. But it is not just
young people being sentenced; a significant
proportion of prisoners are elderly and people aged
60 and over represent the fastest growing age group
in prisons; the number of sentenced prisoners aged
60 and over rose by 128% between 2000 and
2010.
In December 2011, the total number of prisoners
reached 87,960, taking the population to about
1,500 short of the usable operational capacity of
EuroVista
161
71
89,482. And yet when introducing the Bill to
Parliament, the Prime Minister stated that: “We have
got to stop this massive acceleration in prisoner
numbers. But the right way to do that is to reform
prison and make it work better.”
The timing of the Act was therefore prescient, coming
as it did after last summer’s brief unrest and
consequent rise in numbers of those incarcerated.
But more importantly, it also made the link between
making prison work properly as a means of
rehabilitating inmates and reducing the overall rate
of reoffending, which remains dispiritingly high. For
example, 49% of adults are reconvicted within one
year of being released – for those serving sentences
of less than twelve months this increases to 61%.
The rate of reoffending for those who have served
more than ten previous custodial sentences is 79%
(PRT Bromley Briefing December 2010).
GROWING OLD IN PRISON
The proportion of the sentenced prison population
serving indeterminate sentences (life sentences and
indeterminate public protection sentences) increased
from 9% in 1995 to 18% in 2010. This is part of
Vol. 2 no. 3
Older people in prison
the reason why the numbers of older prisoners is
growing. It follows that the majority of these will
have been imprisoned for serious offences and no
one should be in any doubt about the need to protect
the public from those convicted of such crimes where
appropriate. For example, 40% of men in prison
aged over 50 have been convicted of sex offences.
The next highest offence among older prisoners is
violence against the person (26%) followed by drug
offences (12%) (PRT Bromley Briefing December
2010).
It is worth pointing out here that any person held in
prison aged 50 years and over may be considered
to be an ‘older prisoner.’ Though the age at which a
person is considered to be ‘older’ is usually 60 or
above, there is evidence that many prisoners in their
50s and over have a physical health status ten years
greater than their contemporaries in the community.
In any event, older people in the criminal justice
system remain a hidden and little recognised
population. Few people tend to think about the
role of prisons in housing those that have committed
crimes in their old age, or who have grown old in
jail.
In addition to the growth in indeterminate sentences,
what are the reasons behind this growth in the older
prison population? From the few studies conducted
to date, the cause is generally attributed to:





changes in social and police attitudes to older
people;
less tolerance by the courts of deviant behaviour
by older people and therefore a greater
readiness to imprison them;
tougher sentencing in general, especially longer
sentences for sex offences and mandatory life
sentences;
the accumulation in prison of older habitual
offenders and those ageing through long
sentences;
the impact of the Criminal Justice Act 2003,
which will continue to increase demand for
prison places, with an expected increase of
prisoners on Extended Sentences for Public
Protection.
(HMIP 2004; Wahidin 2009)
Vol. 2 no. 3
162
70
The increase in the older prison population is not
then just a phenomenon attributable to demographic
changes, nor can it be explained by a so-called
‘elderly crime wave’. The increases in numbers
cited are part of a trend as a result of changes in
attitudes within society and the criminal justice
system, coupled with an ageing population.
However, to date no additional resources have been
made available to meet the needs of this particular
group of offenders, either within or outside prison.
And according to ‘Older prisoners in England and
Wales’ HM Inspectorate of Prisons (2008), apart
from short sections in the Prison Service Orders on
disability and women, there remains no national
strategy for older prisoners as such, supported by
mandatory national and local standards.
SUPPORT IN PRISON
As has been noted above, many older prisoners
have been found guilty of serious crimes, and the
public has a right to expect protection from them.
But equally, this is not a reason for them to receive
sub-standard support within the prison system.
Older prisoners should receive the same level of
basic social and health care support as non-prisoners
and guidance should be developed and
disseminated to Resettlement Teams outlining best
practice and responsibilities in resettling older
prisoners, including pensions advice, housing, and
accessing healthcare. The 2008 HMIP report raised
grave concerns that the social care needs, in
particular, of older and disabled prisoners were not
planned or provided for after release. Legislation
clearly states that local primary care trusts have a
duty to provide healthcare to prisoners, but, the
equivalent legislation relating to social care provision
is ambiguous. Prisoners are not explicitly included
or excluded from a local authority’s duty of care.
But in practice this ambiguity allows many authorities
to renege on their responsibilities; statutory
responsibilities should be clarified so that local
authorities have a clear duty to provide in-prison
social care.
The report also indicated ‘little evidence of
multidisciplinary working’ and found it ‘disappointing
that the social care needs of older and disabled
EuroVista
Main Articles
prisoners were still considered the responsibility of
health services only.’ And over 90% of prison staff
that responded to a survey conducted by the Prison
Reform Trust said that social services had no
involvement in their prisons. Only five prisons
reported that an occupational therapist came in to
the prison when required and would provide daily
living aids (Cooney with Braggins 2010).
There is reference in the report to the ‘complete
lack of staff training in identifying the signs of mental
health problems among the elderly.’ This is
especially worrying, as evidence of the health needs
of older prisoners has been available for more than
ten years (Fazel et al, 2001). Recent research by
Staffordshire University (Le Mesurier et al, 2010),
for example, revealed that 48% of older people in
four prisons had at least one diagnosable mental
health condition, excluding personality disorder.
Most had some kind of physical health problem.
Finally, the HMIPAnnual Report 2007-08 revealed
few prisons have a designated nurse for older
prisoners.
THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
Older prisoners need greater choice in prison
accommodation. According to NACRO (2009),
many older prisoners wish to remain in a mainstream
wing environment, with access to all the available
resources, and they should be supported in doing
this, but with the option of having quiet spaces, wings
and cells. Simple environmental adaptations should
also be considered and the creation of facilities with
enhanced resources for accommodating older
prisoners who may have mobility or other support
needs. Resource mapping should be carried out at
local and regional level to support moves to a more
flexible regime for older prisoners.
MANAGEMENT OF OLDER
OFFENDERS IN AND OUT OF PRISON
Public confidence in the management of older
offenders in the community could be significantly
improved. For example, Multi-Agency Public
Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) are a set of
statutory arrangements to assess and manage
effectively the risk posed by certain sexual and
violent offenders. They were established by the
Criminal Justice Act 2003 and bring together the
EuroVista
163
71
Police, Probation and Prison Services into what is
known as the MAPPA Responsible Authority for
each MAPPA Area. It would make sense for older
people’s advocacy and support services to be fully
involved as part of these arrangements.
In order to further reduce the likelihood of these
prisoners reoffending, it is imperative that those
services which best aid rehabilitation – health and
social care support, housing and pensions advice,
education and training – be made available to them,
both in prison and crucially, following release. For
example, as noted above, prisoners are likely to
have earlier onset of chronic health and social care
needs than the general population. As a result, older
offenders generally fall into that category at an earlier
age than they would outside of the prison system
and there is significant evidence that, in health terms,
prisoners suffer greater health problems than the
general population.
Pathways towards and through resettlement are not
currently geared up to older prisoners. Offending
behaviour programmes, employment opportunities
and education and training schemes are primarily
designed for and aimed at young men. Where older
prisoners do gain access to appropriate
opportunities, these are frequently disrupted by
prison transfers. Programmes should be designed
with the needs of older prisoners in mind; sentence
planning should ensure access and continuity.
What is needed is better care, resettlement and
rehabilitation of offenders and ex-offenders over the
age of 50, in particular, but not exclusively through
the provision of support services, advocacy, financial
advice, mentoring on issues such as employment
and training and advice on housing and health. This
in turn will enable them to take control of their lives
and remain free from offending and prevent them
from becoming socially excluded on their release.
Perhaps what is also required is more of an
emphasis on what is called ‘service user involvement’
or ‘user voice. A good example is older prisoners
forums, such as those delivered by RECOOP, a
charity offering advice and support to older
prisoners. Advocates of the idea make the basic
point that you are far more likely to achieve a good
service if you can incorporate feedback from the
Vol. 2 no. 3
Older people in prison
users of a service, and involve them in its delivery
or design. This echoes some of the ideas coming
from the current UK government around localism
and decentralisation and the provision of public
services.
Probation staff need to take account of the
particular needs of older prisoners in terms of their
resettlement and support prior to release and ensure
they are not overlooked. They should ensure all the
relevant information is made available and that it is
fully understood.
PROBLEMS FACED ON RELEASE
Many older prisoners experience problems related
to housing and pensions/income on release from
prison. These problems are often closely linked, and
self-perpetuating. A significant number will have lost
their homes, or will find it difficult to find affordable
accommodation; resettlement grants are not
adequate to pay for housing. In addition, many
prisoners will not previously have been able to claim
a pension.
It is therefore vital that older prisoners are able to
access effective advice, support and signposting
services both inside and outside of prison. Ensuring
that older prisoners have access to appropriate
accommodation on release should be a priority for
prison resettlement/probation teams and local
authority/housing association housing officers.
Voluntary sector agencies also have a key role to
play in improving the lives of older prisoners both
inside and outside prison; there are excellent
examples of the third sector providing support
services, advocacy, information and advice and
signposting to prisoners, amongst others. Greater
opportunities need to be given to the third sector to
provide these and other services to older prisoners.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROBATION
SERVICE
Many older prisoners find the resettlement process
unsatisfactory in terms of the support and guidance
they are given and the blame for this tends to fall on
the probation service. They in turn admit that the
service, particularly inside jails can be patchy
(Crawley 2004), but suggest this is due to insufficient
resources and those that are available being allocated
according to the perceived risk to the public. Most
older prisoners are deemed to be a low risk while
still locked up and only as their release date nears
are their needs addressed. They are also generally
less assertive than their younger counterparts and
do not request information, or at least do not do so
repeatedly if it is not forthcoming.
Vol. 2 no. 3
164
70
SUPPORTING OLDER PRISONERS
PRIOR TO RELEASE
Age UK is a national charity working on behalf of
older people and it believes there is significant scope
for improving the day to day lives of older prisoners,
most obviously by offering practical support in
tackling the more common age related conditions.
We have previously called for older prisoners’
forums to be established in all prisons with an older
population, but beyond this there should be a focus
on promoting activities suitable for them and
ensuring that their health needs are properly
addressed. There is also the physical environment
to be considered and the impact that this can have
on well being.
In July 2009, NACRO and the Department of
Health published a resource pack for working with
older prisoners, aimed at wing-based prison staff,
disability liaison officers, peer support workers and
anyone else who has an interest in enhancing the
lives of older prisoners. It includes good practice
ideas and suggestions for setting up activities in
establishments for older prisoners. It is also intended
to act as a reference on different organisations to
encourage prison workers to contact other agencies
for information and improve the quality of their
information, advice and guidance service for older
prisoners.
Meanwhile, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and
Punishment of Offenders Act gives the Secretary of
State new powers to make prison rules about the
employment of prisoners, pay and deductions from
their pay. The intention of these provisions is that
prisoners should make payments which would
support victims of crime and make prisons places
of hard work and industry, where prisoners will be
expected to work a full working week. With recent
changes in UK legislation affecting the statutory
retirement age, it is likely to be the case that many
older prisoners will still choose to work, but others
EuroVista
Main Articles
may not be able to do so (perhaps because of a
health condition) and prison authorities will need to
provide the opportunity for older inmates to take
up alternative activities. The resource pack makes
a number of suggestions and Age UK has
encouraged its use as widely as possible in
establishments catering for older prisoners.
locally, rather than nationally, determined. And some
level of national oversight will be needed for ensuring
local agencies meet public duties set at national,
European and international level.
For some older prisoners, the routines of prison life
and close proximity to health services can provide
a measure of security that is not available in the
community. But for many, their time in prison is spent
in a limbo of inactivity. HMIP’s own review, Time
Out of Cell, recommended that a minimum of ten
hours a day should be spent out of cell by all
prisoners as a Key Performance Target, and that
adequate opportunities for stimulation be provided
besides television in cell. Its recommendations were
based on findings that showed that most prisoners
spend much less time than this out of their cells in
education or employment. Older people in prison,
some of whom are retired or unable to take part in
these activities, are particularly likely to remain all
day inside their cells with little or no occupation or
stimulation, and at a risk to their health. Few prison
cells are adapted to the needs of older or disabled
people in prison.
The charity supports a national body, the Older
People in Prison Forum, while some local Age UKs
work closely with the prison service in partnership
with health and social services and other voluntary
organisations.
DECENTRALISATION AND THE
BETTER MANAGEMENT OF
OFFENDERS
The UK Government has made clear in its recent
White Paper on Open Public Services (2011) a
desire to see public services opened up to a range
of providers competing to offer a better service.
However, we would anticipate a need for on going
lines of accountability for public bodies. While they
may transfer more roles to different organisations,
they are still ultimately responsible for meeting their
statutory functions. There will still need to be
continued oversight and inspection of the
performance of services commissioned and
delivered by public bodies.
There also needs to be a process for members of
the public to assess the suitability and quality of
services and decisions. To ensure transparency and
accountability, a form of performance management
system is essential, although this could be more
EuroVista
165
71
AGE UK AND SUPPORT FOR OLDER
PRISONERS
The work of local Age UKs can provide positive
and cost-effective contributions to what is known
as the ‘dynamic security’ of the prison (its activities
and relationships, as well as its physical security)
and can support prison audit measures. Local Age
UKs can complement the work of equality officers,
resettlement teams and prison health care services,
primary care trusts and local authority social
services. In addition, they provide information,
advice and advocacy, support health and wellbeing
and some provide what are known as ‘through-thegate’ services, helping prisoners prepare for release.
For example, Age UK Bristol through the Older
Prisoners Advice Service provides a weekly
pensions and benefits help session for people aged
50+ at HMP Bristol. A recent evaluation concluded
that a high level of confidentiality has been
maintained, but records of sessions are detailed and
are open to scrutiny as a full record of the service
provided and the outcomes achieved. This is the
responsibility of the project worker and monitored
by the management at Age UK Bristol. From the
records it is apparent that effective steps were taken
to resolve issues to a ‘case closed’ outcome in most
cases and particularly in cases when a prisoner was
due for release. However, data from the project
reveal that many sessions required the project
worker to undertake ‘follow-up’ with outside
agencies e.g. DWP, and this is a time-consuming
process. Nevertheless the majority of queries relied
on this thorough intermediary research, to resolve
issues, and it was being undertaken effectively.
Vol. 2 no. 3
Older people in prison
‘Supporting older people in prison: ideas for
practice’ is part of Age UK’s Expert series and
offers accessible and practical information on how
Age UK can assist the prison service and health
and social care providers for older people to fulfil
their duties under the Equality Act, 2010, and the
HMIP review Time Out of Cell (2007). The guide
presents a range of services for older people in prison
that local Age UKs provide in partnership with
prisons and providers of prison health and social
care services, bringing to life the impact of services
on older people’s health and well being in prison.
Other organisations working with older people in
prison include Restore, which is a peer-mentoring
and support network founded in 1996 by a group
of older people serving sentences in Bedford, Lincoln
and The Mount prisons. Since then it has since
worked with over 350 older serving and former
prisoners and is moving toward becoming a
registered charity and membership body for all older
people currently serving, or having served a prison
sentence – regardless of their disability, race, faith
or non-faith, sex, or sexual orientation.
The Department of Health has funded a project in
HMP Isle of Wight, which has recently been
extended for another twelve months. This is userled by the Older Prisoners Forum (see below) in
the design of an integrated health and social care
assessment for older prisoners for use as a ‘passport
to care and resettlement’ prior to release, which will
be of benefit also to probation.
Lastly, through Older Prisoners’ Forums, local Age
UKs can help older people in prison to play an active
role in improving the quality of the prison regime.
These have become a part of the regime in a number
of prisons and are being developed in various forms
in others. Older prisoners’ forums are managed
according to a formal constitution and officers are
democratically elected. They are overseen by prison
staff but are managed by older people themselves.
Some forums have become formally affiliated to local
and national older people’s forums in the community.
A constitution and processes to elect officers are
developed with the prison service and publicised.
Regular meetings are held according to an approved
agenda and guest speakers may be invited. Topics
can be of specific interest to older people in prison
Vol. 2 no. 3
166
70
(e.g. benefits and pensions advice) but may also be
of general interest. They can raise issues and seek
to influence and advise, but they are not a union
and cannot make demands.
CONCLUSION
The issue of older prisoners and their needs within
the prison estate is not going to go away. With the
current sentencing policy in England and Wales and
advances in forensic science, we can expect more
and more people to grow old in custody, or begin
sentences late in life and it is therefore important
that their needs are recognised by those employed
to care and rehabilitate them; at the same time,
support for those who are released is equally as
important, particularly if we are to prevent
reoffending. It is hard to understand, even in a time
of austerity, why a minimum level of resource has
not been made available for this purpose and in
particular why there remains no national strategy
for older prisoners, supported by mandatory national
and local standards.
References
Cooney, F. with Braggins, J. (2010). Doing Time:
Good practice with older people in prison – the
views of prison staff, London: Prison Reform Trust.
Crawley, E. (2004). ‘Release and Resettlement: the
perspectives of older prisoners’, Criminal Justice
Matters, 56.
Fazel, S. et al. (2001). ‘Health of Elderly Male
Prisoners Worse than the General Population,
Worse than Younger Prisoners’, Age and Ageing,
30: 403–407.
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and
Wales (2009). Annual Report 2007-08, London:
The Stationery Office.
HM Inspectorate of Prisons (2004). ‘No problems
- old and quiet’, London: HMIP.
EuroVista
Main Articles
HM Inspectorate of Prisons (2007). Time Out of
Cell: A short thematic review, available at: http:/
/www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/
inspectorate-reports/hmipris/thematic-reportsand-research-publications/time-out-of-cellrps.pdf (accessed August 2012).
HM Inspectorate of Prisons (2008). ‘Older
prisoners in England and Wales: a follow-up to the
2004 thematic review’, London: HMIP.
Le Mesurier, N. et al. (2010). A Critical Analysis
of the Mental Health Needs of Older Prisoners,
Staffordshire University and South Staffordshire
Primary Care Trust, available at: http://
www.staffs.ac.uk/assets/
Critical_%20analysis_of_the_mental_
health_of_older_prisoners_august_2010_tcm4432603.pdf (accessed August 2012).
NACRO (2009). Working with older prisoners,
London: NACRO.
Wahidin, A. (2009). ‘Ageing in prison: crime and
the criminal justice system.’ In C. Hale et al. (eds.)
Criminology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
EuroVista
167
71
Vol. 2 no. 3
Relapse study in the correctional
services of the Nordic countries. Key
results and perspectives
Ragnar Kristoffersen
Researcher, Correctional Service of Norway Staff Academy
ABSTRACT
Key findings and perspectives from a relapse study
of correctional clients in the Nordic countries are
presented and discussed. The findings are based
on data from national computer registers of
correctional offenders. Methodologically, a
common definition of reoffending, a common
observation period and a shared classification of
offender groups are applied. Selected national
differences are pointed out and discussed. In the
article it is argued that the overall national differences
in reoffending rates mainly reflect the national
differences in the criminal sanction systems, such as
the distribution and the proportion of principal crime
type groups serving in prison compared to those
serving community sanctions, and differences in risk
of committing new offences. The latter is clearly
reflected by the different percentages of previous
prison sentences among different offender groups
in prison and probation. Except for traffic offences,
in total, all crime type groups reoffended more often
to a different primary crime type than the original
offence. This strongly indicates that most reoffenders
seem to have comprehensive crime problems that
have to be addressed. Some consequences for
Vol. 2 no. 3
168
70
policy making when it comes to national expectations
on general reductions in recidivism are also
commented on, as well as some future perspectives.
KEYWORDS
Recidivism, reoffending in correctional services,
Nordic relapse study, reoffending among prisoners
and probationers, reoffending among different types
of sentences.
INTRODUCTION
Recidivism is defined and measured differently, and
this creates a problem when comparing national
reoffending rates between nations. This study is a
product of a yearlong collaboration between a group
of researchers and statisticians from the correctional
services in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and
Sweden. The purpose of the collaboration was to
overcome national hindrances in comparing
recidivism due to differences in sentencing practice
and the various ways recidivism was measured and
reported, trying to agree on at least some minimum
common requirements necessary in order to do an
approximate comparison. I will present and discuss
EuroVista
Main Articles
some key findings and perspectives from this relapse
study of correctional clients in the Nordic countries
(Graunbøl et al, 2010). I will also present and
discuss some new points related to the case of
Norway. Generally the most important finding is
probably how the study demonstrates that national
differences in reoffending rates among different
offender groups reflect national differences in the
criminal sanction systems and the proportion of risk
groups serving in prison compared to those serving
in the probation. Inherently, data from the study
also draw attention to some unanticipated
consequences and the need for moderation in policy
making regarding expectations as to what is
achievable on a national level when it comes to
reductions in recidivism, especially in an era of
continuously increasing the use of prison alternatives
at the expense of increasingly troubled prisons.
METHODS
National computer registers are the sources for this
analysis of reoffending. Irrespective of national
differences in defining recidivism, reoffending figures
in this study are based on a common definition of
reoffending defined by the research group.
Consequently, equally long observation periods of
two years and a shared classification of
approximately similar offender groups are applied.
EuroVista
169
71
The correctional clientele in the Nordic countries
are divided into five offender groups: Prisoners,
community service, conditional sentence with
supervision, conditional sentence with treatment
(including programmes) and electronic monitoring.
The latter four groups are for simplistic reasons
lumped into one category labelled “community
sanctions (CS)” or “probationers”. A central object
of the study is to present and discuss reoffending
rates among those released from prison compared
to those who served a community sanction in 2005.
Relapse is defined as a new prison sentence or
community sanction that became legally binding
within two years of release from prison or from
commencement of the community sanction in 2005.
Put differently, suspended sentences and fines are
excluded from the relapse definition. Secondly, at
least one act of reoffending must have taken place
after release from prison or after starting a
community sanction in 2005. The latter criterion is
important in order to avoid counting false recidivists
and consequently reporting overstated reoffending
rates. This is a common source of error in many
relapse studies based on new convictions.i The
survey comprises a total of almost 60,000 offenders
in the Nordic countries. Table 1 shows the number
of offenders included in this study divided by type
of sentence.ii
Vol. 2 no. 3
Relapse study in the correctional services of the Nordic countries. Key results and perspectives
The work represents an important pioneering effort
as there are no previous relapse studies that report
and analyse reoffending in the correctional services
in a Nordic comparative perspective. A word of
caution about the applicability of the survey is
necessary: The results cannot be used to predict
the effects of various measures delivered to the
offenders while serving their sentences, but on the
other hand it cannot be ruled out that such national
differences may have contributed to the overall
reoffending rates. Other external factors may also
have contributed to the differences in reoffending
rates between the Nordic countries, such as clear
up rates for criminal cases and the capacity to deal
with them in the police and the courts, as well as
changes in the lives of the offenders. Besides, there
is no standardized risk assessment instrument in any
of the Nordic countries that might have influenced
the recruitment of offenders to the various categories
of clients and their reoffending rates. Recruitment
reflects a mixture of national laws and regulations
and judgement by members of staff.
Young age is a well-known risk factor (see e.g.
Hirschi and Gottfredson, 1983), and about one third
of all Nordic clients under the age of twenty-one
relapsed. Even so, offenders under the age of
twenty-one constituted only 12% of all clients, which
reduces their effect on total national reoffending
rates. The most significant variables explaining
differences in the national reoffending rates are
previous prison sentence and different distribution
of principal crime types with different risk of
committing new offences among the clients in prison
or probation. Table 3 specifies the national
reoffending rates for the different categories of
probationers. Except for Iceland, in which
community service was the only option in 2005,
there are minor differences within the Nordic
countries in the overall reoffending rate among
probationers.
Vol. 2 no. 3
170
70
MAIN RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF
NATIONAL DIFFERENCES
The purpose of this article is to illuminate some
essential findings. Table 2 shows the main results
of the survey, i.e. percentages of new sentences for
released sentenced prisoners versus CS, as well as
the national total percentages for all clients added
together. The table shows that Norway has the
lowest overall reoffending rate among offenders in
the Nordic countries. Within two years, a fifth of all
those released from prison and those who started
serving a community sanction in Norway incurred a
new conviction that had to be served in the
correctional services. In the other Nordic countries
the overall reoffending rate varies from 24% to 31%.
EuroVista
Main Articles
Nevertheless, there is a large variation in risk of
committing new offences among the groups of
offenders in the probation services, among which
the reoffending rate also varies correspondingly, cf.
Table 3. This is clearly demonstrated if we, for
instance, compare the Norwegian and the Swedish
offenders sentenced to community service. The
Norwegian offenders sentenced to community
service show the second highest reoffending rate
compared to those who serve other forms of
community service in the other Nordic countries.
This is primarily explained by the fact that in Norway
this offender group has a significantly higher
proportion of clients with a previous prison sentence
than those serving community orders in the other
countries. The percentage of offenders with a
previous prison sentence among the Norwegian
offenders serving a community sentence is practically
the same as for released prisoners. In both groups
the figure is approximately one fourth measured five
years back in time prior to the commencement of
the sanction in 2005. This shows that previous
prison sentence is not a crucial obstacle when the
courts decide whether an offender in Norway should
be given a community sentence.
In other words, the Norwegian courts’ willingness
to impose a noncustodial sentence in cases where
the offender is an ex-prisoner, is higher than the other
countries, hence contributing to higher reoffending
rates than would otherwise be the case. In contrast,
only four percent of the Swedish offenders serving
community service have previously served a prison
sentence. Not surprisingly this offender group
shows the lowest reoffending rate of all offender
groups in the Nordic countries, i.e. nine percent.
The study also shows that national differences in
reoffending rates among offenders are influenced
by national differences in the use of suspended
sentences with no correctional conditions.iii
Suspended sentences are believed to be the closest
alternative to conditional sentences with supervision
or other terms administered by the probation
service. The size of the offender groups and the
distribution of principal crime types among those
receiving merely suspended sentences vary greatly
between the countries, indirectly affecting the
composition of offender groups in the correctional
EuroVista
171
71
services and their reoffending rates. Figure 1 shows
the proportion of suspended sentences passed by
the courts in the Nordic countries in 2005 in relation
to all correctional sentences passed by the courts
same year. Suspended sentences amount to a little
more than half in Finland, whereas in Sweden such
sentences constitute only one fifth. In other words,
Sweden seems to have “absorbed” a much wider
group of offenders into their probation service
compared to e.g. Finland. More than half of all
clients in the Swedish correctional services serve
their sentences in the probation service.
Furthermore, in Finland more than half of all
suspended sentences are imposed for traffic
offences, mostly drunk driving. Moreover, within
the Finnish correctional system almost half of all
drunk drivers will serve in prison. However, only
one third of all offenders serving traffic crimes in
Sweden will serve their sentence in prison, while
two thirds – a large group of low risk traffic offenders
– will serve a probation order, mainly electronic
monitoring or community service. Consequently,
such differences in the distribution of principal crime
types among correctional clients contribute to
national differences in reoffending rates for prisons
versus probation.
Offenders sentenced for thefts show generally the
highest reoffending rates in all the countries. Table
4 and Table 5 show reoffending rates for prisoners
versus probationers in different principal crime
types, and Table 6 add up all offenders in the Nordic
countries.
On average almost half of all offenders sentenced
for theft in the Nordic countries reoffended (cf. Table
6), but the national proportion of them differs both
in prison and probation. For example, released
offenders sentenced for theft constituted 18% of all
released prisoners in Sweden in 2005. In contrast,
Norway had the smallest population of released
offenders sentenced for thefts, 12%, thus
contributing to the generally low reoffending rate
for prisoners in Norway. In Sweden actually 61%
of released prisoners sentenced for thefts
reoffended, cf. Table 4.
Vol. 2 no. 3
Relapse study in the correctional services of the Nordic countries. Key results and perspectives
On the other hand, Norway had the biggest
proportion of low risk traffic offenders released from
prison – 30% (n = 2617) of all released sentenced
prisoners (n = 8788), of which roughly ninety
percent had no previous prison conviction. One
third of released prisoners for traffic crimes in
Vol. 2 no. 3
172
70
Norway were sentenced for speeding only. Hence
the reoffending rate for released prisoners for traffic
crimes in Norway was not quite unexpectedly only
eight percent, compared to Finland’s and Sweden’s
rates of 42 percent.
EuroVista
Main Articles
The survey also reveals that Norway chooses
imprisonment more often than the other countries,
both in relation to general population and when it
comes to choosing between prison and probation.
74% of the correctional clients in Norway in 2005
were prisoners, while in Sweden the percentage was
44. When comparing this evidence with the generally
low reoffending rate among released prisoners in
Norway, the political and empirical conditions for
increased use of alternatives to imprisonment seem
advantageous in Norway, especially for low risk
offenders, such as first-timers sentenced to prison
for traffic offences. However, if all released traffic
offenders in Norwegian prisons in 2005 alternatively
served their prison sentence in probation, leaving
the rest of the prison population as it was, the overall
percentage of reoffending among released prisoners
in Norway in 2005 would increase with five
percentage points. Currently this category of
prisoners is gradually being diverted from prison to
alternative sanctions in Norway, primarily electronic
monitoring. In 2011, 1064 electronic monitoring
cases started serving in Norway, compared to none
in 2005, and the majority of those serving electronic
monitoring are traffic offenders. An unexpected
but likely consequence of this politically desired
development would be a general higher reoffending
rate for prisoners and most likely a higher share of
more troubled prisoners. However, I do not wish
to imply that this consequence is unacceptable. The
EuroVista
173
71
alternative is the unnecessary imprisoning of a large
group of sentenced people with a low risk of
reoffending.
There is naturally some variation in reoffending rates
among crime types from country to country, but in
total robbery and drugs succeed thefts as the
principal crime groups with the highest reoffending
rates. The average reoffending rate for all the Nordic
countries together was 27%. Interestingly, Table 6
also discloses an unexpected observation about the
proportion of offenders who did not reoffend to the
same principal crime type.
Except for traffic crimes, where a little more than
half of all reoffenders reoffended to the same primary
crime type, in total all other groups reoffended more
often to a different primary crime type than the
original offence. Surprisingly this is even the case
with sex and economic crimes, where three quarters
or more of the reoffenders actually reoffended to a
different primary crime type. This indicates that most
reoffenders seem to have comprehensive crime
problems that have to be addressed and the
worthwhileness of targeting special categories of
offence such as drugs or sex seems questionable.
For example a lot of cognitive behavioural
programmes target specific crime problems in which
case sentenced crime type is an important criterion
of recruitment to the programme.
Vol. 2 no. 3
Relapse study in the correctional services of the Nordic countries. Key results and perspectives
As mentioned earlier, the majority of correctional
clients in Sweden serve their punishment in
probation, whereas only one fourth of the
Norwegian clients do so.iv When large groups of
sentenced persons with a low reoffending risk are
transferred to probation, such as in Sweden, prisons
will increasingly be left with a more troubled clientele
with a higher reoffending risk, as demonstrated by
the fact that almost half of the released prisoners in
Sweden are formerly sentenced to prison.
Conversely, the large group of low risk traffic
offenders among released prisoners in Norway
strongly contributed to the low reoffending rate
among released prisoners in Norway. In total only
approximately one fourth of released prisoners in
Norway have previously been sentenced to prison.
In the other countries the proportion varies between
34% in Iceland to 59% in Finland. The proportion
of offenders formerly sentenced to prison is
therefore the most significant contributor to national
differences in reoffending rates. If you compare
Table 7 to Table 8, an earlier prison sentence tends
Vol. 2 no. 3
174
70
to double or – in the case of Sweden – even triple
the risk of reoffending. The differences in overall
reoffending rates are relatively small when comparing
national reoffending rates for those formerly
sentenced to at least one prison sentence prior to
the prison sentence that was served in 2005 (cf.
Table 7). In all countries except Sweden the total
reoffending rates as well as the reoffending rate for
prisoners vary around approximately 40 percent.
Correspondingly, national differences in reoffending
rates even out when we measure recidivism among
those with no former prison sentence prior to the
sentence served in 2005 (cf. Table 8). Norway
stands out with lower reoffending rates compared
to the other countries, which hover around twenty
percent or a little more. The even lower reoffending
rate for prisoners in Norway compared to
probationers would equalize if the large group of
low risk traffic offenders released from prison had
served their time in probation instead.
EuroVista
Main Articles
RISK GROUPS AND NATIONAL
REDUCTIONS IN RECIDIVISM: THE
CASE OF NORWAY
The study also gives data on the ten most dominant
risk groups for reoffending. In the case of Norway
they were all previously sentenced to prison. Young
and middle aged persons sentenced for thefts,
serving either short prison sentences or community
service, were among the most dominant groups in
Norway. Their reoffending rate was from 50% up
to 75%. Sixty four percent of middle aged
prisoners sentenced for violence also reoffended.
The ten most dominant risk groups where at least
one third reoffended amounted to 1307 individuals
in Norway. Altogether they constituted more than
half of a total recidivist population of 2392 people.
Targeting these high risk groups would seem a
sensible national goal in reducing recidivism.
Generally it seems widely acknowledged that all
forms of treatment would be quite successful if
reconviction rates can be reduced by up to e.g.
20%. For example meta analyses of programmes
based on cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) show
that properly designed programmes can reduce
reconviction rates up to fifteen or perhaps twenty
percent (see e.g. Lösel, 1995, Lipton, 2002,
MacKenzie, 2006). Though not very likely, if all
the members of the dominant risk groups in Norway
participated in any kind of effective treatment,
EuroVista
175
71
whether that is programme or anything else, a twenty
percent reduction would result in 261 fewer
recidivists. 261 fewer recidivists would, on a
national level, reduce the overall reoffending rate in
Norway with merely two percentage points from
20% to 18%. This calls for moderation when
formulating goals or expectations as to what can be
achieved on a national level when it comes to
reducing recidivism even with effective measures
targeting proper target groups. This example
illustrates that changes in the general characteristics
of the correctional population due to changes in
criminal policy or practice are potentially much more
important than treatment when it comes to explaining
national reoffending figures in prison or probation.
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE
PERSPECTIVES
The most important finding in this study is that it
demonstrates that reoffending rates among different
offender groups inside the correctional services is a
reflection of national differences in the criminal
sanction system and the dispersion and the
proportion of offender groups serving in prison
compared to those serving in the probation. National
differences in the proportions of offenders formerly
sentenced to prison, serving either in prison or
probation, significantly contributes to the Nordic
differences in overall reoffending. Except for traffic
offences, all crime type groups reoffended more
Vol. 2 no. 3
Relapse study in the correctional services of the Nordic countries. Key results and perspectives
often to a different primary crime type than the
original offence. This strongly indicates that most
reoffenders seem to have comprehensive crime
problems that have to be addressed. When it comes
to national ambitions or expectations in reducing
general reoffending rates, this study also suggests
that it is important to be realistic and bear in mind
the relatively moderate impact of treatment initiatives
on national, general reoffending rates compared to
the general impact of the aforementioned variables.
The results in this study cannot be used to predict
the effects of various measures delivered to the
offenders while serving their sentences, but on the
other hand it cannot be ruled out that such national
differences may have contributed to the overall
reoffending rates, though the effect is probably
marginal compared to the effect on recidivism
caused by national differences in the distribution of
offender groups with dissimilar risk of reoffending.
If measuring reoffending is repeated in the same way
over the years, it should be possible to recognize
how general changes in client characteristics within
one sanction affect reoffending rates in others. Thus,
when national policies change by introducing new
sanctions, it should be possible to predict what will
happen with recidivism in one group when offender
groups move from one sanction to another, e.g. from
prison to probation. The Nordic group behind this
study will continue its work.
REFERENCES
Graunbøl, H. M. et al. (2010). Retur: en nordisk
undersøgelse av recidiv blant klienter i
kriminalforsorgen. Oslo.
Hirschi, T. and Gottfredson, M. (1983). “Age and
the Explanation of Crime”, The American Journal
of Sociology, vol. 89, no.3, pp. 552-584.
Kristoffersen, R. (ed.) (2010). Correctional
Statistics of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway
and Sweden. 2004 – 2008. KRUS, Oslo.
Lösel, F. 1995. “Increasing Consensus in the
Evaluation of Offender Rehabilitation? Lessons from
Research Syntheses”, Psychology, Crime, and
Law 2, pp. 19–39.
Lipton, D., Pearson, F., Cleland, C. and Yee, D.
(2002). “The Effectiveness of CognitiveBehavioural Treatment Methods on Offender
Recidivism”, in J. McGuire (ed.) Offender
Rehabilitation and Treatment. Chichester: Wiley.
MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What Works in
Corrections. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
NOTES
i
ii
iii
iv
When using new sentences as a criterion for
reoffending, any person who is sentenced again might
look like a recidivist, even though the act of the last
sentenced crime(s) actually may have happened at an
earlier date prior to the sentence that was initially
served. In this case he will be a false recidivist.
A comment on notation in this and forthcoming tables:
A hyphen (-) means “zero”. A dot (.) means “not
applicable”. A zero (0) means “less than 0.5”. Electronic
monitoring was not an option in Finland, Iceland and
Norway in 2005.
Data on suspended sentences were collected from the
national bureaus of statistics in the Nordic countries.
See Kristoffersen (2010) for more detailed descriptions
of the correctional services in the Nordic countries.
Vol. 2 no. 3
176
70
EuroVista
“VINN” - An accredited
motivational program promoting
convicted women’s sense of
coherence and coping
Torunn Højdahl
Senior Advisor, The Correctional Service of Norway, Staff Academyi
Jeanette H. Magnus
Professor, Head of the Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Norway
Roger Hagen
Associate Professor, University of Science and Technology, Department of
Psychology, Norway
Eva Langeland
Associate Professor, Bergen University College, Faculty of Health and Social
Sciences, Norway
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the research, authorship, or publication
of this article.
ABSTRACT
This article aims to present a motivational program
addressing rehabilitative needs specific to convicted
women. The article shows how Antonovsky’s
theory of Salutogenesis, its main concepts of Sense
of Coherence and General Resistance Resources,
are used as theoretical framework of this correctional
program. Social cognitive theory (self-efficacy), the
Transtheoretical Model of Change and the
communication style of Motivational Interviewing
are used as supportive methods to complement the
salutogenetic approach.
The “VINN program”, as presented here, consists
of 15 topics, four individual interviews as well as
homework exercises. The goal of the program is to
motivate the women to explore what challenges are
worthwhile to engage in, what makes sense to them,
increase their Sense of Coherence and their Quality
of Life, and give confidence to desist from crime.
The program is accredited by the Norwegian and
Swedish correctional services. This article
advocates using a salutogenetic approach as a new
valuable direction in creating programs for convicted
women.
Keywords: Accredited correctional program, convicted women, female offenders, General Resistance
Resources, Salutogenesis, Sense of Coherence, Rehabilitation.
EuroVista
177
71
Vol. 2 no. 3
“VINN” - An accredited motivational program promoting convicted women’s sense of coherence and coping
INTRODUCTION
A growing body of research indicates that many
convicted women suffer from severe depressive and
anxiety disorders and have struggled with poverty
(Gido and Dalley, 2009; Van Wormer, 2010).
Gender differences in lifetime psychiatric disorders
are reported among offenders (Zlotnick et al, 2008).
Convicted women were more likely to report
suicide attempts, borderline personality disorder and
bipolar disorder, than men. Anti-social personality
disorder was the only psychiatric disorder that men
were more likely to report than women (Zlotnick,
et al, 2008). There seems to be a link between
women’s childhood abuse and mental health
problems, particular traumatic stress, panic and
eating disorders (Covington, 2008; Gido and Dalley,
2009). In addition to psychiatric problems, more
convicted women than men are involved in
dysfunctional and unhealthy sexual relationships
(Bloom and Covington, 2008; Desrosiers and
Senter, 2007, 2008).
The traditional focus in correctional programs has
been on targeting dynamic risk factors that are
connected with crime, such as the Risk-NeedResponsivity (RNR) model (Andrews, Bonta and
Wormith, 2006, 2011). Among others, these
dynamic factors include poor cognitive skills,
identification with criminal role-models, impulsive
and anti-social lifestyle, dependency on alcohol and/
or drugs and lack of work, education and income.
Interventions based on cognitive behavioural theory
and social learning theories have been demonstrated
to have effect in reducing reoffending (Andrews, et
al, 2011; Maguire, Grubin, Lösel and Raynor,
2010).
Various new concepts have emerged lately in the
search for a complement to the RNR- model, such
as Desistance Theory (McNeill, 2006, 2009) and
Motivational Interviewing (Bogue and Nandl, 2012;
Miller and Rollnick, 2013; Miller and Rose, 2009;
Walters and National Institute of Corrections,
2007). The Good Lives Model (GLM) has been
discussed in academic journals as a promising model
(Purvis, Ward and Willis, 2011; Ward, Yates and
Willis, 2012). The GLM model defines certain
primary “goods” that people strive for and that give
them a sense of being part of the greater community,
Vol. 2 no. 3
178
70
thus becoming more willing to adhere to its rules.
Supporting offenders in reaching such goods can
have a positive influence on reducing recidivism.
Primary goods that support offenders are for
example being part of a group, relationships, peace
of mind, healthy living, feeling good and being able
to control their life (Ward, et al, 2012). The GLM
model is a form of health promotion (Ward et al,
2006), but to our knowledge this model has not yet
been specifically concerned with gender. There is
need for a gendered understanding in research, and
also when creating programs to reduce reoffending
(Andrews et al, 2012). Interventions designed for
men have often been used as standard correctional
practice for female offenders as well, and the gender
differences in general needs, health and comorbid
psychiatric disorders, suggest the need for gender
specific treatment (Zlotnick, et al, 2008).
Meta-analytic evidence has suggested that
participation in supportive social relationships
improves the women’s re-entry into the community
(Desrosiers and Senter, 2007, 2008; Zaplin, 2008).
Other studies emphasize that women with traumatic
experiences respond more positively when they;
share their histories in groups with other women
(Van Wormer, 2010), are in an environment that
stimulates growth, and have relationships based on
respect, empathy and where mutuality is supported
(Bloom and Covington, 2008; Covington, 2008).
Mutuality is imperative in a relationship, both to
express own thoughts and feelings, and to be moved
by and of other persons (Bloom, Owen and
Covington, 2003; Covington, 2008). Researchers
suggest specific gender-responsive programs with
a curriculum that focuses on their mental health
issues, enhances motivation and promotes coping
skills. Additionally, such programs should address
the women’s challenges and hone their strengths,
and thereby support them to reach their full potential
(Covington, 2008; Van Wormer, 2010).
Because of women’s specific rehabilitative needs,
it seems that a salutogenetic approach (salute - of
health, and genesis - the origins, or coming into
existence, Antonovsky, 1987) in correctional
programming is needed. A salutogenetic approach
has demonstrated a beneficial effect on people with
mental health problems (Langeland et al, 2006). An
intervention based on salutogenetic principles; has
EuroVista
Main Articles
been implemented among non-incarcerated persons
with mental health problems, and showed a
significant improvement in their Sense of Coherence
(SOC). They have a positive impact on SOC,
coping with life’s demands, mental health and wellbeing (Langeland, et al, 2006; Langeland, Wahl,
Kristoffersen and Hanestad, 2007; Langeland,
Wahl, Kristoffersen, Nortvedt and Hanestad, 2007).
Increased SOC has been a positive effect of
preventive and therapeutic interventions in
populations at risk among juvenile delinquents
(Koposov, Ruchkin and Eisemann, 2003).
To the best of our knowledge, based on searches
in databases, journals and references (SwetsWise,
ISI web of knowledge, Google scholars and Pubmed), Antonovsky’s salutogenetic approach
(Antonovsky, 1987, 1991, 1996) has not before
been explicitly described as a theoretical model in
any accredited correctional intervention for
convicted women. This approach looks promising
with respect to completing and maintaining treatment
of the women’s mental health issues and needs on
coping with life’s demands. The importance and
opportunity for such a perspective on programs in
correctional facilities seems therefore evident.
The purpose of this article is to present how
Antonovsky’s theory of salutogenesis supplemented
with supporting theories, is used as theoretical
framework and implemented into a motivational and
gender-sensitive program in correctional facilities.
This program “VINN” is specifically tailored for
convicted women’s needs for promoting their SOC
and coping. The program “VINN” consisting of
three parts (illustrated in Figure 1 and Table 1) aims
to address these rehabilitative needs particular to
women sentenced to prison or probation. The name
“VINN” is taken from the Norwegian language and
means winning, in this case becoming stronger with
enhanced coping strategies.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK IN VINN
The fundamental theoretical concepts underlying the
VINN-program is “Sense of Coherence” (SOC),
central in the theory of Salutogenesis and “General
Resistance Resources” (GRR) (Antonovsky,
1987). Elements from social cognitive theory (selfefficacy) (Bandura, 1997, 2001) together with
EuroVista
179
71
Motivational Interviewing (Miller and Rollnick,
2013; Miller and Rose, 2009; Rollnick, Miller and
Butler, 2008) and the Transtheoretical Model of
Change (Prochaska and DiClemente, 1982;
Prochaska and Levesque, 2002) are used to
complete and support the salutogenetic approach.
THETHEORY OF SALUTOGENESIS
The theory of Salutogenesis developed by
Antonovsky (1979; 1987) represents a reaction
towards the dominating focus on pathogenesis (the
focus on illness and risk factors) in sociological and
health-related research. Antonovsky’s research
derives from interviews with women who stayed
healthy in spite of highly stressful experiences in
concentration camps during World War II. His main
finding was that these women were characterized
by a strong SOC. Antonovsky (1987, 19) defines
SOC as a: “global orientation that expresses the
extent to which one has a pervasive, enduring,
though dynamic, feeling of confidence that the
stimuli deriving from one’s internal and external
environments in the course of living are
structured, predictable, and explicable
(comprehensibility). The resources are available
to one to meet the demands posed by these
stimuli (manageability), and these demands are
challenges worthy of investment and
engagement (meaning)”. This particular
combination of the cognitive and the motivational
component is unique according to Antonovsky
(1996). In this approach, health can be seen as a
point on a continuum, where the central idea is to
find the pathways that move a person towards the
healthy end of the continuum and thus increase
SOC, and enter into a positive interplay between
Generalized Resistance Resources (GRR) and
SOC. This is in contrast with the traditional focus
on minimizing risk. Each person is understood as
being in a dynamic and open interaction with the
internal and external environments, and the
prominent focus is to give attention to the person’s
own history. SOC is structured by GRR that seem
to provide a person with coping skills and serve as
a buffer in neutralizing the negative influences of stress
(Antonovsky, 1991, 1996; Chen, 2010).
Antonovsky defines GRR as “any characteristic
of the person, the group, or in the environment
that can facilitate effective management of
Vol. 2 no. 3
“VINN” - An accredited motivational program promoting convicted women’s sense of coherence and coping
tensions.” The following areas have been seen as
important to understand as the available sources for
a person‘s GRRs (Antonovsky, 1979, 99):
1) Physical and biochemical resources - such as
appearance, fitness and body image.
2) Cognitive and emotional resources - such as
self-identity, wisdom, knowledge and
intelligence, where the most crucial coping
resource is self-identity.
3) Valuative resources - coping strategies that are
characterized by flexibility, foresight and
rationality, including action and effective
management of emotions.
4) Interpersonal and relational resources - a
person with deep, immediate and close bounds
to others may resolve tension more easily than
those who have non-social bounds. The
availability of social support is a central coping
resource.
5) Material resources such as a safe
accommodation, healthy economy, food and
income.
6) Macro socio-cultural aspects - belonging to a
culture or a community gives a person a place
in the world and a sense of connection.
When someone faces or meets certain demands or
a risk-situation, it is crucial to focus on developing
an understanding of how the GRR can be useful in
managing these demands. Someone who has the
ability to identify, mobilize and utilize their GRR,
seems to find it easier to deal with tension and
perceive experiences that encourage the
development of SOC. For each person it is
important to have flexibility, strategies to make plans,
and to have a willingness to consider how they should
behave, in order to manage stressors and risk factors
in the best possible way. When someone perceives
some of life’s demands as worthy of engagement,
they experience a greater sense of meaningfulness,
and a greater sense of the other two components,
comprehensibility and manageability as well
(Antonovsky, 1991).
SUPPORTING THEORIES IN THE VINNPROGRAM
Three theories support and supplement the
salutogenetic approach. The first one is the social
cognitive theory with the important concept of selfefficacy, defined as “beliefs in one’s capabilities
to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources,
and courses of action needed to meet given
situational demands” (Wood and Bandura, 1989,
26). The key principle is that people’s motivation
for change and actions are grounded more on what
they believe they can do (cognitions), than on what
is objectively experienced and true. The concept
of self-efficacy also plays an important role in the
self-regulation of affective states. This perspective
expands Antonovsky’s concepts of
comprehensibility and manageability; to
understand, meet and manage the demands posed
by stimuli deriving from one’s internal or external
environments.
The second component, “Motivational Interviewing”
(MI) (Miller and Rollnick, 2002; Miller and Rose,
2009; Rollnick, et al, 2008), is complementary to
Salutogenesis with its collaborative conversation
style (Miller and Rollnick, 2013). The purpose of
MI is to guide, follow and strengthen a person’s
own motivation and engagement to change behavior.
An atmosphere of acceptance and compassion is
regarded as crucial in MI (Miller and Rollnick, 2013;
Rogers, 1957, 1970; Rollnick, et al, 2008). MI
has a special attention for establishing an empathic
therapeutic alliance when practicing the basic “core”
skills; asking open-ended questions, reflecting
change talk and coping, providing affirmations and
summaries. The use of core-skills helps in
strengthening and evoking the person’s own
motivations for changing behavior, and thus the
possibility for promoting coping, health and wellbeing. This communication style is supportive to
increase meaningfulness, which is the motivational
component in SOC. Both MI and Salutogenesis
focus on guiding a person toward commitment for
change of behavior and in setting goals for the future
(Miller and Rollnick, 2013).
The third important model underlining the change
processes is the “Stages of Change” suggested in
the Transtheoretical Model (Norcross, Krebs and
Vol. 2 no. 3
180
70
EuroVista
Main Articles
Prochaska, 2011; Prochaska and DiClemente,
1982; Prochaska and Levesque, 2002). In this
model, behavioural change is conceptualized as a
process that emerges over time and embraces
progression through series of stages;
precontemplation, contemplation, preparation,
action and maintenance.
APPLICATION OF THEORIES IN THE
VINN PROGRAM
Antonovsky‘s theory (1987) was selected as a basis
for the VINN-program, because of its emphasis
on identifying each individual‘s GRR, improving
SOC, health and coping in risk situations. A typical
salutogenetic orientation implies to evoke
commitment for changing behavior and movement
towards the more salutary end of the continuum,
and an active adaption to the environment. It
addresses in particular health issues and promotes
coping, social support and self-identity.
As a gender-responsive curriculum built on
Salutogenesis, the VINN-program, aims to maintain
the women’s need for support, and for sharing
experiences with other women in the group about
demands and coping strategies that can be helpful
for them. During the program the women are
encouraged to find something meaningful to be
engaged in and believe in. This corresponds with
Salutogenesis and with Bandura’s social cognitive
theory (1997), applied as an explicit change model
in VINN. Furthermore, the women are motivated
to explore what quality of life means for them
individually and to find a lifestyle that may compete
with crime, and thus reduce their chances of
reoffending.
Figure 1 illustrates the present theoretical framework
for the VINN-program, together with the evidencebased methods and the three parts of the curriculum
(A, B, C). Together this approach aims to motivate
the women, support their ability to cope, increase
their Sense of Coherence, improve their quality of
life and support desistance from crime. They are
also encouraged to create positive relationships with
and towards others, increase the use of GRR in order
to cope in demanding situations.
EuroVista
181
71
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VINN
PROGRAM
Inclusion
To be included in a VINN group and become a
“member”, one must be serving a sentence in prison
or be under the supervision of the Probation Service
at a unit offering the VINN-program. The women
apply for participation themselves. The facilitator
discusses each woman’s motivation for change, such
as changes in attitudes to crime, criminal or unhealthy
life-style, relations towards others, substance abuse
or violence. The women’s motivation of change is
assessed according to the Stages of Change Model
(Prochaska and Levesque, 2002) and the facilitator
identifies her needs in relation to her sentence. If a
woman is assessed to be at the precontemplation
stage, her intention of making changes might be low
and her chances for dropping out higher than if she
is in the stage of contemplation. According to
(Prochaska and Levesque, 2002) when a person is
at the action stage, the commitment and willingness
to look for alternatives to problem behavior, seems
to increase. Thus, an expressed willingness to share
personal experiences as well as an acknowledgment
of the importance in showing openness towards lifestyle alternatives to criminal behaviour, is crucial for
inclusion and for completing the program.
Structure
The program runs for a period of 6-12 weeks, and
each session lasts for three hours (including two
breaks). A group consists of two facilitators and 48 offenders, all women (see Table 1 for further
details about aims and contents of the 15 topics).
Each session has the following structure:



Welcome; each member tells about their
homework, how she has practiced her new
social skills and relaxing exercises, and about
her experiences from the last session.
Presentation of the agenda and the aim of
the current session, and opening of the new
topic with a brainstorm in the group.
Discussion of the topic of the session, with
focus on Salutogenesis, self-efficacy, strength,
Sense of Coherence, General Resistance
Resources, coping and relations.
Vol. 2 no. 3
“VINN” - An accredited motivational program promoting convicted women’s sense of coherence and coping
Vol. 2 no. 3
182
70
EuroVista
Main Articles





Role-play, relaxing-exercise, skill-training.
Working with (exercises from) the work-book
in the session.
A short presentation of the topic for the next
session.
Clarifying skill-training and what to do in
the work-book and exercises before next
session.
A conversation that summarizes and
evaluates the session.
EuroVista
183
71
CONTENTS AND AIM OF EACH TOPIC
IN THE VINN PROGRAM
The topics and interviews as presented in Table 1
below, are created to address rehabilitative issues
that are particular to women (Covington, 2008; Van
Wormer, 2010; Zaplin, 2008). All topics are
informed by the salutogenetic approach and
supporting theories, and maintain a gender-sensitive
content.
Vol. 2 no. 3
“VINN” - An accredited motivational program promoting convicted women’s sense of coherence and coping
Vol. 2 no. 3
184
70
EuroVista
Main Articles
Column I gives the title of the 15 topics and the interviews.
Column II describes the goals and desired outcomes for each topic and interview.
Column III presents issues and questions to be discussed in each session.
EuroVista
185
71
Vol. 2 no. 3
“VINN” - An accredited motivational program promoting convicted women’s sense of coherence and coping
THE ATMOSPHERE IN THE VINN
PROGRAM AND GENERAL
RESISTANCE RESOURCES
During the program the facilitator establishes a warm
and supportive atmosphere together with the
members. The facilitators appear as positive rolemodels with an empathic and listening
communication style. The members in the group
are encouraged to express concern about each other
and support each other.
The facilitators support the members to identify and
utilize their GRR, and this might help the women to
move towards healthier condition and increase
SOC. Each woman considers and identifies the
GRR at her disposal or in her immediate
surroundings (Antonovsky, 1987, 1991; Eriksson
and Lindstrom, 2006).
First of all, it is important that the facilitators give
congruent and genuine feedback to each woman
during the sessions, with a special focus on their
strengths, self-efficacy and coping abilities.
Secondly, a reflective listening style is also important
combined with open-ended questions with a
salutogenetic focus, such as:



Here are some examples on how the GRR are to
be identified and discussed during sessions. In the
first three topics, the women identify cognitive and
emotional resources, and some positive aspects of
each woman are to be written on the flip-over. Selfidentity is the most crucial GRR, together with social
support. Confidence in managing risk-factors, such
as crime, violence and substance abuse is discussed
as necessary in a rehabilitation process (see topics
“Crime”, “Substance abuse and addiction” and
“Violence” in Table 1). The women discuss how
they may appear positive toward others. The
valuative GRR, such as flexibility, action and
effective management of emotions, are important
for most of the women, especially when managing
anger. Accordingly, the interpersonal and relational
GRR, like the quality of a supportive relationship
and social bounds, are associated with a more
successful reentry into the community (see topic
“Sexuality and love”, “Borders in relationship”,
“Children” and “Network and relations” in Table
1). According to Chen (2010), social support from
family seems to have an effect on managing
substance abuse and abstinence (see topics
“Substance abuse and addiction”, “Network and
relations” in Table 1).
Vol. 2 no. 3
186
70

“You have talked about your anger/grief/
aggression. How could you deal with your
strong emotions in a way that is beneficial
both to you and your companions?”
“You have told about your traumatic
experiences in your childhood, we would also
want to hear about your strengths and
possibilities and how you have managed
these demands? Which of your strengths
could you use to accomplish your desires for
the future?”
“How could you get a meaningful life?”
“In what ways could you support someone
who talks about her shame?”
Such a communication style aims to support the
women and empower them to face challenges and
meet demands, and in developing an understanding
of how the GRR can be useful in managing these
demands.
The material GRR, such as need of housing, income,
work/school, impact the integration and
rehabilitation within communities, and are to be
discussed in the individual interviews. During the
program, each woman creates a “map of life”, and
discusses different issues particularly related to her
needs, so that she acquires an overview of her life.
When planning the future, the macro-social GRR,
like a social network and a feeling of belonging in a
neighborhood and a community is important to
identify and utilize. This holistic view of life might
have a positive effect on SOC.
EuroVista
Main Articles
DEVELOPMENT OF VINN
During the last 12 years, the curriculum and topics
in VINN have been developed and refined
according to results from published results and the
theoretical framework presented above, in close
collaboration with the facilitators and the women
participating in the program. These feed-back
sessions have been important in developing and
revising the structure, the gender-responsive content
and the facilitation of the program. From each
session the participants and facilitators gave their
written feedback. In addition, certified facilitators
and one of the authors of the program have also
reviewed videos from various group sessions and
talked with the participating women about their
experiences. This has been shown useful in
evaluating possible limitations and criticisms to the
program and to make improvements compatible
with this feedback.
Recently, relaxation exercises, informed by Williams
(Williams, Kabat-Zinn, Teasdale and Segal, 2007)
were also included to ease tensions and increase
the level of present concentration. The participants
are encouraged to use the exercises themselves in
stressful situations, in order to manage strong
negative emotions, panic and trauma.
The VINN-program is used both as a groupintervention program and as one-to-one
conversation program. The latter is important if
there are not enough women to constitute a group,
which may be the case in some geographical areas
or in probation, or if a potential participant is
intellectually challenged or too anxious to participate
in a group.
ACCREDITATION OF VINN
The program presented here was accredited in
Norway in 2009 and in Sweden in 2010 in
accordance with approved country specific criteria
of accreditation. These criteria are built upon the
ten international criteria described by Maguire and
coworkers (Maguire, et al, 2010). Generally, the
purpose of an accreditation process is to ensure
the quality of an intervention. The program must be
delivered according to high standards, and
correspond with internationally acclaimed evidenceEuroVista
187
71
based methods (Hanson, 2005; Maguire, et al,
2010). To our knowledge, similar requirements are
requested by accreditation panels in England and
Wales, the USA, Canada, Australia, The
Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Finland and
Sweden.
Usually, the criteria that have to be presented and
met (as illustrated in Figure 1) in order to reach
accreditation of a correctional program are: a clear
theoretical model of change, criteria for selection
and inclusion of participants, an explanation of which
dynamic factors would be targeted, an overview of
research evidence supporting the effectiveness of
the selected methods, appropriated skills orientation,
an outline of the intensity, sequencing and duration
of the intervention, a descriptions of how the
participants should be engaged and motivated, the
continuity of program and services and how to
maintain program integrity, and finally, an ongoing
evaluation of effect.
DISSEMINATION OF THE VINNPROGRAM
The VINN program has been implemented in
correctional facilities in six countries in Europe
between 2004 and 2012; Estonia, Norway,
Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Russian federation;
the republic of Mordovia, the oblast in Perm,
Chuvashia, Ryazan, Belgorod and the regions of
Tomsk and Moscow. The structure and topics are
the same in all countries, but the content and
implementation are adapted to women’s needs and
the various cultural contexts and to the various
systems’ type of legislation and implementation of
sentences, for example high security and low
security prisons, half-way houses, alternative
sentences, community sentences, electronic
monitoring and in services following up release on
license.
CONCLUSION
To our knowledge, a presentation of an accredited
intervention with a salutogenetic approach,
complemented with internationally acclaimed
evidence-based theoretical models like social
cognitive theory (self-efficacy), the Transtheoretical
Model of Change and the communication style of
Motivational Interviewing, has not been published
Vol. 2 no. 3
“VINN” - An accredited motivational program promoting convicted women’s sense of coherence and coping
before. We imply the importance of including a
salutogenetic framework, informed by Antonovsky,
in rehabilitation programs, as a complement to the
currently framed models, for four reasons.
Firstly, this approach provides additional value to
the treatment of convicted women because of a focus
on promoting health, coping, Sense of Coherence
and the emphasis on relations, social support and
self-identity. Secondly, this approach allows an
understanding of how the General Resistance
Resources can be utilized to meet and manage
demands and stressors. Thirdly, when a woman
fashions her life and finds something meaningful to
be engaged in and believe in, this could increase
her motivation to make plans for positive behavioural
changes that can improve her quality of life and
restrain her from committing new crimes. Finally,
each woman in the program gets an opportunity to
reflect on her coping strategies, in order to enhance
self-efficacy in aspects related to self-control in
demanding situations, and in desisting from crime.
Our final point is that the dominant treatment of
offenders mainly has focused on risk reduction, while
the salutogenetic model is also concerned with a
broader and more holistic perspective. The
salutogenetic approach seems promising as a guide
to correctional researchers and consultants creating
new programs for convicted women, and is a
potential contribution in resolving some issues of
rehabilitation and mental health promotion among
convicted women. A comprehensive evaluation of
the efficacy of the program is ongoing and will be
the subject of another paper.
NOTES
i
Torunn Højdahl, corresponding author. Ph.D. candidate
at the Institute of Health and Society, University of
Oslo, Norway. [email protected]; [email protected]
REFERENCES
Andrews, D., Bonta, J. and Wormith, J. S. (2006).
The Recent Past and Near Future of Risk and/or
Need Assessment. Crime and Delinquency, 52
(1), 7-27.
Andrews, D., Bonta, J. and Wormith, J. S. (2011).
The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(7), 735-755.
Andrews, D., Guzzo, L., Raynor, P., Rowe, R. C.,
Rettinger, L. J., Brews, A., et al. (2012). Are the
major risk/need factors predictive of both female
and male reoffending? A test with the eight domains
of the level of service/case management inventory.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 56(1), 113-133.
Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unraveling the mystery
of health: how people manage stress and stay
well. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Antonovsky, A. (1991). The structural sources of
Salutogenetic Strengths. In C. L. Cooper and R.
Payne (Eds.), Personality and stress: individual
differences in the stress process (pp. 67–104).
Chichester: Wiley.
Antonovsky, A. (1996). The salutogenic model as
a theory to guide health promotion. Health
Promotion International, 11(1), 11-18.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise
of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An
agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 1-26.
Bloom, B. and Covington, S. (2008). Addressing
the Mental Health Needs of Women Offenders.
Women’s Mental Health Issues Across the
Criminal Justice System (9).
Bloom, B., Owen, B. and Covington, S. (2003).
Gender-responsive strategies: research, practice,
and guiding principles for women offenders.
Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, National
Institute of Corrections.
Bogue, B. and Nandl, A. (2012). Motivational
Interviewing In Corrections: A Comprehensive
Guide to Implementing MI in Corrections pp. 84.
Vol. 2 no. 3
188
70
EuroVista
Main Articles
Available from http://static.nicic.gov/Library/
025556.pdf
Chen, G. (2010). Gender Differences in Sense of
Coherence, Perceived Social Support, and
Negative Emotions Among Drug-Abstinent Israeli
Inmates. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54(6),
937-958.
Covington, S. (2008). The Relational Theory of
Women’s Psychological Development: Implications
for the Criminal Justice System. In R. T. Zaplin (Ed.),
Female offenders: critical perspectives and
effective interventions. Sudbury, Mass.: Jones and
Bartlett Publishers.
Desrosiers, J. and Senter, A. (2007). Female
offenders: An overview of characteristics and needs.
The Correctional Psychologist, 39(4), 7-8.
Desrosiers, J. and Senter, A. (2008). Female
offenders: A discussion of their dynamics. The
Correctional Psychologist, 40(2), 6-7.
Eriksson, M. and Lindstrom, B. (2006).
Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale and the
relation with health: a systematic review. Journal
of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60(5),
376-381.
Gido, R. L. and Dalley, L. (2009). Women’s Mental
Health Issues Across The Criminal Justice
System. Pennsylvania: Prentice Hall.
Hanson, R. K. (2005). Accreditation standards
for correctional programs. Ottawa, Ont.: Public
Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Canada.
Koposov, R. A., Ruchkin, V. V. and Eisemann,
M. (2003). Sense of coherence: a mediator
between violence exposure and psychopathology
in Russian juvenile delinquents. Journal of Nervous
and Mental Disease, 191(10), 638-644.
Langeland, E., Riise, T., Hanestad, B. R., Nortvedt,
M. W., Kristoffersen, K. and Wahl, A. K. (2006).
The effect of salutogenic treatment principles on
coping with mental health problems. A randomised
controlled trial. Patient Education and
Counseling, 62(2), 212-219.
EuroVista
189
71
Langeland, E., Wahl, A. K., Kristoffersen, K. and
Hanestad, B. R. (2007). Promoting coping:
Salutogenesis among people with mental health
problems. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 28(3),
275-295.
Langeland, E., Wahl, A. K., Kristoffersen, K.,
Nortvedt, M. W. and Hanestad, B. R. (2007).
Sense of Coherence predicts change in life
satisfaction among home-living residents in the
community with mental health problems: a 1-year
follow-up study. Quality of Life Research, 16(6),
939-946.
Maguire, M., Grubin, D., Lösel, F. and Raynor,
P. (2010). ‘What Works’ and the Correctional
Services Accreditation Panel: Taking stock from an
inside perspective. Criminology and Criminal
Justice, 10(1), 37-58.
McNeill, F. (2006). A desistance paradigm for
offender management. Criminology and Criminal
Justice, 6(1), 39-62.
McNeill, F. (2009). Towards Effective Practice
in Offender Supervision (Discussion Paper).
Glasgow.
Miller, W. R. and Rollnick, S. (2013).
Motivational interviewing: helping people
change (3. ed. ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Miller, W. R. and Rose, G. S. (2009). Toward a
theory of motivational interviewing. American
Psychologist, 64 (6), 527-537.
Norcross, J. C., Krebs, P. M. and Prochaska, J.
O. (2011). Stages of Change. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 67(2), 143-154.
Prochaska, J. O. and DiClemente, C. C. (1982).
Transtheoretical therapy: Toward a more integrative
model of change. Psychotherapy: Theory,
Research and Practice, 19(3), 276-288.
Prochaska, J. O. and Levesque, D. A. (2002).
Enhancing Motivation of Offenders at Each Stage
of Change and Phase of Therapy. In M. McMurran
(Ed.), Motivating Offenders to Change (pp. 5773). West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons Limited.
Vol. 2 no. 3
“VINN” - An accredited motivational program promoting convicted women’s sense of coherence and coping
Purvis, M., Ward, T. and Willis, G. (2011). The
Good Lives Model in practice: offence pathways
and case management. European Journal of
Probation, 3(2), 4-28.
Rogers, C. (1957). The Necessary and Sufficient
Conditions of Therapeutic Personality Change.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95-103
Rogers, C. (1970). Carl Rogers on encounter
groups. New York: Harper and Row.
Rollnick, S., Miller, W. R. and Butler, C. (2008).
Motivational Interviewing in health care: helping
patients change behavior. New York: Guilford
Press.
Van Wormer, K. S. (2010). Working with female
offenders: a gender-sensitive approach.
Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley and Sons.
Walters, S. T. and National Institute of Corrections.
(2007). Motivating offenders to change a guide
for probation and parole. from http://
purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS93643
Ward, T., Yates, P. M. and Willis, G. M. (2012).
The Good Lives Model and the Risk Need
Responsivity Model. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 39 (1), 94-110.
Williams, M., Kabat-Zinn, J., Teasdale, J. D. and
Segal, Z. V. (2007). The Mindful way through
depression: freeing yourself from chronic
unhappiness. New York: Guilford Press.
Wood, R. and Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of
conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms
and complex decision making. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 56(3), 407415.
Zaplin, R. T. (2008). Female offenders: critical
perspectives and effective interventions.
Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Zlotnick, C., Clarke, J. G., Friedmann, P. D.,
Roberts, M. B., Sacks, S. and Melnick, G. (2008).
Gender differences in comorbid disorders among
offenders in prison substance abuse treatment
programs. Behavioural Sciences and the Law,
26(4), 403-412.
Vol. 2 no. 3
190
70
EuroVista
EuroNews
EuroNews
CEP President announces Willem van
der Brugge as new Secretary General
CEP is proud to announce that Mr Willem van der
Brugge has been appointed to be the new Secretary
General of CEP from 1 April 2013. He is currently
manager with SVG, the Dutch service for addiction
and probation, and has much experience in
probation and senior management.
The selection panel had a strong shortlist of
candidates from a variety of countries and was
unanimous in choosing Willem to be Secretary
General. It has been agreed that Willem is to be
seconded from SVG to CEP.
Developments in the preparations for
the World Congress on Probation
In August 2012, CEP and its partners were proud
to announce the World Congress on Probation.
Since then significant progress has been made on
the preparations for the event. One of the results is
a preliminary draft programme. In a rough draft,
the Congress’ programme shows what the structure
and themes of the conference will be. Four themes
are selected to frame the plenary and workshop
sessions:




restorativejustice
desistance
effective interventions and what works
resettlement and alternatives to custody
Download the draft programme http://goo.gl/gT1A2
The intention is to enrich the World Congress through
contributions from its participants and CEP invites
the probation sector to send in papers and short
YouTube entries. The call for papers and videos
will be launched in January, leaving enough time to
develop submissions.
The conference floor, as well as the adjoining Market
Place, will be an excellent platform to share your
experience and successful practice. Our aim is to
EuroVista
191
71
use three minute videos and other material to share
effective methods in probation, restorative justice,
desistance and resettlement. The four main themes
of the conference will be illustrated and brought to
life for participants in this way.
The papers can cover a broader scope and help
participants to develop an understanding of
developments in the probation sector. Reports on
research and evaluation of practice, or comparative
studies can also be excellent material for workshops.
The planning group looks forward to receive
synopses and abstracts after the calls have been
opened, and aims to incorporate the results in the
programme in various ways.
The first participants have already registered for the
World Congress on Probation, so feel free
to secure your place via the website,
www.worldcongressonprobation.org.
RAN Prison and Probation working
group kick-off in Vienna
The RAN Prison and Probation working group held
its first meeting in Vienna on 19 and 20 November
2012. There were lectures by two keynote
speakers, Professor F. Khosrokhavar, who is a
researcher with a large amount of experience in the
field, and Mr M Cheppih, who is a specialist in
deradicalisation. Best practices from the UK and
Denmark were presented. Furthermore there were
discussions amongst the participants in breakout
groups. There were 56 participants from 26
countries.
The RAN Prison and Probation (P&P) working
group is one of the eight thematic working groups
of the Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN),
an EU-wide umbrella network which has been
established by the European Commission to tackle
radicalisation leading to terrorism and violent
extremism. Until 2015 different working groups will
aim to achieve two goals. The first goal is to
exchange experiences, knowledge and good
practices among members of the working groups.
Vol. 2 no. 3
EuroNews
The second goal is to produce best practices and
policy advice to the EU and member States.
More information on the November 2012 meeting
in Vienna - http://goo.gl/BtDHi
More information on the RAN http://goo.gl/BL8uy
Pope Benedict XVI addresses CDAP
conference
Pope Benedict XVI met on 22 November, 2012
with participants of a conference of European prison
and probation administrators (CDAP). He urged
them to re-educate prisoners and respect their
dignity, not just punish them. His Holiness believed
that both society and prisoners themselves would
benefit. CEP and EuroVista were represented at
the conference. It was an honour for the CEP
delegation consisting of President Marc Cerón,
Interim Secretary General John Stafford and
Communications Officer Daria Janssen to visit the
Vatican and listen to the Pope’s speech. The CEP
delegation was further complemented by Gerhard
Ploeg, who attended as part of the Norwegian
delegation of the Ministry of Justice; he is also
EuroVista co-editor and CEP Vice-President.
You can read or listen to the Pope’s address in The
Vatican Today - http://goo.gl/iNxAm
More information on the CDAP http://goo.gl/HG7oi
UK research looks to Europe regarding
low prison rates
Rob Allen of justiceandprisons.org published a
report for the Criminal Justice Alliance on the
decrease in prison populations in Europe, compared
to the UK. The report is entitled ‘Reducing the Use
of Imprisonment: What can we learn from Europe?’
Case studies were done in the Netherlands and
Germany, each country having seen sharp falls in
their prison population over the last five years. The
report points to a number of features in continental
justice systems that are associated with a more
moderate use of prison.
DOMICE website in French and German
The EU-funded project Developing Offender
Management in Corrections in Europe (DOMICE)
aimed to provide an overview and in-depth analysis
of the different arrangements for the case
management across correctional systems of the
European Union and accession countries. An
elaborate website with the project results and an
overview of case management arrangements in
Europe is now also available in French and in
German.
Visit the DOMICE website in French http://goo.gl/5mepR
Visit the DOMICE website in German http://goo.gl/wQQkE
Visit the DOMICE website in English http://goo.gl/gwWF3
New code for treatment of foreign
prisoners in UK, DAS raises concerns
DAS (Detention Advice Service) responded with a
briefing to the UK Ministry of Justice’s new code in
dealing with foreign offenders. It outlines the
upcoming changes and voices some concerns. In
October and November of 2012, the Ministry
opened a consultation on the new draft code of
practice for “adult conditional cautions”, which will
govern their use, and which includes guidance on
the use of foreign offender conditions. These will
be finalised in 2013. DAS raises issues such as a
deprivation or restricted access to immigration
advice, a lack of CPS oversight, and the protection
of vulnerable individuals.
Download the briefing via the DAS website, with a
link to the draft code of the Ministry of Justice http://goo.gl/sHPxh
Download the report from the Criminal Justice
Alliance - http://goo.gl/rrzdY
Vol. 2 no. 3
192
70
EuroVista
Books Received
Books Received
Beaver, K. and Walsh, A. (Eds), (2011). Biosocial
theories of crime. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Eriksson, A. (2012). Justice in Transition:
community restorative justice in Northern
Ireland. 2nd Ed. Routledge.
Hall, M. (2012). Victims of Crime: policy and
practice in criminal justice. 2nd Ed Routledge.
Souhami, A. (2012). Transforming Youth Justice.
2nd Ed. Routledge.
Taylor, W., Earle, R. and Hester, R. (2010). Youth
justice handbook: theory, policy and practice,
Willan.
EuroVista
193
71
Vol. 2 no. 3
Reviews
Reviews
to what probation is and does. His commitment to
the ethical strategy is apparent in his writing
throughout the book and it gives the book gravitas,
integrity and a strong voice to question aspects of
contemporary probation practice.
PROBATION: WORKING WITH
OFFENDERS
Canton writes with confidence and authority derived
from years of involvement in practice, policy and
also the education of probation students and this
book demonstrates his deep understanding of both
practice and academic theory. It is well researched
and draws on an extensive range of criminological
texts, and providing models to help readers
understand complex and often contradictory issues
within sentencing and criminal justice. Each chapter
offers questions for reflection which would be useful
as essay titles for a module on probation in a
community justice or criminology programme.
Rob Canton
Routledge, 225pp excl. index and
references
ISBN number: 9781843923732
Price: N/K
Reviewed by Kathryn Farrow,
Director of Education, School of
Social Policy, University of
Birmingham
Canton’s book seeks to provide a comprehensive
and accessible introduction to the work of the
probation service, bringing together themes of policy,
theory and practice particularly to understand its
value. The focus of the book is primarily on England
and Wales though it does touch on other UK
jurisdictions and includes some international
perspectives.
In the introductory chapter Canton suggests that to
understand “the volatile policies that have buffeted
criminal justice and probation in the past 30 years”
(p. 2) the reader needs to appreciate three dominant
policy approaches:



A punitive strategy (ensuring offenders get what
they deserve)
A management strategy (dealing with offenders
in an effective, efficient and economic manner)
An ethical strategy (dealing with offenders and
victims with a regard to fairness and justice).
Canton emphasises that many of the recent policy
developments can be seen as demonstrations of one
or more of these strategies and that punitivism and
managerialism have, at times, in his view pushed
probation in the wrong direction. Canton
acknowledges the importance of punishment as part
of a proper response to crime and the value of
efficient and effective services but states explicitly
that an ethical approach to the work is fundamental
Vol. 2 no. 3
194
70
The book is divided into 16 chapters, sandwiched
between an introduction and after word, covering
what might be regarded as all aspects of theory,
governance and practice. Inevitably this makes it
very ambitious in terms of scope and focus; Canton
acknowledges some of it is fairly ‘broad brush’ in
approach, for example, his coverage of probation
history and I do think at times it does try to do too
much in terms of what it seeks to cover in one
volume.
Chapters one to four feel primarily academic in
approach introducing the reader to the probation
service within the context of the competing purposes
of the criminal justice system, its history, values and
position as part of punishment and sentencing.
Chapters five to nine seem to ‘change tack’ and
become very much practice focused. These
chapters explore the contribution of probation work
to court processes and the subsequent supervision
of offenders in the community. The reader is
provided with detailed explanations of the content
and process of writing court reports and current
approaches to assessing and intervening in relation
to risk and offending behaviour. It explores the
challenge of achieving compliance and the process
of reviewing and evaluating the impact of work done
with offenders. Canton integrates and sometimes
exposes differences between the cognitive
behavioural theories and risk-need-responsivity
approaches with more recent developments
EuroVista
Reviews
provided by desistance studies, ‘Good Lives’
theories and the re-affirmation of the role and value
of professional relationships. These chapters are less
academic and more technical in style and arguably
less relevant to those studying criminology and
community justice.
Chapters ten and eleven look at other current roles
and responsibilities of probation staff including
organisational arrangements for the management of
high risk offenders, community service, working in
prisons and also with victims. Here (p. 174) Canton
acknowledges that “arguably responsibilities to
victims came late to probation, and, mirroring the
difficulties of the wider criminal justice system, it
has not found it easy to accommodate this work
within the structures organised to supervise
offenders” and this is an illustration of his ability to
capture honestly some of the struggles within
probation practice.
Although the book suggests practitioners will read
it I am not sure they will in any large numbers. Many
are likely to think they know it already and certainly
they should but much of the material is of an
introductory nature and aims to look at the detail in
the light of ‘the bigger picture’. Chapters 14, 15
and 16 provide discussion about other pieces of
the ‘probation jigsaw’ including local and national
governance arrangements, discretion, accountability,
supervision and training of staff before touching on
some international perspectives. These chapters
demonstrate the same quality of being well
researched and contribute to the fulfilment of the
original brief of the book but did feel additional to,
rather than a fundamental part of, the text as a whole.
However, this is a minor gripe. I like the book very
much and found it insightful and wise. Canton sets
out to advance an ethical and humanistic
understanding of probation and it is his belief that
this approach is more likely to enable the probation
service to enhance its credibility and legitimacy than
uncertain and disputable claims about instrumental
achievements. I do think he succeeds in this intent
and it can, and will, encourage readers to think
differently about justice and punishment and the role
of the probation service.
EuroVista
195
71
WHOSE CRIMINAL JUSTICE?
Katherine Doolin, John Child, John
Raine and Anthony Beech (Eds)
Waterside, 253pp excl. index and
references
ISBN number: 97819045380627
Price: N/K
Reviewed by John Hughes, Director
of Interventions, Hertfordshire
Probation Trust
This book has the feeling of having been re-badged
with additional material in order to meet the change
of government in 2010, but this does not detract
from its content. The chapters are grouped around
two main themes, part one addresses the regulatory
state and the management of risk and part two
focuses on empowered communities as local
stakeholders in criminal justice. These are prefaced
by an introductory chapter by John Raine and Paul
Keasey which sets the strategic context of the new
government by exploring three main themes, the
financial crisis, the problem of public confidence as
evidenced by fear of crime and what the authors
describe as a new localism.
The chapter by Andrew Saunders “Limiting Criminal
Justice and Regulation: The Freedom Perspective”
sets out a number of frames of analysis which he
uses to analyse the criminal justice system: due
process and crime control, human rights,
compliance approaches, victim centred approaches
and finally a freedom approach. The use of these
frames of analysis may be of interest to a specialist
reader but they perhaps lack a grounding in the reality
of criminal justice decision making which often feels
more short term and driven by political imperatives.
“Risk, pre-emption and the limits of the criminal law”
by John Child and Adrian Hunt explores
criminalisation through pre-emptive offences, these
are offences that have a potential for predicted future
harm and as a result may attract a preventative
sentence. The chapter is technical in content, raising
issues without proposing solutions, and may be of
most interest to the reader with a specialist legal
knowledge.
Vol. 2 no. 3
Reviews
In her chapter “Criminalising the purchase of sexual
services: the use of strict liability as a form of risk
management” Jessica Elliott provides a detailed, well
argued critique of the Police and Crime Act 2009
section 14 which criminalises the users of prostitutes
in cases where the prostitute has been the victim of
coercion, whether or not the purchaser is aware of
this. The chapter is balanced and informative not
just on the legislation but on the major influences
that led to it being passed.
I enjoyed “The ASBO: regulating behaviour and
manipulating law” by Theresa Lynch. It is an angry
polemical critique against what was a major plank
of the last government’s anti social behaviour
agenda. It is well aimed and contains thought
provoking facts and figures, making a clear case
for a review of the use of ASBOs.
“Managing risk and changing priorities for probation
practice and youth justice” by Kathryn Farrow, Gill
Kelly and Bernadette Wilkinson critiques the growth
of risk-led approaches in probation and Y.O.T.s
which the authors see as a key driver of centralised
control and standardisation. The chapter covers a
lot of ground including impact on practice, risk
assessment tools, risk led approaches,
managerialism and the impact on offenders.
“Insecurity, risk, Muslim communities, policing and
the “new terrorism” by Shamila Ahmed and Basia
Spalek is partisan and seeks to integrate the global
war on terror with attempts to contain and prevent
domestic terrorism within the UK. However, the
rich and diverse nature of Muslim communities is
not explored in any depth and an assumption is made
that Muslims feel, in the main, isolated and
victimised. There is no consideration of the argument
that Islamist terrorism is a real threat especially to
Muslim countries as well as within the UK. Finally,
there is no acknowledgement of human rights
legislation which has moderated some of the
intentions of politicians in the case of, for example,
control orders.
Restorative justice is becoming an important theme
on the government’s agenda and “Empowering
Communities Through Restorative Justice” by
Katherine Doolin provides a good overview.
However, the idea of empowering communities
Vol. 2 no. 3
196
70
through restorative justice seems touched on lightly
and perhaps the chapter could have been improved
with the inclusion of data on effectiveness.
The last government’s policy on “Safer communities
and community justice” are addressed David Prior.
It is a theoretical piece looking at the communitarian
roots of New Labour thinking, with communities
seen as both a means and an end and the
responsibility for the control of local crime and
disorder shifting from the central state to local
agencies and communities. The author sees
similarities between this way of thinking and Big
Society.
“Community Justice and the courts: a step forwards,
backwards or sideways” by John Raine contains
an analysis of the Red Hook Community Justice
centre in New York. This placed social services
under the court and a single judge sought to drive
community involvement through the involvement of
voluntary groups, restorative community payback
schemes and other initiatives. This was the model
for a similar scheme in North Liverpool. An
evaluation of the Liverpool scheme in 2007 showed
some positive results, cases were dealt with more
speedily, a problem solving approach was found to
have benefits for victims and witnesses and regular
reviews were found to be helpful with offenders.
The problem of apparently feral youths is addressed
in “Intolerant or intolerable? - anti-social youth in
asocial communities” by Nathan Hughes. It is a
worthy piece pointing out the problems of
stereotyping youths but offers no real solutions.
“Policing sexual offenders in the community: is it time
to move from the invisible to the visible?” by Mark
Blandford and Anthony Beech raises the issue of
how far it is possible to integrate existing local state
risk management processes for sex offenders with
a local community agenda. The chapter includes a
concise description of the development of the
MAPPA procedure. It explores public disclosure
including human rights aspects and puts forward the
Circles of Support schemes as an example of
community risk management. Complex issues are
raised in an informative way and difficult issues are
dealt with in appropriate depth.
EuroVista
Reviews
The topic of domestic abuse is dealt with from a
restorative perspective in, “Towards a community
response to the perpetration of domestic
violence” by Zahira Latif, drawing on the
development of village councils in India and
Pakistan where they are often the first port of call
in family disputes. The chapter is mainly of value
in describing a different approach to an important
contemporary issue.
detailed suggestions for the ways in which they could
be implemented, both at an individual level for
relationships with offenders and staff, and at an
overall organisational level. At the end of each of
these chapters is a convenient bullet point summary
which concisely illustrates the content in such a way
that it would easily jog the memory of someone
having already read the book, or provide a quick
point of reference for the busy practitioner skimming
through.
In summary this book provides a wide ranging
and reasonably comprehensive introduction to
issues in contemporary criminal justice.
The main body of the book begins in chapter two
by discussing and explaining several ways in which
empathic relationships can be developed with clients
and colleagues. Though the author stresses at various
points throughout the chapter that there can be a
fine line between empathy and collusion when it
comes to dealing with offenders, there are detailed
guidelines which have been drawn from existing
evidence to help practitioners avoid crossing this
line.
TRANSFORMING BEHAVIOUR: PROSOCIAL MODELLING IN PRACTICE
2ND ED
Sally Cherry
Willan, 220pp excl. index and
references
ISBN number: 9781843929277
Price: N/K
Reviewed by Avoen Perryman,
Swansea University
In recent years, pro-social modelling has been the
subject of popular discussions amongst both
academics and practitioners. However, Cherry
points out “that although people understand and
support the general principles of pro-social
modelling and practice it is much harder to do in
practice than in theory” (p. 4). Sally Cherry has
sought to tackle this disparity her second edition, a
handbook for practitioners and managers working
with offenders designed to offer an easy to follow
guide for the practical application of pro-social
modelling.
The book is broken up into ten manageable chapters
which flow and develop logically. Chapter one offers
a general introduction by highlighting the key features
of pro-social modelling and practice, before briefly
explaining its core evidence base in academic studies
and cognitive behavioural theory. Following this,
chapters two to nine each explore a key principle
of pro-social modelling in greater depth and provide
EuroVista
197
71
This discussion leads to advice for the constructive
use of authority when promoting and rewarding prosocial behaviour, as well as methods for effectively
discouraging negative behaviour in chapter three. A
clear consideration for some key criminological
arguments is demonstrated, such as: the rejection
of overly punitive sanctions and the limited beneficial
impact of individual and general deterrence for the
offender and society respectively.
Chapter four builds on the ideas of developing
empathic relationships and using appropriate
authority, by showing how they can be combined
with assertive behaviour and pro-social feedback.
The author convincingly explains how these can be
constructively applied to tackle potentially fractious
situations, in comparison to the use of passive or
aggressive behaviour.
Chapter five continues this line of argument for
positive reinforcement by providing a number of
useful skills and techniques designed to motivate an
offender to behave more pro-socially. Not only does
the chapter offer some helpful practical advice, but
it is likely that the disheartened practitioner may find
themselves motivated to not give up on their ‘difficult’
offenders in reading this particular section.
Vol. 2 no. 3
Reviews
Chapter six explains several practical techniques
and processes for helping offenders to adopt a
more pro-social lifestyle (helping them to find a
job for example) which is then expanded upon in
chapter seven, where the author discusses the
importance of and techniques for planning
behavioural changes with offenders and/or
colleagues.
As a criminologist with an academic background,
my only criticism would be that whilst Cherry states
that she has “tried to give you enough theory so that
you feel confident there is indeed an evidence base
but not so much it overwhelms you” (p. 5), I believe
the practitioner in mind for this book would have
benefited from a more detailed explanation of the
criminological theory and evidence behind some of
the arguments presented in this book, particularly
in chapter three. This I feel would make the reader
more inclined to side with the author’s arguments
and subsequently put the advice provided for prosocial modelling into practice.
Cherry rightly acknowledges at various points
throughout this book that every offender is
different and will therefore require different forms
of assistance when they are developing pro-social
behaviours. Thus chapter eight emphasises the
importance of adapting and accounting for
different ethnicities, religious beliefs, gender
identities, races and thinking/learning styles whilst
pro-social modelling with offenders, in order to
assist them appropriately.
At regular points throughout the book, Cherry
provides real life examples – boxed in grey within
the text – from her personal experiences as a
practitioner and consultant in the criminal justice
system. These examples are both interesting and
helpful in bringing the content to life by clearly
showing how pro-social modelling could be applied
in practice.
This is done in chapter ten which is an addition to
this second edition. It provides five insightful cases
of pro-social modelling in practice from four criminal
justice settings and one educational establishment
for ‘hard-to-teach’ young people. Additionally, the
appendices at the end of the book contain five
exercises recommended by the author “for
developing and embedding pro-social modelling
with teams” (p. 7), the pages of which can be
photocopied for private use.
Before Cherry effectively summarises and
exemplifies the content of the book with the cases
in the final chapter, she first shows in detail how the
principles of pro-social modelling can be applied to
an organisation as whole, for the benefit of both
managers and staff. A lot of the advice in this chapter
is evidently reflected by the exercises given in the
appendices, which also provide the reader with
practical suggestions for the implementation of prosocial modelling within an organisation.
Vol. 2 no. 3
198
70
Aside from this, Transforming behaviour: Prosocial modelling in practice is a very well
presented book that executes its purpose as a
guide for practitioners and managers beautifully.
The overall message delivered by this book is a
welcome one: that working with offenders
respectfully will be rewarded by mutual respect
and help to educate them in leading a more prosocial law-abiding lifestyle for the benefit of
society as a whole. I agree with Dr Chris Trotter
in his foreword for the book in that I too would
“thoroughly recommend this book to anyone
wishing to develop their skills in working with
offenders and other involuntary clients” (p. xvii).
WHERE NEXT FOR CRIMINAL
JUSTICE?
David Faulkner and Ros Burnett
The Policy Press, Bristol, 245pp
ISBN: 9781847428912
Price: £19.99
Reviewed by Beth Weaver, Glasgow
School of Social Work, University of
Strathclyde
‘Where Next For Criminal Justice?’ reviews the
development of penal policies in England and Wales
over the past thirty years, their relationship to
contemporary policy preoccupations and the
prospects for criminal justice in the 21st Century.
Given the sheer raft and pace of penal reform in this
period and the uncertainty as to the direction in
EuroVista
Reviews
which contemporary reforms will lead, this is no
mean feat.
The authors begin this critical examination by
recognising that debates surrounding criminal justice
are often polarised and politicised, divided by
different perspectives on the purpose and function
of criminal justice reflected in different outlooks on
human nature, manifest in different assumptions
about what causes crime and contrasting
expectations of what criminal justice should achieve
and how it should respond to those who commit
crime and those who are victims of crime. The
authors suggest that such polarised perspectives
obscure areas of consensus – including issues of
procedural justice, legitimacy, crime reduction and
human decency and civility.
In revisiting these areas of consensus, the authors
outline a more principled way forward through the
uncertainty that has characterised the successive and
rapid penal policy shifts in the UK, but it is these
discussions that give this book international appeal
and salience. Going ‘back to basics’ is a very British
term, one which resonates with areas of wider social
and penal policy reform by the Conservative
government in the UK in the early nineties. In
responding to their own question Where Next For
Criminal Justice? Faulkner and Burnett bring us
back to the basic principles and tenets underpinning
what criminal justice is for and what it can achieve,
but in a way that is simultaneously accessible but
far from basic in scope and rigour and that is as
balanced as their quest to find a common ground
between the tensions that discussions on criminal
justice policy characteristically evoke. Faulkner and
Burnett advance a theoretically rigorous and
analytically robust review which in its totality
represents an end in itself, but the depth of its
theoretical and empirical research foundations also
map a terrain far beyond what a single book might
hope to achieve alone, and from which the reader
can continue the journey of reflection and inquiry
that Where Next For Criminal Justice? provokes.
Faulkner and Burnett develop a principled
framework for the development of legislation, policy
and practice, underpinned by a focus on people,
their capacities, and their relational and social
contexts, premised on an approach that treats people
with respect and humanity. This framework is
EuroVista
199
71
presented as a foundation on which institutional,
systemic and structural reform should be developed
in ways that enable early intervention, prevention,
restoration and desistance. This focus is something
of a contrast to more recent political and managerial
preoccupations with efficiency and effectiveness and
the target culture these give rise to, discussed in
chapter one. Chapters two and three discuss the
political context and policy responses to crime and
justice reforms over the past three decades. The
authors note that contemporary concerns and
conflicts between those emphasising tough penal
responses and those emphasising prevention and
rehabilitation echo across the decades. While there
will be much within these chapters that have
relevance to a European readership, the authors’
attention to concepts of civil society, community and
local justice in chapter four, and their relationship to
more recent policy discussions surrounding the role
of third sector and voluntary organisations will
resonate strongly with shifts in governance
arrangements across Europe in response to
increasing democracy deficits and the austerity
measures following the recent economic crisis, on
which they build in chapter nine. Chapters five, six,
seven, and eight focus on different aspects of criminal
justice institutions, processes and practices –
respectively courts and criminal law; policing;
community based sentences and interventions and
prisons.
While this brief review cannot hope to do justice to
the complexity and originality of the discussions this
book contains, and the carefully crafted analysis
woven throughout, the authors’ reasoned call for a
more responsive, preventative, reparative and
enabling approach to criminal justice is timely and
necessary. In so doing, the principal arguments this
book advances are a move away from the micromanagement of public sector services and risk led
systems, and towards a greater role for a wider
range of services and for civil society; a greater focus
on early intervention, on prevention and a move
away from punitivism for its own sake towards more
constructive penal practices. Faulkner and Burnett
suggest that any response to the question – Where
Next for Criminal Justice? – should be
underpinned by values of human dignity and respect,
by a focus beyond the criminal justice system to
communities, relationships, human capacities and
Vol. 2 no. 3
positive motivations, to advance a strengths-based,
problem solving and restorative approach that can
promote reparation, integration and desistance. This
book is a tour de force and will be of interest and
appeal to academics across Europe and the UK,
to students and various criminal justice professionals,
to penal reformers and policy makers alike.
Vol. 2 no. 3
200
70
EuroVista
Contents
EuroVista
Probation and Community Justice
Editorial
117
EuroVista: Probation and Community Justice
Guidelines for Contributors
Main Articles
Vol.2 No.3
Published 3 times a year
Executive Board
Rob Canton (Co-Editor)
John Deering
(Book Reviews Editor)
Ioan Durnescu
Tina Eadie
David Faulkner
Ann James
Daria Janssen
Gerhard Ploeg (Co-Editor)
John Raine
Peter Raynor
Editorial Board
Aline Bauwens
Nicola Carr
Deirdre Healy
Will Hughes
Christine Morgenstern
Gabriel Oancea
Sandra Scicluna
Guy Schmit
Thomas Ugelvik
Beth Weaver
Guidelines for Contributors
Summary notes appear on the inside back cover.
What’s in a name: Penological and
institutional connotations of probation
officers’ labelling in Europe
Martine Herzog-Evans
Employment, reintegration and reducing
re-offending - a short look into a offender
resettlement within Europe
Natalie Woodier
119
132
EuroVista Administrator:
142
An Investigation into the Prevalence of
Mental Health Disorders in an English
Probation Population: An Overview
Charlie Brooker and Coral Sirdifield
152
Older people in prison
Greg Lewis
159
As well as the main articles, each issue of EuroVista includes a Forum section for which the editors welcome
shorter thought-provoking and idea-developing articles aimed at stimulating debate within academic and
practitioner circles. The journal also includes a book review section.
166
Editorial review and evaluation
All submissions are assessed by two assessors before a decision is made about publication. Authors will be
informed of assessor comments and asked to take them into account. The final decision to publish is made by
the editors.
[email protected]
Subscriptions and Purchases
£60.00 for three issues
£25.00 for single issues
Relapse study in the correctional services
of the Nordic countries. Key results and
perspectives
Ragnar Kristofferson
£10.00 for single articles
Please visit the eShop via the following link:
http://shop.bham.ac.uk/browse/extra_info.asp?
compid=1&catid=244&modid=1&prodid=0&deptid=
0&prodvarid=42
Books for review should be sent to:
Readership
The journal aims to publish articles that are relevant and accessible to practitioners, managers and policy makers
in a wide range of criminal and community justice agencies, especially probation. It is also read by students,
researchers and scholars of criminal justice. It is a journal of relevance to both practice and academic communities
and contributors are asked to take this into account.
Throughcare for prisoners with problematic
drug use: a European perspective
Morag MacDonald, James Williams
and David Kane
Detailed guidelines are available from the Editor.
Contributions should be emailed to Amanda Williams,
EuroVista
EuroVista (www.euro-vista.org) is published by the University of Birmingham in conjunction with CEP, the
European Probation organisation. Published up to three times a year, EuroVista is dedicated to linking research
with policy and practice in probation and community justice throughout Europe. The journal seeks to share
experience of good practice and responses to challenges that may have relevance to other countries.
Writing for EuroVista
Articles are welcomed from policy-makers, academics, managers, practitioners and other stakeholders in probation
and community justice. Papers may set out new research, but other articles may present or apply research
findings published elsewhere in order to enhance probation and community justice policy and practice. This
dissemination will add to the impact that research findings will have on policy and on practice. We are also
pleased to receive papers that describe and reflect on policy and practice innovations.
Readability is a key consideration. We encourage authors to avoid or minimise use of jargon and bureaucratic
language, and to explain theoretical issues clearly and simply, using specific practical examples wherever possible.
“VINN” - An accredited motivational
program promoting convicted women’s
sense of coherence and coping
Torunn Højdahl, Jeanette H. Magnus,
Roger Hagen and Eva Langeland
175
EuroNews
189
Books Received
191
Reviews
192
The typical length of contributions for the Main Articles Section is about 4,000 words, although we are flexible
and will happily accept longer or shorter pieces of good quality. Shorter articles are preferred for the Forum
Section of around 2,000-3000 words.
John Deering the School of Health and Social
Sciences, University of Wales, Newport, Caerleon
Campus, Newport NP18 3QT
Email: [email protected]
Advertising: Enquiries to the Editor
Email: [email protected]
Address for correspondence:
Amanda Williams
Format
Please indicate the title and word-length of the article when submitting material. Plain unformatted text is
preferred, though most processing formats are acceptable. Double-spacing is preferable and references should
follow the Harvard convention. Depending on the numbers of articles received, every effort is made to publish
contributions within one year of acceptance.
Contact
Articles for submission should be sent to Amanda Williams, EuroVista Administrator, by email:
[email protected]
School of Government and Society
The University of Birmingham
Cover Photographs
Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT
From left to right
[email protected]
Broken car window
Túrelio (via Wikimedia-Commons), CC-BY-SA)
Court room of the European Court of Human Rights
Djtm at the German language Wikipedia
The Hague, International Criminal Court
Designed, typeset and printed by:
Pauline Thorington-Jones
The University of Birmingham
This issue published: March 2013
Vincent van Zeijst
Suggestions for books to be reviewed (or offers to write reviews) should be sent to the book review editor, Dr
John Deering at University of Wales, Newport ([email protected])
For more detailed guidance, or for pre-draft discussion about a possible article, authors are welcome to contact
the Editors, Professor Rob Canton, De Montfort University ([email protected]) or Dr Gerhard Ploeg, Ministry
of Justice and the Police Department of Corrections, Oslo ([email protected])
EuroVista
ISSN: 2042-7026
PROBATION AND COMMUNITY JUSTICE
EuroVista
V O L U M E
V O L
IN THIS ISSUE
2
|
N U M B E R
3
|
2 0 13
...
MAIN ARTICLES WHAT’S IN A NAME: PENOLOGICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CONNOTATIONS OF PROBATION OFFICERS’
LABELLING IN EUROPE - MARTINE HERZOG-EVANS / EMPLOYMENT, REINTRGRATION AND REDUCING RE-OFFENDING - A
2
SHORT LOOK INTO OFFENDER RESETTLEMENT WITHIN EUROPE - NATALIE WOODIER / THROUGHCARE FOR PRISONERS
WITH PROBLEMATIC DRUG USE: A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE - MORAG MACDONALS, JAMES WILLIAMS AND DAVID KANE /
N O
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE PREVALENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH DISORDERS IN AN ENGLISH PROBATION POPULATION: AN
3
THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICES OF THE NORDIC COUNTRIES. KEY RESULTS AND PERSPECTIVES - RAGNAR KRISTOFFERSEN
OVERVIEW - CHARLIE BROOKER AND CORAL SIRDIFIELD / OLDER PEOPLE IN PRISON - GREG LEWIS / RELAPSE STUDY IN
/ “VINN” - AN ACCREDITED MOTIVATIONAL PROGRAM PROMOTING CONVICTED WOMEN’S SENSE OF COHERENCE AND
2 0 13
COPING - TORUNN HØJDAHL, JEANETTE H. MAGNUS, ROGER HAGEN AND EVA LANGELAND / REVIEWS