Group B – Probation inside

Operation, Organization and Style of a probation service

Some dimensions of the EU harmonization process

1.

Organizational

harmonization (e.g. Europol, Eurojust) 2.

Harmonization of the

contents

of the organizational activities (e.g. European Prison Rules) 3.

Harmonization in higher

education

(e.g. Bologna process)

Probation = profession

Part A)

Perspective, purpose,

vision, aims

a) b) c) Mission Core tasks Target groups

Part B) Organization,

capacity,

new demands

Part C) Human capital

a) b) c) Qualification In-service training Volunteers

Whom do we serve? (Stakeholders’ rank list according to the UK National Standards 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The public and the victims Directing organizations of PS Probation Officers Offenders NGOs in connection with the CJ Sentencing Courts Other CJ organizations and professionals

Trust in the (own country ’s) legal system

• 56 - 76 % (9) • 37 - 56 % (9) • 16 - 37 % (10) (categories based on per cent ‘tend to trust’)

Source: Eurobarometer, 61/2004

350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Prison rates and trust in the legal system (2003-2004) Prisoners Trust 100 90 80 30 20 10 0 70 60 50 40

Sources: Eurobarometer 61/2004 http://www.prisonstudies.org, Tapio Lappi Seppälä, 2004

General tendencies

1.

The gradually shifted and redefined criminal policy

2.

Financial crisis of the welfare state and privatization of public services

The structure of this workshop

Part 1) Perspective, purpose, vision, aims

a) b) c) Mission Core tasks Target groups

Part 2) Organization, capacity,

new demands

Part 3) Human capital

a) b) c) Qualification In-service training Volunteers

Objectives,

mission

statement for the probation services

Dutch

PS:

„Less inconvenience, less crime”

Finnish

PS

: to contribute to the security; to reduce recidivism; to break social exclusion that also reproduces crime

Danish

PS: to prevent recidivism by strengthening the self-confidence and self-discipline of the client as well as strengthening his ability to estimate himself in a social context in order to be able to use this experience in practice

Austrian

PS: to give offenders the opportunity to be integrated and to gain acceptance as citizens within society to prevent recidivism, and to offer services for conflict resolution taking into account the true interests of the victims

Czech

PS: the integration of offenders, victim support, and the protection of society

Part 1/a: Mission

“Do more with less, and do it faster!”

Part 1/a: Mission

(Part 1/a: Mission)

Questions for discussion

1.

What is the mission statement of the probation service in your country? If you do not have will it be helpful? 2.

Can you observe the tendency in your country of diminishing traditional social work concepts and values in probation? 3.

Can you observe the tendency in your country of adjusting the probation activities to the goals of other criminal justice agencies?

Part 1/a: Mission

Emerging trends

 Mediation  Community service  Crime prevention  Victim’s rights, services and compensation  Restorative justice

Part 1/b: Core tasks

b) Core tasks

Tasks in different stages of criminal justice process

Pre-trial functions

community service (as a diversion measure) probation supervision (diversion) bail service penal mediation PSR (Pre-Sentence Report) SIR (Social Inquiry Report) juvenile court assistance adult court assistance electronic monitoring curfew probation/bail hostel provide help and advice to victims

Post-trial functions

parole and conditional release supervision aftercare aftercare hostels community service probation supervision (with/without spec.requiements) community service imposed to juveniles specialised programmes of prevention, social assistance and legal aid to juvenile offenders mediation paying certain amount of money to an NGO/state electronic monitoring curfew supervise deprivation/prohibition (licence, professions, etc.) supervise placement in juvenile training institutions psychological counselling and assistance to victims yes yes yes yes yes

Austria Czech Germany Hungary Latvia Moldova Poland Romania Slovakia

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes not yet yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

Sweden

yes yes yes yes

Turkey

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

UK

yes yes yes yes yes yes

(Part 1/b: ‘Core tasks’)

Questions for discussion:

1) 2) 3) 4) What are the core tasks and function of probation? Do they differ by the different phase of criminal justice? Who decides about it? Could we specify the “minimum” level of the service? Do the core tasks differ by target groups?

What should we prefer at the beginning: a basic or a generic type of service? How to develop it into a complex service provision? Do you think probation services have to be involved in penal mediation?

Part 1/b: Core tasks

(Part 1/c: ‘Target groups’)

Questions for discussion:

1.

2.

3.

4.

Which are the most important target groups for probation services? What is the reason for a target group to be selected: the risk, the needs? What else? Whose task is to define a new target group? What might be criteria of it (geographical needs, stakeholders’ demand, political expectations, grant possibilities, etc.)?

What about victims? Do they constitute a target group for the probation service?

Part 1/c: Target groups

Part 2: Organization, capacity, new demands

   Organization:  Public versus private  Judicial versus executive branch of government Private non-profit versus private for-profit Purpose built versus generic agencies Centralized versus decentralized

Part 2: Organization

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

(Part B: ‘Organization’)

Questions for discussion

Who does and should define the demand for setting up and running probation services? Is the organizational location of the probation service a major concern? Would not it be better to leave probation in the hands of NGOs? Should the organizational structure be bound up with its form? Knowing all the hardship of the probation service why do not we accept NGOs as complex probation services? Would probation services’ traditional values be preserved in lawyer-dominated justice ministries?

What are the pros and cons to organize probation and prison service jointly within the framework of MoJ? Should we build up a hierarchical or a matrix type of management structure?

Part 2: Organization

Part 3)

To develop

human capital

through education, training and development

a.) Qualification b.) In-service training c.) Volunteers

Part 3: Human Capital

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

(Part 3/a: ‘Qualification’)

Questions for discussion

In what discipline are the core competencies of probation officers’ grounded (legal/social/managerial)?

Which professions/qualifications could be accepted as an adequate qualification for probation workers, taking into consideration the shifts of criminal policies, too? Are these competencies acquired largely through the development of skills, or through the development of a body of professional knowledge and insight?

What to do if there is no available PO training at all?

Could probation training be linked to trainings offered to the other professionals of the criminal justice system? Could we define the competency barriers of the POs? Do we need a universal European PO training?

Part 3/a: Qualification

Important skills and knowledge

1.

2.

3.

Risk assessment Individual counselling Group work intervention 4.

6.

Court reports 5. Awareness of issues related to child sexual abuse Court work and knowledge of court procedures 7.

Probation standards Source: Denis Bracken, 2003

Part 3/b: In-service training

(Part 3/b: ‘In-service training’)

Questions for discussion

1.

2.

3.

How can the quality of probation work and probation workers be improved?

Knowing the results of the English-Canadian survey what could be necessary minimum and the ideal knowledge of the probation workers in your country? (Social work, law, psychology, special education, etc.) What kind of in-service training is required? (introduction/refreshment course, frequency and duration, students’ field-instructor training, management training, public administration exam, etc.)

Part 3/b: In-service training

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

(Part 3/c: ‘Volunteers’)

Questions for discussion

What kind of staff do we need? Professional and/or laymen?

How are or can volunteers be used?

Why they are used and what is the benefit or the disadvantages of using them?

How could we make the role expectations of the volunteers more clear? How could a selection process be designed? Would the volunteers require training(s), supervision and support? What about the overhead costs of it? Do we need professionals for the basic activity and professionals for the specific services (group work, mediation, probation hostel, etc.)? What kind of tasks should we give to the lay volunteers? (Chatting only or quasi-professional tasks as well?) How to define their (minimum and maximum) limits of activity so as to avoid conflicts with the professionals?

Part 3/c: Volunteers