Shades of professionalism: Risk assessment in pre-sentence reports in Sweden

Introduction

The idea of a new penology, based on ideas of managerialism more than of transformation of individuals, has been widely discussed since Simon and Feeley’s (1992) article. The idea of a ‘new penology’ is not new in itself. In 1913, Theodore Roosevelt argued that the changes in the US criminal justice system contained aspects of a new penology, in which both the individual and the system could claim rights. When Murphy (1937) used the same concept, it was to argue for the necessity of having Parole Board members with the knowledge and skills to make the right decisions. Twenty years later, Schnur (1958) questioned whether a new penology is possible without a sufficient number of skilled staff. Even in these early examples of ‘new penology’, the performance of criminal justice is in focus. In contemporary discussions, new penology is synonymous with managerialism and accountability. The idea of a new penology today is connected to the more widespread idea of New Public Management (NPM), a global trend beyond national systems (Sahlin-Andersson, 2000). Drawing on this contemporary idea of a new penology, critical researchers argue that a risk-based actuarial justice system is replacing the previous welfare-based systems (Tata, 2010). However, Hannah-Moffat (2005) has argued that the widespread idea that neo-liberalism and risk have replaced welfare is overstated. She asserts that these systems exist in parallel in a mixed model of governance and that risk and need are interchangeable in the narratives of criminal justice professionals.

Under the influence of NPM, administration tends to adopt the logic of the market. The difference is that in the logic of the market there are aspects of consumer satisfaction, whereas in the logic of managerialism, or bureaucracy, the focus is on finding sustainable systems that are independent of performers, so that the structure and the techniques are the same in all cases (Freidson, 2001). Professionalism, which Freidson (2001) regards as a third logic beside the logics of the market and bureaucracy, highlights knowledge, ethics and discretion. In this professional logic, performers have knowledge, skills and ethics as a starting point for the use of their discretion. Hasenfeld (2010) argues that even if NPM puts pressure on human service organizations to emphasize efficiency, there is still room for discretion in performance.

In the understanding of contemporary ‘new penology’, those who work in criminal justice are expected to control, manage and assess their clients. Since the clients to a large extent are living excluded from society, these practitioners have been described as ‘waste managers’ (Simon and Feeley, 1992). Hannah-Moffat (2005) thinks not only that the prevalent logic of risk assessment is a normative practice with a white, middle-class hetero-normativity, but also that it governs both offenders and practitioners.

There has been debate about whether probation and parole workers comply with the managerial system or not. Lynch (1998) found that there are signs of resistance within the criminal justice system to deploying a managerial role. In that study in California she also noticed different positions for different levels within the organization: managers tended to be more focused on efficiency and managerialism, whereas individual performers on the front line took an individualistic approach and tried to work more as case managers. This is in line with Lipsky’s (2010) argument that the higher the actor is in the organizational hierarchy, the more the actor is identified with organizational ideas.

Pre-sentence reports in Europe: Previous research

Studies of pre-sentence reports show that there is an international trend towards the use of actuarial assessments based on the concept of risk. Pre-sentence reports are made by the probation service in almost every European jurisdiction, with the exceptions of Austria, Lithuania, Moldavia and Spain (Van Kalmthout and Durnescu, 2008). There are similarities among the jurisdictions, but also variation in the point in the process when the report is made and what impact it has on the court. Various aspects of this practice have been the focus of research internationally. Some scholars claim that focusing on risk in pre-sentence reports leads to de-professionalization or the elimination of discretion, but few studies have been completed so far. Apart from research looking at the correspondence between the recommendations in the reports and the actual outcome of the courts’ sentencing (for an overview, see Beyens and Scheirs, 2010: 311–12), growing academic interest is focused on the relationship between risk management and correctional policy. Tata et al. (2007) have made a more comprehensive study of pre-sentence reports and their influence on sentencing in Scotland: for example, regarding the methodology (Halliday et al., 2008), the relation between policy and practice (McNeill et al., 2009), the relation between professions in the process (Halliday et al., 2009) and on the reports’ influence on guilty pleas (Tata, 2010). Other studies are Field and Nelken’s (2010) comparative study of Wales and Italy. Wandall (2010) has shown how pre-sentence reports in Denmark construct images of the offender, and Beyens and Scheirs (2010) have presented a study of the impact of pre-sentence reports in Belgian courts.

Since these studies emanate from the last few years, it could be said that there is a rising interest in pre-sentence reports among researchers in Europe. Hannah-Moffat and Maurutto (2010) have shown that in the US and Canada there has been more widespread interest in studies of pre-sentence reports. So far, knowledge of pre-sentence practice in Europe is quite limited and more research is needed to arrive at a deeper understanding of this practice and of how it is affected by managerialism, NPM and risk. This article makes a contribution to this area.

Aim and context

In this article we examine how risk assessments are conducted in Swedish pre-sentence reports and compare how probation officers argue about these reports in relation to the organizational and legal framework for performance. Our focus is more on the preparation of pre-sentence reports than on how they are used once written. The material derives from a study funded by the Swedish Prison and Probation Service that was conducted in 2009 and 2010. Since neither probation in general nor the practice of pre-sentence reports has been given much academic attention in Sweden, very little is known about the subject. Our study should therefore be regarded as preliminary research within this field, although its specific aim was to analyse how the risk of re-offending was assessed.

Drawing on some of the findings from this study, our aim here is to describe the practice of pre-sentence report writing in Sweden. In doing so we will briefly describe the history of pre-sentence reports and then focus on current practice and how assessments are made. The specific questions are, first, what pre-sentence reports contain, in general, and especially with reference to (risk) assessments. Secondly, we investigate the grounds on which these assessments are made, and thirdly we address how probation officers present their arguments in the reports. As this description unfolds, the probation officer’s use of professional discretion comes in to focus.

Street-level bureaucrats

Pre-sentence reports are written by probation officers within the Swedish Prison and Probation Service. Employment in this position requires an academic degree in social work or ‘other education based on behavioural or legal alignment’. The majority of probation officers are generic social workers with a 3.5-year university education. Apart from preparing pre-sentence reports, probation officers supervise offenders on probation and parole, with or without electronic monitoring, and manage community service (Svensson, 2010). The probation officers may work at different levels of specialization; that is, some will perform most of the tasks at hand whereas others will specialize in one or two tasks, such as writing pre-sentence reports. The Swedish Prison and Probation Service employs about 1000 probation officers and approximately 30,000 pre-sentence reports are written every year. Over the years the Swedish Prison and Probation Service has gradually adopted the principles of the ‘What Works’ agenda, that is, the body of research aimed at the construction of effective interventions in order to prevent reoffending. A central feature of this agenda is the ‘RNR principle’, the principle of Risk–Need–Responsivity, which focuses on the relationship between assessing the risk of re-offending, identifying the risk factors needed to be addressed and an understanding of who will benefit from these programmes (Bonta and Andrews, 2007).

In the wide and varied field of social work, assessments usually concern the clients’ various needs. However, as noted, in the realm of criminal justice and corrections there is an ongoing shift of focus, where assessments of risk(s) are stressed. This puts probation officers in a difficult position, since they often are generically trained social workers but employed by the criminal justice system (for example the Swedish Prison and Probation Service). Because of their role and position in the system, they can be regarded as what Lipsky (2010) calls ‘street-level bureaucrats’. This is a position that contains a fair degree of professional discretion owing to the inherent flexibility in human service organizations. It is also an evident part of the role to serve both the client and society, and discretion could be regarded either as professional autonomy or as a risk of unequal treatment. Traditional ideas of discretion have not taken institutional aspects into consideration, but, by doing that, it is possible to see how not only organizational factors but also myths and rituals influence how discretion is developed and used (Sosin, 2010). Street-level bureaucrats are not just defined by their discretion; being caught between demands and resources, and between the individual (client) and society, they typically develop various coping mechanisms in order to handle this frustrating position (Lipsky, 2010). In a study of criminal justice social workers (i.e. writers of pre-sentence reports) and their relationship to the Scottish courts, Halliday et al. (2009) found these ‘street-level bureaucrats’ engaged in coping mechanisms on an inter-professional level.

Old ideas in new clothes

The decision to order a pre-sentence report in Sweden rests with the court. It is a discretionary decision governed by a host of legal considerations, but most often it revolves around assessing whether a community sanction could be a feasible outcome of the trial. A pre-sentence report is then ordered from the Probation Service. Most aspects of pre-sentence report writing have remained constant over nearly 100 years, although some changes have been made. The most significant change lies in the current explicit focus on risk and risk assessments in the instructions.

Pre-sentence reports were first put into practice in Sweden in 1918 as a result of the introduction of suspended sentences in the Swedish penal system. These reports were limited to investigating the accused person’s character and social situation in order to assess the feasibility of a suspended sentence. The task of preparing a pre-sentence report fell to someone ‘willing and suitable’, usually one of the court clerks. However, in 1939 pre-sentence investigations became regulated by a specific law and their purpose became a general assessment of what kind of sentence could be suitable. With the rise of a new governmental organization (‘Skyddskonsulenter’), the forerunners of today’s probation officers, the responsibility was gradually transferred to civil servants with an academic degree, often a degree in social work. Today, it is a task for probation officers employed by the Prison and Probation Service. Besides a presentation of the accused person’s social situation and background, there is supposed to be a recommendation of a sentence, or at least an assessment of whether a community sanction is suitable. Over time, the information compiled in the pre-sentence reports also became the entry point for the Prison and Probation Service’s subsequent work with the offender in the case of imprisonment or probation (Svensson and Persson, 2011). The reports are written with a double aim: to be a part in the sentencing process and to be a starting point for planning how a sentence should be served.

The debate concerning a new penology, as discussed earlier, draws on the assumption that the logic of managerialism influences the justice system and the administration of corrections in such a way that they change from being welfare based to being risk based and actuarial (Tata, 2010). This transformation might have manifested itself in changes in the legislation; however, focusing on the current law on pre-sentence investigations dating back to 1991, ¹ we see that it is basically unchanged since 1939. Since the legislation is unchanged, signs of a shift in policy must be sought elsewhere. It is the organization’s instructions that provide the details on form and content and, parallel to translating the legislature’s intentions into practical guidelines, instructions also mirror their context, that is, the organization’s rationales and ideologies. ² The Prison and Probation Service has been trying to adapt to the principles of the What Works agenda since the late 1990s. Although aspects of the RNR principle (Bonta and Andrews, 2007) have gradually been introduced in various instructions and practices, the most prominent change with reference to pre-sentence investigations was launched in 2009. The reasons given by the organization for this change were in part a demand for uniformity, in terms of both content and form, but the most prominent reason lies in the explicit ambition to shape the correctional system in compliance with the What Works agenda. Thus a much more explicit focus on risk and risk assessments was introduced, with an emphasis on the static and dynamic factors related to an increased or diminished risk of re-offending. It should be noted that the previous instructions from 2006 also made reference to risk assessments according to the RNR principle, but neither as explicitly nor in such great detail as the current instructions.

Both the investigation and the construction of the report follow a design that dates back to 1918. Today, the backdrop for the investigation is compiled from official sources, typically various branches of the social services, along with information from the database of the Swedish Criminal Record. At the centre of the investigation stands the interview with the accused, in which 10 different areas must be covered, such as family, housing, occupation/economy, health issues and substance use/abuse. These areas should be viewed with reference to their predictive value, focusing on specific factors related to the risk of re-offending. Apart from a strong recommendation to use standardized risk assessment tools, the instructions do not convey any methodological requirements when it comes to ensuring quality and reliability in the interview with the accused. The use of risk assessment tools is not compulsory, since the tools at the probation officers’ disposal are mainly aimed at specific risk areas such as substance abuse or sex crimes. No general assessment tool, such as LSI-R (Level of Service Inventory – Revised), is used in Sweden. Following the interview, references are typically taken up from members of the family, employers or close personal friends. The information gathered, with its focus on the assessed risk of re-offending, is compiled into a coherent summary from which a recommendation on sentencing will emerge.

Methods and material

The data for our study were collected in 6 of the 35 probation districts in Sweden and they underwent both qualitative and quantitative analysis. The six districts were strategically chosen so that they together characterized the variation within Swedish probation practice. The districts were of different sizes and represent different social contexts as well as different regions in the Prison and Probation Service’s organization. The bigger districts had specialized probation officers with pre-sentence reports as their main task, whereas probation officers in the smaller districts had a more varied workload where they combined writing pre-sentence reports with tasks such as supervision of offenders and managing programmes. The same material was collected in each of the six districts.

We visited the districts in 2009 for one focus group and three individual interviews with report writers, which in total provided material from 6 focus groups and 18 interviews. We collected all pre-sentence reports produced in each of the districts from January and February 2008 and 2010, which led to a total of 1320 reports, 644 from 2008 and 676 from 2010. The scope of these 1320 reports deliberately covers a period when major changes were made in the instructions governing the Swedish Prison and Probation Service’s work with pre-sentence reports. Our material is therefore twofold, half of the reports stemming from a period when reports were based on the previous and less (risk-)specific instructions, and the other half based on the current instructions; the interviews and focus groups were conducted just before the change. Using data collected from two periods could permit comparisons over time. We found, however, that the material was far too vague and indistinct to permit statistical analysis. The analysis therefore has to rest on comparative descriptions more than statistical comparisons.

Between three and six probation officers participated in each focus group. The group discussions lasted between 51 and 69 minutes and the aim was to elicit the general view of the working group on their work with pre-sentence reports. The starting point for these group discussions was the concepts of ‘risk’ and ‘need’, after which the group had a discussion about pre-sentence reports and how assessments are made. The individual interviews were held as open conversations for an average of 32 minutes, with a variation between 20 and 55 minutes, where the interviewee described how he or she works with pre-sentence reports. All except three interviews were with individuals who also participated in the focus groups. The oral material was recorded and transcribed, which gave us 119 pages of text from the focus groups and 172 pages from the interviews.

The reports from 2008 are written in running text and most often cover two pages, whereas the reports from 2010 are based on a fixed form, making them more extensive, with an average of four pages. In total, our collected reports consist of approximately 4000 pages of text. In order to make analysis of this material possible we selected variables that made a quantitative analysis feasible. These variables were based on the three fields of data that all pre-sentence reports contain. First, there are basics facts about the investigated person: name, age, address and (usually) a description of the charges. Secondly, there are the ‘assessed data’: descriptions of the investigated person’s situation, where the information is dynamic and subject to valuation by the report writer. The third field of data consists of the suggested sanction or a judgement as to whether a community sanction is or is not suitable. The first and last fields of data are fairly straightforward and easy to categorize, but the assessed data are more complicated. This is a highly individually formulated text that draws on the assessments made by the report writer. It is these assessments that we focus on, aiming to categorize and analyse them. Here our baseline assumption was that the various aspects of an accused person’s life would be viewed and presented as being either risk or protective factors. However, while gathering our data it became clear that the reports seldom contained any explicit use of the terms ‘risk factors’ or ‘protective factors’. As a consequence, our analysis was deliberately generous in its design; categorization did not require assessments to be explicit. We were looking for any use of words indicating that the probation officer had deemed a risk or protective factor to be present (that is, value-laden expressions, repetitive wording, lengthy narratives on specific aspects, etc.). Therefore, the analysis is based on our interpretation and categorization of the probation officers’ written statements and wordings, aiming to discriminate between mere statements and value-based assessments.

From the 1320 reports, 120 were randomly selected for a qualitative analysis, 10 from each district and year. These were read thoroughly in order to study the structure of the reports and the logics in the connections between the presented data, assessments and suggestions. The transcribed material from the interviews and focus groups underwent a thematic content analysis, focusing on the probation officers’ perceptions and attitudes with regard to their work and tasks. Taken together, this material gave us an insight into various aspects of pre-sentence report writing, including the report writers’ own perceptions of their tasks. In the overall analysis the position of the street-level bureaucrat was in focus as we compared the different sources of data. This presented us with a fairly comprehensive picture, comprising what they were supposed to do (instructions), what they did (reports), what they said as individuals (interviews) and what they said as a group (focus groups). In the analysis, Freidson’s (2001) way of discriminating profession as a specific logic was a useful tool for understanding the different logics and the gap between instructions and performance.

What is in a pre-sentence report?

Traditionally, pre-sentence reports are written in a fixed form, but from the early 1990s until 2009 they were written in running text. Running text could be seen as giving room for discretionary practice, but in fact our results indicate that more informative reports were completed when a form is used. We found the interview to be paramount to the investigation; without it, no real investigation can be said to be carried out. If an accused person refuses to appear for an interview, the probation officers routinely omit any recommendations regarding sanctions in their report to the court. The information derived from the interview is often taken at face value, however; we noted that references were used in only a fifth of the reports.

In our study, the investigated persons are mainly men (86.2 percent). Few are under 20 and few are over 60, and the predominant age group is 20–29. They are mainly facing trial in cases concerning theft, violence, narcotics or drunk driving. Most of them have previous experience of being accused and/or convicted. When references are made to the Criminal Record it turns out that 25 percent had no prior record. The majority did however have previous experience of legal proceedings; 31 percent between one and three times, 15 percent between four and six times and 27 percent seven times or more. Another 3 percent were said to have a criminal record, but without further specification.

When it comes to the various areas that are to be addressed, one general observation in our study is an increase in how often areas are addressed. Our analysis, however, showed that addressing an area is not necessarily the same as assessing it. It also showed that the material is too vague for deeper analysis. No statistical tests could be made for comparisons because the reports present only imprecise descriptions. We can, however, gain a general view of changes between the two years.

When studying each individual area we found that the one area that most often gets assessed as being a risk factor is the use of alcohol. The level is low, however, and stayed relatively stable between 2008 and 2010 (see Figures 1 and 2). Narcotics were slightly more frequently assessed as being a risk in 2008 than in 2010. A similar decrease is noted with reference to the investigated person’s mental health, which in 2008 was rated as a potential risk in 8 percent of the reports, compared with 4 percent in 2010. The other areas were more seldom considered as risks. As shown in Figure 2, most areas are presented, but with a neutral approach. ³

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Assessments of life areas in the pre-sentence reports from 2008 (n = 561).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Assessments of life areas in the pre-sentence reports from 2010 (n = 567).

The two figures show that there is a difference between writing in running text and filling in a form; evidently more areas are covered in the reports from 2010 when a form was used. Nevertheless, the neutral information and the imprecise wording stand out in both parts of the material.

These results changed somewhat when we turned our attention to the report summaries in connection with the proposed sanction. Although not explicitly required by the instructions, we found that almost half of the reports singled out one particular risk factor as prevailing (41 percent in 2008 and 55 percent in 2010). This does not mean that only one area was mentioned in such terms that we interpreted it as a description of risk. There was, however, a tendency to stress one area more than the others, which in our analysis was interpreted as a presentation of a prevailing risk factor. In some cases, two or more factors were given the same importance. Looking at the material this way, again we found a rise in frequency as well as some differences between the two samples. Alcohol was highlighted in 10 percent of the summaries in 2008, compared with 12 percent in the 2010 sample. Narcotics were similarly assessed: 9 percent in 2008 and 12 percent in 2010. What stands out is the dramatic rise in how offending behaviour was assessed: in 2008, only 6 percent of the summaries singled out this area as the prevailing risk factor; in 2010, this assessment was made three times more often (20 percent). It is still, for this context, rather seldom assessed even if there was a noticeable change in how the assessments are presented.

We can also see a clear change in how protective factors are mentioned, especially when it comes to the summaries. Prevailing protective factors were more often highlighted in the summaries (60 percent in 2008 and 73 percent in 2010) than were risk factors (41 percent in 2008 and 55 percent in 2010). Another interesting aspect is how protective aspects were presented. Instead of one particular factor being singled out, a phrase similar to ‘stable social circumstances’ was used. This phrase had no clear definition, but it was usually compiled of references to external areas such as occupation, housing and social relations.

The content of the pre-sentence reports could be summarized as a descriptive on-the-spot account based on a compilation of data from various sources, drawing heavily on the interview with the investigated person. This information is seldom contested or cross-checked against other sources of information (for example, references). References were said to have been taken up in 17 per-cent of the reports in 2008, and in 23 percent in 2010. Looking at how the various areas are assessed, we see that the relationship between assessments of risk and neutral statements seems to indicate an ambition to keep the reports objective and value free. In fact, there is a slight decrease in how often the various areas are assessed as constituting a risk. However, when examining the summaries we found that many contained descriptions of both risk-related and protective factors, more often in 2010. We also found that the majority of the summaries were more concerned with protective areas, and that these were constructed as the vague value-laden concept ‘stable social circumstances’.

How assessments are made

Because the reports mainly consist of neutral descriptions, it is not always clear how assessments are made. In fact, we cannot say that assessments are always made. The use of standardized risk assessment tools is strongly recommended, but results from tools like that seldom occur in the reports. In 2008, standardized tools were used in only 3 percent of the reports and in 4.4 percent in 2010. This means that standardized tools cannot be a regarded as a major basis for their assessments. What then is the ground for assessing an accused person’s life situation and recommending a sanction? From the qualitative analysis of the arguments in the reports, it is not easy to spot the connection between crime and risk. There is also an ambiguous relationship between the investigation and the arguments given for the proposed sanction. Standard phrases are used, but their meaning is not obvious. In the arguments presented in the reports it is clear that these probation officers, who are mainly trained as social workers, look for social problems and, when found, they are understood more as needs than as risks. The pre-sentence report is thus more of a social investigation than a risk assessment focusing on re-offending. Considering the widespread use of the expression ‘stable social circumstances’, it becomes even more obvious that it is the social situation, and not the risk of re-offending, that is assessed.

After a review of studies of risk assessments in social work, Barry (2007) describes the prevailing literature as being dominated by studies focusing on standardized tools. However, social workers face incompatible expectations when on the one hand they are supposed to act as independent professionals and on the other hand are expected to use specific tools in specific cases. Sackett (2000) describes medical evidence-based practice as a combination of tools based on systematic scientific knowledge and the clinical assessment made when encountering the client. What we see in the pre-sentence reports could possibly be regarded as a clinical assessment made by professional social workers. However, there are no explicit signs of the professional expertise and autonomy that clinical assessments usually demonstrate.

Among the arguments used in the pre-sentence reports, historical facts are important, especially facts from records and from other professionals. Statements from other professionals about the current situation are also important. The reports are most often written without any subject and in passive form, claiming to be the organization’s opinion and not the opinion of a person or even a profession. When using expressions such as ‘it is the Probation Service’s opinion that . . . ’, the probation officers are not claiming any professional expertise; they are claiming organizational legitimacy. Although assertions made by other professions are used to strengthen their arguments, such as ‘the Social Services have assessed . . .’, the probation officers’ own particular knowledge is not highlighted. The accused person’s own views are given great importance; in fact, the investigations are in most cases built entirely around this type of information. This leaves the reports riddled with expressions such as ‘he says’, ‘he claims’, ‘according to him’, etc. However, since these statements are seldom analysed or even addressed by the investigating probation officer, professional autonomy is hard to identify in the reports.

How report writers argue

From our interviews and focus groups we have seen variation in the way the probation officers conceptualize risk and risk assessment, but we have also seen that to a high degree they rely on professional exchange since they stress the importance of discussing continuously with colleagues. Because the probation officers’ view is not evident in the reports, we have reflected on how they argue about their work with pre-sentence reports.

From our interviews and focus groups it is clear that the probation officers have three ways of relating to risk assessment: disregarding, reconstructing or acknowledging. Those who disregard their task of assessing risk tend to speak more about getting to know the person and observing his or her needs. In fact, the concept of risk was rarely used in our interviews and focus groups; and, when it was used, it was mainly in response to questions from us. Those who did use the concept often reconstructed it and turned it into a description of the importance of meeting the individual’s needs. One probation officer described a typical situation: ‘I have met this woman, when you started talking, she had a lot pent-up . . . she needed to talk. That is also risk assessment.’ The connection to risk assessment comes through an implicit understanding that, if the needs are not met, then some diffuse kind of risk will appear. This type of reconstruction should not be confused with a much more specific translation of the term ‘risk’ into ‘needs’; dynamic risk factors are also known as ‘criminogenic needs’ (Bonta and Andrews, 2007). In our study, reconstructions of risks into needs are however, as shown, something completely different. The third way of relating to risk is to acknowledge that a risk assessment should be made. However, this standpoint came up only when a few of the informants talked about being pleased with having tools to help them do assessments. They gave specific examples, such as: ‘You have to be precise, you have to ask: “How much do you drink?” “How often do you drink?” And then you make an AUDIT ⁴ and you go back to the person and you have a frame for your discussion.’ The few probation officers who argue in this way also told stories about having classified the risk as being high, low or medium, and they were proud of being able to give detailed statements. Even if we have seen this variation, the dominant result is that report writers are more prepared to assess social situations and needs than criminogenic factors and the risk of re-offending, and from the focus groups we learnt that the ‘probation discourse’ does not naturally include the concept of risk.

Shades of professionalism?

In our study we have combined oral and written material and we have done both qualitative and quantitative analysis. The quantitative analysis of 1320 written reports has shown that few areas are in fact assessed or valued since the information in the reports is mostly presented in neutral terms. Risk assessment is expected to be done, preferably by standardized tools, but it is more or less exceptional when it happens. The descriptive statistics show that assessments were rather vague in 2008 when the instructions were less clear on risk assessment and the report was written in running text. In 2010 the instructions were much more explicit in terms of risk assessment and a fixed form was used, but the reports were still relatively neutral. Few reports contained explicit assessments of the risk of re-offending, although the identification of various risk factors was clearer. By combining this result with a qualitative content analysis of 120 of the reports and interviews with report writers, we found that pre-sentence reports in Sweden could in general be understood as social enquiries based on short personal interviews, where information is seldom controlled or compared.

It is these findings that raise questions concerning the relationship between organizational demands and professional discretion. The partial lack of compliance with the instructions can be understood if both the organization and the professionals are regarded as adhering to different rationales, drawing on different forms of knowledge. The professionals’ base of knowledge is in part related to their educational background as generic social workers, whereas the organization builds policy documents, standards and instructions around the What Works agenda. The discrepancy between organizational ambition and actual outcomes can, to a great degree, be explained by the report writers’ use of professional discretion based on a professional ideology that differs from the actuarial risk focus. These findings correlate with some contemporary European studies, most notably a study of Irish probation officers’ attitudes (Fitzgibbon et al., 2010). Similar conclusions have been drawn from studies conducted in Wales (Field and Nelken, 2010) and in Belgium (Beyens and Scheirs, 2010).

The qualitative analysis of interviews and focus groups also showed that probation officers rely heavily on their colleagues and that they continuously discuss assessments. This means that wordings in the reports, such as ‘the Probation Service’s opinion is . . .’, could be taken either at face value and thus be understood as factual presentations of the organization’s views, or as the result of a peer review process developed under professional support. On the one hand, such differences are inevitable owing to the practitioners’ use of their professional discretion; according to Hasenfeld (2010), this is inherent in every human service organization. On the other hand, they could be viewed as resulting from a more specific difference between the organization and its practitioners.

In terms of professionalism, it seems clear that the form of professionalism that most of the probation officers adhere to has more in common with a social, welfare-based outlook on crime than with a risk-oriented actuarial methodology. The analysis of the interviews and focus groups has shown that the probation officers argue more about needs and social aspects than about the risk of re-offending. The concept of risk is not really implemented in their vocabulary. Since the majority are trained as generic social workers, it stands to reason that this outlook to some extent is derived from their education. Education-influenced professionalism can be an explanatory factor for the discrepancies noted; such conclusions have also been implied in studies of other European jurisdictions (Beyens and Scheirs, 2010; Field and Nelken, 2010). In spite of this strong occupational, ideology-based identity among probation officers, we have seen few signs of professionalism in their arguments in pre-sentence reports. This low degree of professional visibility is interesting because the probation officers are not explicitly representative of the organization’s ambitions (that would require a higher level of risk assessments), nor do they stand out as representative of a profession less closely tied to a specific organization (that is, generic social workers). More importantly, their claims to professionalism seem to be a mix of the two – drawing in part on a professional standpoint related to traditional and welfare-based social work, and in part on knowledge specific to the organization, thus enjoying a legitimacy that comes with specialization derived from having a monopoly on the tasks at hand.

Since the introduction of the Penal Code in 1965, the Swedish penal system has been aimed at individual prevention, with rehabilitation closer to its core than deterrence or incapacitation. However, the rehabilitation pessimism of the mid-1970s (Martinson, 1974) created a gradual shift in focus: principles such as proportionality, predictability and equal treatment before the law were given precedence over individual considerations aimed at rehabilitation. In 2009, a government inquiry was launched with the mission to review the entire system of sanctions in order to further these efforts. It is the crime and not the criminal that is supposed to be in focus when the question of a suitable sanction is decided. The work is in progress and the final proposals of the inquiry will be presented in 2012.

This development raises a number of questions. In Canada and many US states, as well as in Scotland and Ireland, new technologies, such as Sentencing Information Systems, are in use (Hannah-Moffat, 2010; Wandall, 2006). These techniques could fit in with the ideas that will be presented in Sweden, but will they be implemented here? How then would the professionals act and react? Lipsky (2010) showed that coping mechanisms are used in street-level bureaucracy as a way of handling contradictory demands. Lack of compliance with the shift towards focusing on risk could be understood as a form of coping mechanism, a modification of how probation officers perceive their work. Replacing ‘risk’ with ‘needs’ enables them to continue to assess social needs, and at the same time officially re-name their assessments as assessments of risk. It stands to reason that a reformed system of sanctions would have an impact on the practice of pre-sentence reports. Most probably it would also affect the probation officers in their professional roles, and possibly their ability to exercise their professional discretion. The questions that have to be raised are: how far can coping mechanisms be stretched and how wide a gap between ideology and reality can they bridge?