Mission Impossible? The professionalisation of Austrian probation between desistance and “what works”

The enthusiasts

The first group consists of nine offenders who were enthusiastic and profound “fans” of the programme. Interestingly, this group of probationers did not have much in common in the first place. They had different social backgrounds and committed very different crimes, from assault to robbery to the abuse of minors. It is important to stress that the positive change processes they underwent were not predictable at the beginning of the probation period as they were not considered “easy”, compliant probationers. In contrary, some of them were in deep trouble at the beginning, struggling with drug addiction and/or reintegration after release from prison. Still, all of them reported to have experienced a profound change process that was triggered or profoundly supported by the cognitive-behavioural programme. None of them reoffended while on probation.

Despite their socio-demographic and other differences, the programme seemed to perfectly resonate with their attempts to “go straight”. What these enthusiasts have in common is not only a certain openness to reflect on their past but also the way the programme was delivered to them. Their probation officers did not focus exclusively on past offences and the risk of recidivism. Rather, they all built strong relationships with their probationers and were able to help them to develop a future-orientated perspective. The cognitive-behavioural programme allowed these clients to “process” their past offence(s), to reflect its causes and consequences. As became clear in the analysis of the interviews the probationers did not feel “reduced to the risk” they might pose. On the contrary, they appreciated how they were guided through an individualised, sometimes painful, and in-depth process that affected their inner self, their cognitions and their behaviour.

In contrast to the specialist practice and the fragmentation of supervision of the British probation service (see e.g. Robinson, 2005), Austrian probation still allows for long-lasting working relations that even continue after relapses and periods of incarceration. Hence, the analysis of the cases and their context shows that a cognitive-behavioural programme can be very successful in supporting the desistance process when it is delivered by experienced, professional probation officers who have the organisational resources to treat each case individually and to follow a holistic approach.

In some cases, the change process was triggered by events and circumstances that were not related to probation; for example, becoming a father. Still, the new situation (such as fatherhood or a new loving partner) alone was not enough to change the probationers’ behaviour. Rather, it was only after the completion of the programme that the interviewees were able to see these circumstances as “hooks for change” (Giordano et al., 2002).

I have kids, but in the beginning I did not care. But after [the completion of the programme] I realised that I had kids, that I missed them and that it was time to take over responsibility, time to change. That everything must change now.

As McNeill (2006: 47) pointed out: “It is not just the events and changes that matter; it is what these events and changes mean to the people involved.” And these meanings can be influenced successfully by professional probation practice using intelligently designed tools and programmes within the right context. At the same time, focusing on human capital only will not be enough – probation also needs to work on developing social capital, opportunities to apply these skills, or to practice newly forming identities (Farrall, 2002; McNeill et al., 2012: 9).

The compliant probationers

This group of eight probationers completed the cognitive-behavioural programme successfully and approved it. Still, the programme did not initiate or support a change process the way it did in the first group. Again, the background of these probationers was very different and the crimes that they had been incarcerated and/or set on probation for varied from murder to fraud to the possession of child pornography. Not all of these probationers felt as close to their probation officers as they did in the group described above.

The programme was seen to be an interesting tool, structuring the probation sessions, helping to sort out the disordered past, and leaving problematic events behind. Still, those who described a change process did not locate its starting point in the programme or any other probation intervention. Rather, developments independent of any criminal justice intervention led to a change in behaviour, such as severe health problems, changing routine activities (a new workplace), or significant social bonds, e.g. a new partner (“the first time in my life that I liked to be at home”). The programme supported these positive developments. ‘In the beginning I felt like I am obliged to complete the programme. […] After some time, I realised it did me good. […] I realised that this piece of the puzzle had still been missing.’

The sceptics

A group of the same size was sceptical about the cognitive behavioural programme as such. These eight probationers criticised the programme, its content and its structure. They opposed the confrontation with their criminal past and judged the tool “unnecessary” and “backward-looking”. All these probationers had been in prison and were mainly motivated by the goal not to be imprisoned again, assessing their own recidivism risk as being very low. Some assured that they needed no help and supervision at all. For them, “going straight” was just a matter of strong will. Interestingly, the probation officers judged the use of the programme in these cases much more positively because it helped to structure the probation sessions. Furthermore, it allowed them to continuously and straightforwardly address and challenge the neutralisation techniques of their clients.

The deceivers

A small group of four young probationers agreed to take part in the study obediently. They also seemed to be compliant probationers but what they said and what they did was inconsistent. Although they all assured to be law-abiding citizens at the time, they all reoffended during probation. Their sole motivation to “stay straight” was to avoid aggravated sentencing. The programme was not able to change their patterns of thinking and behaviour, and their participation in the programme was superficial and shallow. These young men will need more than a cognitive behavioural programme to “go straight”, from maturation (Glueck and Glueck, 1937) to changing routine activities and social bonds (Laub and Sampson, 2001). Besides, all the probation officers in this group were quite young and just recently employed, and therefore not yet as experienced as their older colleagues.

Desistance as a challenging process

For someone who has been involved in persistent offending, desistance is a difficult and complex process that has to be given time and support. Probation should have realistic expectations and deal constructively with setbacks and relapses (McNeill et al., 2012: 8). This requires a holistic approach and enough resources to give the change process the time it needs.

Researchers have stated with regard to the British offender management that the preconditions for a holistic and long-term support by probation are barely met, describing “the emergence of a trend toward a fragmented style of offender management, whereby staff increasingly occupy specialist roles, and offenders encounter a variety of staff in the course of supervision” (Robinson, 2005: 307).

In contrast to the UK, an Austrian probation officer is responsible for his or her client during the whole probation period, which usually lasts several years. They are responsible for all tasks and also deliver the cognitive-behavioural programme. Ups and downs as well as relapses are part of these long-term relations. Within this framework, the newly implemented cognitive-behavioural programme is just one piece of a much broader approach. The cognitive-behavioural programme does not have to be started immediately but the probation officer is given six months within which to start it. The programme can be suspended until basic needs of the probationer are addressed and their livelihood is secured. There is no prescribed period within which to finish the programme.

In the interviews conducted, probationers as well as their probation officers described setbacks and relapses as possible starting points for change if dealt with constructively. Even if some of the interviewed probation officers criticised that time pressure and workload had increased recently and that the high expectations of the management regarding the new methods put them under pressure, the overall conditions seem to give the probationers the time they need and allow for a desistance process to evolve according to its inner logic.

Still, the crucial questions of how to deal with clients who cannot be reached with the new, “activating” methods and what happens to those who do not take on responsibility and refuse “responsibilization” (Kemshall, 2002; Rose, 1996) remain. The probation service will not only be judged by its successful cases, but also by how it deals with those who are not able or not willing to be reflective and responsible managers of their own reoffending risk.

Standardisation versus individualisation

McNeill et al. (2012: 8) have pointed out that desistance is an inherently individualised and subjective process that also involves issues of identity and diversity. One-size-fits-all interventions will not work. The cognitive-behavioural programme used in Austria is a structured but not uniform programme for the prevention of reoffending. The creator of the programme explicitly calls for individual adaption to each specific client (Mayer, 2015: 155). Following the RNR approach, however, does not imply full freedom of methods but only allows for the adaption of the prescribed programme to the learning style, motivation, abilities and strengths of the offenders in order to raise their responsivity (Bonta and Andrews, 2007).

Austrian probation seeks to professionalise by introducing evidence-based methods, that is, “what works” principles in probation. Many probationer officers, especially the young ones, welcome the new guideline “from above” stating how to address the offence, its causes and its consequences, and how to work on the reduction of the reoffending risk. At the same time, the introduction of this new cognitive-behavioural programme, together with other standardised instruments (such as a risk-assessment tool), restrict the previously existing freedom in the choice of methods. Now, all probation officers have to work within a cognitive-behavioural concept, whether they like it or not. Research on the profession of social work has shown that the introduction of evidence-based manuals and guidelines bears the danger of having de-professionalising effects. Especially when the restrictions are too rigorous and the manuals are too simplistic, it may not leave enough freedom to the professional judgement of the individual case and may therefore unduly restrict situational discretion. The relation between standardisation and (de-)professionalisation may at least be ambivalent and may sometimes have paradoxical effects (Mayrhofer and Pilgram, 2014: 259; Robinson, 2001: 245). It leads to an extension of the repertoire of methods and restriction in the freedom of methods; it leads to increased requirements due to the mandatory application of a new instrument. But the instrument also has a supportive function, especially for young professionals.

Motivation and hope, strengths and resources

Research has shown that emotional aspects such as motivation and hope play an important role in the desistance process (Burnett and Maruna, 2004; Farrall and Calverley, 2006 cited by McNeill et al., 2012: 9; Maruna, 2001). So, does the introduction of the cognitive-behavioural programme impede such positive emotions by focusing too rigorously on past offences and future risks?

The analysis of the cases shows that, despite the introduction of a risk-orientated programme, there is still room for the strengths and resources of the probationers to be discovered and empowered. Only very few interviewees criticised the programme for focusing too much on the past. Yet, in most of the cases it was possible to establish a connection between the critical assessment of past mistakes and future-orientated, positive life goals. The majority of the probationers felt well-supported. For them the probation officer was a person who believed in them in a situation when others had turned away from them:

The probation officer always said to me: “You are not that kind of person that you pretend to be. There is another guy behind this.” He tried to motivate me again and again. […] and this was very important for me, this motivation, this support that I can make it, that he believed in me. This meant very, very much to me.

This probationer also said that he had never been supported this way by his family or friends. Maruna and LeBel (2010: 75) point out the fact that successfully changing one’s messed-up life requires a tremendous amount of self-belief, and this is made highly difficult, if not impossible, when those around you believe you will fail. Therefore, a person who supports and believes in you is of utmost importance during this process. This case also shows that motivation is not a static factor but is subject to change over time and in relation to intrinsic and extrinsic factors, as stated by Rowe and Soppitt (2014: 409) who stress the dynamic nature of motivation. This probationer was not ready to complete the programme at the beginning of the probation period. It was only after a very severe drug relapse that he was motivated to start the programme again and to finish it successfully.

De-labeling rituals

It is well known that the stigmatising rituals of the criminal justice system have negative effects on the offender’s identity and foster secondary deviance (Lemert, 1951). Therefore, Maruna et al. (2004) call for de-labelling rituals to strengthen and support the positive effects of reintegration measures. They propose “official” recognition of positive developments and a kind of certification for the progresses made to foster secondary desistance:

[A]n additional, under-researched aspect of maintaining successful desistance from crime might involve the negotiation of a reformed identity through a process of prosocial labeling. Without some concrete recognition of their reform (i.e. some ‘certification’), many ex-offenders might not be able to maintain the difficult process of ‘recovery’ and desistance. (Maruna et al., 2004: 279)

The cognitive-behavioural programme employed in Austrian probation can be completed in a kind of workbook. For some of the probationers, the completion of this workbook was an important ritual, enabling them to close a chapter and turn a new page – setting them free from past mistakes and allowing them to focus on the future. Another certification of the progress may be the premature termination of the probation period because of good conduct that is often granted after the completion of the programme. Interviewees described that they were “happy like a child” when they were told that their progress was recognised by the court and led to an early end to their probation period.

Significance of the working relationship

McNeill et al. (2012: 9) postulate that desistance can only be understood within the context of human relationships, pointing out that it is not just about the relationship between worker and offender but also between offenders and those who matter to them (Burnett and McNeill, 2005; McNeill, 2006). From the proponents of the cognitive behavioural programme that has been implemented in Austria, the importance of the relationship between therapist and client is seen as a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the success of probation (Mayer, 2010: 161).

The analysis of the interviews shows that the programme was most successful when there was a deep and stable relationship between the probation officer and the probationer. The crucial meaning of this relationship becomes obvious when the desistance process is understood as a process that requires a narrative reconstruction of identity: Who would risk engaging in such a precarious and threatening venture without the reassurance of sustained and compassionate support from a trusted source, McNeill and Maruna (2008: 229) ask rightly. One interviewee recalls: “We went very deep inside, so that it actually was really painful. But we continued to go deeper and he (the probation officer) knew exactly how to deal with it.” The desistance approach encourages the preservation of the importance of the working relationship as one of the main strengths of the “old” Austrian probation system.

Focus on risk or on rehabilitation?

One of the main points of criticism concerning cognitive behavioural programmes in probation is their focus on the offender’s risk instead of social integration and rehabilitation (see e.g. Lindenau and Meier Kressig, 2015: 87). Moreover, Farrall (2002) criticises the focus of cognitive behavioural programmes on building human capital while neglecting the role of social capital. And indeed, the proponents of the RNR Model initially postulated that only so called “criminogenic needs” – that is, needs related to reoffending – should be targeted in treatment, while addressing needs that were not directly linked to the risk of reoffending may even be counterproductive (Bonta and Andrews, 2007: 11), thereby downgrading social integration as an objective in itself. After criticism, inter alia, from proponents of the GLM approach (Ward et al., 2007), their position is not as strict anymore (Andrews et al., 2011: 746). Still, the focus of these programmes is, without doubt, on reoffending, targeting primarily the improvement of human capital and not of social relations – and even less of social structure in which an individual must compete and survive, find a job and make a living.

Until recently, the social needs of the probationers were of fundamental concern and social reintegration was deemed one of the main goals of Austrian probation work. So how does the implementation of a cognitive behavioural programme change the practice of Austrian probation and its focus on rehabilitation and social integration? The interviews suggest that support for social integration and for building social capital is still one of the priorities in Austrian probation. When a client has serious financial problems or is homeless, the programme is suspended until the living conditions have improved. Despite the new tool the probation officers still address social relations and understand social integration as one of their main tasks. One priority does not preclude the other, most of the interviewees said, although of course both tasks compete for the scarce time and attention available.

Austrian probation must certainly be vigilant not to lose its important focus on social issues. There is a danger that probation targets only those needs that can be addressed by the programmes available, that is, focusing on behaviours and thinking patterns and not on problems arising from social circumstances (Kemshall, 2003: 71).

What is considered a legitimate risk must not be defined by the programmes available, reducing all causes of crime and criminalisation to a cognitive issue of the individual.

Manageable criminogenic problems are those that can be resolved through behavioural or lifestyle changes that are seen as achievable with a positive attitude and being amenable to normalizing interventions, programs, or therapists who provide tools for change and teach offenders to think rationally and logically. Structural barriers conveniently disappear. Systemic problems become individual problems or, more aptly, individuals’ inadequacies. (Hannah-Moffat, 2005: 43)

Client-centred to target-orientated probation?

The reflections set out above show that Austrian probation practice takes into account many recommendations set out by the desistance approach and that the implementation of “what works” elements seems to be compatible with its old values and principles in many ways. Still, there seems to be a conceptional basic difference between the two approaches: Who is steering the process? Proponents of the desistance approach postulate that probation should be guided by the probationers and primarily support naturally occurring processes.

The desistance paradigm suggests that we might be better off if we allowed offenders to guide us instead, listened to what they think might best fit their individual struggles out of crime, rather than continue to insist that our solutions are their salvation. (Porporino, 2010: 80, cited in Maruna, 2015: 326)

This statement is in clear contrast to the principles of risk-orientated probation as proposed by, for example, Mayer (2014), who is advocating “steering by experts”. While the “old” probation practice was “offender-orientated” – that is, guided by the needs of the offender – Mayer (2014: 43) suggests probation officers to be guided by expert knowledge and work “target-orientated” instead.

The interviews with the probation officers show that this envisaged change from offender-orientated to target-orientated practice is quite complex and difficult. The new role as an expert with a clear picture of the case, actively steering the process, is fundamentally different from the old, client-centred model of – simply put – emphatically and reactively resonating with whatever the client brings to the probation session.

When McNeill et al. (2012: 9) suggest that probation should be working with offenders not on them, they recall the importance of agency in the desistance process. The interviews from the study suggest that the use of a standardised instrument may, under the right circumstances, leave enough room for the integration of the offender’s perspective and their agency. What is needed though are professional probation officers who are able to use the tool as a supplement to traditional casework skills. If such programmes and techniques are implemented under conditions of increasing resource and manpower constraints in probation leading to a deskilling of practitioners, then they will be badly implemented (Fitzgibbon, 2007: 95). Whether Austrian probation offers more than a one-size-fits-all programme, neglecting the needs and strengths as well as the agency of the probationers instead of building on them, does not only depend on the programme itself but also on the context in which such a programme is being delivered.