Abstract
This article poses and answers the question of the role of supervision in the process of ceasing a criminal career. It draws on the personal experience and opinions of probation service clients conditionally released from prison, obtained through prospective and longitudinal qualitative research conducted in the Czech Republic. The semi-structured interviews identified two groups among the participants. The first one considered supervision to be rather a pointless and formal measure with no influence on their lives and behaviour, while the second one regarded it as a useful tool that could help them successfully reintegrate back into society. The primary reason for these positive assessments was the perception of support and assistance provided by probation officers, who were seen as helping or motivating to overcome various life challenges. Furthermore, some parolees expressed contentment regarding the control element of supervision, perceiving it as a useful reminder of the potential consequences of undesirable behaviour. However, it became also evident that attitudes and perceptions concerning the role of supervision can evolve over time, particularly in the context of significant life events.
Introduction
Probation and parole supervision is a traditional measure of the criminal justice system, designed to contribute to the rehabilitation or resettlement of offenders through a unique combination of control and support provided by probation officers (Canton, 2011; Vanstone, 2016). Views of its effectiveness have varied over the decades, from the initial optimism associated with a strong belief in positivist criminological theories and their prescriptions for solving the causes of crime, through the wave of scepticism in the 1970s, to the ‘What Works’ movement and its emphasis on Risk-Need-Responsivity (‘RNR’) principles and accredited behaviour programmes in the 1990s (Raynor and Robinson, 2005; Raynor and Vanstone, 2002; Robinson and Crow, 2009). Since the turn of the millennium, supervision-based treatment has been seen in the wider context of the desistance process. Research shows that the majority of offenders sooner or later cease their criminal careers (Sampson and Laub, 2003), but the impact of criminal justice interventions on this process tends to be limited (Bottoms and Shapland, 2019; Maruna and LeBell, 2010). This is especially true when compared to the influence of age and maturation (Lussier et al., 2015), life transitions such as marriage, parenthood or employment (Carlsson, 2012; Laub and Sampson, 2003; Savolainen, 2009), or the offender's own motivation to dissociate from the criminal past and take advantage of opportunities to acquire a new and prosocial identity (Giordano et al., 2002; Maruna, 2001; Paternoster and Bushway, 2009).
Undoubtedly, one of the strengths of supervision is that it takes place in the community, so that, unlike imprisonment, the possibility remains open that the offender will be positively influenced by natural life changes or ‘turning points’ mentioned above (Farrall and Calverley, 2006). At the same time, however, the impact of the probation officer's work may be rather indirect, as the offender himself or herself plays a leading role in the whole process (McNeill, 2006). Thus, the probation officer cannot force the clients to end the criminal careers against their will, but can look for appropriate ways to support, assist or guide them along complicated and challenging path to desistance (King, 2013; McNeill, 2009). Ideally, this should be done by enhancing their own capacity to build and maintain prosocial roles and positive relationships (Weaver, 2014).
In this regard, qualitative research that focuses directly on the personal experience of desisting offenders is an invaluable source of knowledge (Beck and McGinnis, 2022; Healy, 2010). They can provide authentic testimony about specific aspects of supervision that support the process of desistance at different stages or in different life circumstances (Farrall, 2002). The number of studies is gradually increasing, so it is already possible to identify some core principles of desistance-based supervision (Maruna and Mann, 2019; McNeill et al., 2012; Raynor, 2019). It is clear that the key element is the relationship between the probation officer and the client (Blasko et al., 2015; Burnett and McNeill, 2005; Chamberlain et al., 2018; De Lude et al., 2012; Trotter, 2015). The likelihood that the probationer or parolee will follow the probation officer's instructions or accept help is highest when he or she feels respect and a genuine and deep human interest (Rex, 1999). In general, clients value help-oriented supervision more than pure control (Barry, 2007; Doekhie et al., 2018; Healy, 2012) and it is important for many of them to be offered concrete and practical help in dealing with various problems and life obstacles (Batty, 2020; Dominey, 2019; Farrall, 2002). Furthermore, willingness to comply with the terms and conditions of the probationary period is usually associated with perceptions of fairness and procedural justice (Buckner et al., 2025). Crucially, improving probation officers’ skills and competencies in building quality rapport and communication with clients has even a demonstrable impact on reoffending rates (Raynor et al., 2014).
However, a potential weakness of the current knowledge is the fact that the majority of the research mentioned above originates almost exclusively from the UK and the US. In recent years, there have been interesting studies conducted in other countries (see in particular Armstrong and Durnescu, 2016; Doekhie et al., 2018; Fernando, 2024; Segev, 2020), but these still represent more of the exceptions. Consequently, one of the primary objectives of this article is to expand the current understanding of the relationship between desistance and supervision, drawing upon data from the legal system with which the international expert audience is less familiar. A particular focus will be placed on the perceptions of conditionally released prisoners regarding their interactions with probation officers and the significance they ascribe to supervision in the process of ending criminal career.
Compared to most Western European countries, the Czech Probation and Mediation Service (PMS) has a relatively short tradition. It was established in 2001 as a result of fundamental changes in the criminal justice system following the social and political upheaval of the so-called Velvet Revolution in 1989. From the beginning, the main task of the PMS has been the enforcement of community sanctions, but also assistance to victims of crime, victim-offender mediation and other restorative practices (Ouředníčková et al., 2008). A significant part of the work of Czech probation officers is the supervision of individuals conditionally released from prison. Most prisoners have the option of applying for conditional release after serving half of their sentence. 1 In cases deemed suitable by the court, supervision is mandated as part of the probationary period which can range from 1 to 7 years. 2 The recent decade has seen a rise in the imposition of supervision, so now it applies to two-thirds of all conditionally released prisoners (65.7% in 2023), with an average annual figure of approximately 1500 individuals. It is impossible to overlook that roughly half of them are reconvicted within a relatively short period of time (Tomášek and Rozum, 2018). This recidivism rate is one of the main factors contributing to the high prison index (181 in 2019) dramatically exceeding the European average (Fair and Walmsley, 2024). Consequently, the issue of release from prison and treatment of parolees has become a recurring point of discussion among various stakeholders, including criminologists, practitioners, politicians, the media, and the general public (Tomášek et al., 2022).
The structure of this article is as follows: firstly, the research project from which the data were obtained is introduced, including a short description of the research sample and the methods used. Then, the results of the study are presented, focusing on the comments made by PMS clients conditionally released from prison on the importance or role of supervision. The analysis reveals that these individuals could be divided into two groups due to their prevailing attitudes or opinions. The first group expressed a strong sense of scepticism towards the supervision, perceiving it as a rather pointless and formal measure. In contrast, the second group held a more positive view, regarding supervision as a potentially beneficial tool that could facilitate successful reintegration into society and the cessation of criminal behaviour. The article will go on to provide a detailed examination of the reasons underlying these divergent perspectives, highlighting the potential for shifts in attitudes towards supervision over time. The final discussion will address the limitations of the research and will reflect on the relevance of the findings in relation to existing studies as well as for the future development of supervision in the Czech Republic.
About the research
Conditional release from prison with supervision was the focus of a large-scale research project carried out between 2020 and 2023, in which the Institute of Criminology and Social Prevention, the Institute of Sociology of the Czech Academy of Science and the Institute of Psychology of the Czech Academy of Science collaborated. The primary objective of the research was to identify and thoroughly describe the most significant factors, both individual and structural, that increase the risk of reoffending or, conversely, play a substantial role in the process of desistance. A particular focus was placed on the role of probation officers in supervising parolees and providing assistance to address challenges they encounter in everyday life (Krulichová et al., 2023). 3
The research was based on a prospective and longitudinal approach, which is generally considered to be a suitable way to study desistance as a dynamic process with an uncertain outcome and course in zig-zag style (Gålnander, 2020; Healy, 2010). A combination of quantitative and qualitative methods was employed to assess the statistical significance of demographic, structural, and other salient variables pertaining to parolees, as well as their own perspective on the process of ceasing a criminal career and being supervised by probation officers. The research sample was created in such a way that, in the first step, in close cooperation with PMS, 10 out of all 74 offices were selected with the aim to equally include different geographical parts of the Czech Republic as well as offices both with high and low workload. Subsequently, all individuals conditionally released from prisons whose cases were taken over by these offices in the period from November 1, 2020 and October 30, 2021 were involved. The total number was 563, and all of them were included in the quantitative part of the research based on repeatedly distributed questionnaires fulfilled by their supervising probation officers (three times during the first 18 months following the release from prison).
The present article draws primarily from the qualitative part of the research, which consisted of semi-structured interviews with 50 parolees from the aforementioned sample. These individuals were selected to represent all 10 offices, as well as different age groups and previous offences. The sample included 40 men and 10 women. The age of the youngest participant at the time of release from prison was 23, while the oldest was 62 (the average age was 40). A total of five interviews were scheduled with each participant within the first 18 months after the release from prison (i.e., every 3 months). This plan was successfully implemented for the majority of the sample. The incomplete number of interviews concerned only 7 parolees. All but one of the interviews were carried out at the probation office, in a separate room with no other person present. The exception was one interview in prison where one of the participants had returned after being sentenced for a new offence. Each interview, with a duration of between 60 and 90 minutes, was recorded and then transcribed verbatim. The data were subjected to thematic analysis using a combination of deductive and inductive approaches (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Proudfoot, 2023). For the purposes of this article, comments on the role of supervision in the process of desistance and in solving various life problems or obstacles were analyzed. Typically, these were probationers’ responses to questions such as ‘Does cooperation with a probation officer help you in any way to go straight?’ or ‘In your case, does supervision have a significant impact on your life and problems you have to cope with?’.
The research received ethical approval and was conducted in line with the Institute of Criminology and Social Prevention integrity and research policy. All participants were informed about the purpose of the study and assured of its anonymity, voluntariness, and the possibility of not answering questions that would make them uncomfortable as well as terminating cooperation with the researchers at any time. It was made clear to them that their participation, or its rejection, would not impact the probation officer's or court's assessment of their probationary period. Prior to participating, all probationers provided written consent. For each interview, they received a reward of 500 Czech crowns (approximately 20 Euros).
Findings
The interviews revealed that parolees have very different views on the importance of supervision in terms of ending a criminal career or facing various life obstacles during the reintegration back to society after the release from prison. Nevertheless, with some simplification we can say that the whole sample can be divided into two groups on the basis of their dominant opinions or attitudes. In the first group we can include the participants whose prevailing view of supervision in all 5 rounds of interviews was characterised by apparent doubts. In the research sample there were 21 (42%) such individuals. In the remainder of this paper we will refer to them as ‘doubters’. For the second, slightly larger group of 29 participants (58%), it was possible to notice in at least one of the interviews that they perceived some elements in supervision making their path to desistance more or less easier. We have chosen the term ‘appreciators’ to describe this attitude. In general, it can be stated that no statistically significant differences were identified between the two groups, neither with regard to demographic characteristics (gender, age or marital status), nor the offending history (the nature of the previous crime, the number of criminal records, or the duration of the prison sentence from which the participant was currently released).
Doubters: supervision as a pointless and toothless measure
It is important to note that although the doubters saw no point in supervision, this does not automatically mean that their attitudes towards this measure were strictly negative. Quite often these participants took an approach that could be described as realistic or pragmatic. They were aware of the fact that the legal possibility of imposing supervision as part of a conditional release generally increases the chances of more prisoners leaving prison before serving their full sentence (Rozum et al., 2008). So while they might find the obligations associated with supervision unpleasant, inconvenient or even painful (Durnescu, 2011), they simply saw them as inevitable ‘rules of the game’. Whatever the supervision, it was still perceived as much better or easier than spending more time behind bars.
4
I accept it. It's necessary. It's a condition of my release from prison. If they say that I have to go to the swimming pool once a week, I'll just go to swim once a week. (Čeněk)
However, when we look at the doubts about supervision itself, it's clear that these were usually related to the participants’ overall view or opinions about the process by which the offenders become non-offenders. As with other studies on desistance (Barry, 2007; King, 2014; Maruna, 2001), these individuals strongly believed that their own decisions or will were what mattered most. They felt that no one could force them to change their behaviour or lifestyle until they wanted it. It is not surprising, then, that supervision was seen by them as a useless and formal measure with no tangible impact on their life. I have to come here (to the probation office), because if I don't, I might actually go back to prison. It's bearable, just once a month for about half an hour. But, you know, I still haven't found the purpose of supervision. Why it should be good for me? I give the probation officer whatever she wants, like all the documents about my debts and so on. I bring all that stuff to her. I have peace of mind and she has peace of mind. But I don't really understand the point of supervision. If someone thinks that I'm not gonna to commit crimes because I come here once a month, I think that's pretty naive. (Alois)
A strong emphasis on one's own agency can imply, among other things, that desisting offender see himself or herself as able to identify and subsequently develop personal and effective strategies to achieve the desired goals (Williams and Schaefer, 2020). In this regard, the doubters mentioned, for example, conscious avoidance of risky situations or certain locations in their neighbourhoods, as well as the effort to knife off their delinquent peers or to give up drinking alcohol or taking drugs. They also highlighted the need to solve various practical problems in areas such as housing, employment, and family relationships (Barry, 2007; Farrall, 2002; Shapland and Bottoms, 2011). At the same time, they simply didn't believe that the probation officer could help them with any of these things or plans. She (the probation officer) said my salary was low and that I should look for a job that pays more. I told her I really wanted a job like that, but I didn't have a chance because of my criminal record. She should try to offer me something. If she doesn't have a real job offer for me, why is she even bothering me with things like that? (Otakar)
In contrast to the second group of participants, whose experience will be delineated subsequently, the doubters expressed minimal interest in the opportunity to share or discuss their problems or life situation with the probation officer. In essence, they were not seeking someone to merely listen to them; rather, they would have been interested in practical, concrete, and above all effective assistance. I think it's pointless, isn't it? Here (at the probation office), it's not going to solve anything. They're not going to find you a job or a accommodation, are they? Talking is fine, but talking about what? If I do everything by myself, there's nothing to talk about. (Vlastimil)
It is important to note, however, that some doubters evidently distinguished the role that supervision could play in their own case from that of other parolees. This view was related to the fact that many of them, irrespective of the nature of the crime committed, distanced themselves from the common criminal population. They usually emphasised that they had absolutely no similarities with the ‘typical offenders’ whose examples they claimed to know, particularly through recent experience from prison. They admitted that supervision could be useful if probation officers focused on dangerous individuals or helped those who really needed it. Thus, the doubters’ negative attitudes towards this measure sometimes pertained not to the notion of supervision in general, but rather to the supervision that had been imposed on them. I get it (the purpose of supervision) when someone is a junkie and has to come here and take a test, or when someone is an alcoholic. But I don't take drugs and I don't drink, so she (the probation officer) is not helping at all. It's more like she's throwing sticks in front of my feet sometimes as she wants all this stuff. It's just paperwork, all the stuff we're dealing with. (Radoslav)
Nevertheless, it is worthy of mention that the majority of the doubters recognised the probation officer's appropriate conduct during probation meetings. Despite perceiving supervision as an ineffective and rather bureaucratic measure, these individuals still praised the human qualities of their probation officers. While they didn't pay much attention to expert skills or advice, the research interviews suggested that, for many of them, the kindness and warmth contributing to a friendly and non-confrontational style of mutual communication were important. Even Čeněk, who compared supervision to the hypothetical and meaningless obligation to go swimming regularly (see above), pointed repeatedly to these aspects. I like the way she (the probation officer) acts. She's polite and doesn't treat me like a criminal, which is important. She explains everything to me and tells me what she wants me to do. (Čeněk)
It is not surprising, however, that such expressions of commendation towards probation officers were more prevalent among the second group of participants, herein called appreciators. Let's go to take a closer look at their experience now.
Appreciators: When you have someone on your side
An important element that could be observed in the interviews with this group of participants was their feeling that, within the criminal justice system, the probation officer is someone who is essentially on their side. Some of them even admitted that they were pleasantly surprised by this fact. They had expected a different approach of PMS, sometimes because of rumours they had heard in prison or stories they had seen in crime thrillers. But instead of a stern officer doing his best to send them back behind the bars, they were met by a friendly worker who offered to assist and support them. I used to think that probation officers were like the ones in the US and other Western countries, you know, nasty bitches just trying to control you and all that. I've met guys in prison who've had that experience, and it's not nice. But I can't say my probation officer is like that. She's actually pretty nice, and we get along really well. I'll even say that I'm looking forward to seeing her again. (Norbert)
Our study, in agreement with many existing research (Barry, 2007; Beck and McGinnis, 2022; Phillips et al., 2025; Rex, 1999), pointed out that the probation officers earned the trust of probationers mainly by being respectful, fair, open, warm, and showing interest. Appreciators emphasised in particular that they were treated as equals, not as criminals or second-class citizens, and that their probation officers were able to empathise with their difficult life situation and problems they have to cope with. In many cases, these participants viewed the probation officers in stark contrast to officials in various state or local authorities organisations, who, according to their lived experience, regarded clients more as ‘numbers’ rather than ‘individuals’. Consequently, the most compelling pieces of evidence of genuine and sincere interest were the situations when a probation officer demonstrated a willingness to attend to probationers beyond his or her working hours or at the expense of his or her own personal life. When I got the letter from the court, I had no idea what was going on. It was already afternoon, about 4:00 pm, and it wasn't even an PMS office day. The probation officer was talking to me on the phone, and there was a baby crying in the background, or just kids could be heard, so it was obvious that she was already home. But she was willing to deal with me and talk to me. She was on the phone in case anyone needed help and said, ‘Let me know right away when you get in touch with the court.’ She was just so nice, caring and willing to help. I was really stressed out at the time, but she calmed me down. (Alžběta)
It is clear that, for the appreciators, the establishment of a positive rapport with the probation officer was pivotal in fostering a sense of accessibility, leading them to seek his or her counsel on various life-related problems. In contrast to doubters, these clients placed significant value on the opportunity to articulate their concerns to an attentive listener. Concurrently, our study confirmed that a well-conducted interview is a potent work instrument (McCulloch, 2005), through which the probation officer can facilitate a shift in the clients’ perspective, guide them in problem resolution, or motivate them to persevere in their own efforts to avoid reoffending and to lead a law-abiding way of life. She (the probation officer) was a real help, especially when I was at the rock bottom. She was there for me when I really needed it, and she kept on telling me that everything was gonna to be alright. She was trying to motivate me, saying that it didn't have to end up all bad, that I couldn't just commit crimes, that I just had to show the effort. Actually, that's just the kind of thing I need to hear. (Artur) It's a really shitty time for me right now, but it's always good to get an opinion from someone else. Maybe it'll help. She (the probation officer) is on guard because she knows that partners’ break-ups (the situation the participant was currently facing) cause anxiety and depression, which can lead to drug abuse, alcoholism and so on. She's an experienced worker, she's been doing her job for a while, so I can see how sophisticated her techniques are. (Marcel)
Notwithstanding, as many previous research revealed (McCulloch and McNeill, 2008; Trotter, 2015), empathy and sensitive listening alone are insufficient to ensure the effectiveness of supervision. Given the challenges faced by many Czech released prisoners in areas such as finance, employment, housing, and alcohol or drug addictions (Mertl, 2024; Raszková et al., 2025; Tomášek et al., 2017), the ability of the probation officer to provide suitable advice or practical assistance was perceived to be of great importance also by many appreciators. In this respect, it should be stressed that both groups of participants exhibited a high degree of consensus with regard to the agency-centred view of desistance, putting a strong emphasis on their own role in the process of rehabilitation. However, while the doubters did not assume that the probation officer could give them a helping hand, the appreciators did. The probation officer gave me two phone numbers and said I should call there because they'd definitely hire me. I was worried about being rejected when I left prison, but he convinced me to give it a go and it worked out well in the end. I got the job and now I'm feeling much more confident. If I look for another job in the future, I'll have the proof that I've been already employed somewhere. (Dalibor)
On the other hand, some appreciators also mentioned that the probation officer's ability or work tools to help were limited. As a result, they relatively often described the assistance they received as being more in the form of redirecting them to other services. In the Czech Republic, not only local authorities’ social workers, but also some non-profit and religious organisations play a crucial role in this respect. They provide a wide range of services and support for people with a criminal record, including basic material assistance (Beláňová et al., 2024; Scheinost et al., 2014). These valuable activities were referenced many times in our research interviews, usually in the sense of much more intensive and deeper cooperation than that offered by probation officers. The lady (the probation officer) set it up for me, and I'm working with P (the NGO's name). They help people with mental health issues and bad things that have happened in their lives, and it can include prison experience. I've started working with them, and I've got a second appointment on Wednesday. It's a kind of psychotherapy. There's a psychologist, a psychiatrist, and a social worker. They're even willing to go with you to the authorities if you're having problems with them. I'm dealing with an intractable problem right now of taking a criminal record expungement application to the courthouse. I can't go there. I would just break down, shake and have a panic attack because I would remember everything that was going on there… So they offered to help me, that they'd come with me there. (Karolína)
Whilst it can be posited that, in accordance with the findings of the aforementioned research, the probation officer's role in providing assistance is considered the most beneficial aspect of supervision, some appreciators have also underlined the role of the control exerted by PMS. The metaphor of the ‘sword of Damocles’ has been invoked on multiple occasions during the course of interviews, signifying that supervision functions as a perpetual reminder of the potential for reincarceration in the event of non-compliance. Several participants expressed that they welcomed this aspect of supervision as a highly effective motivation tool, assisting them in maintaining positive changes and avoiding problems or conflicts. It stops me seeing my old friends and taking drugs. I'm being watched all the time, right? If that wasn't the case, I'd be free to do whatever I wanted after I was released, which wouldn't be good. I can't do what I want. I'm okay with that for now, though. It's a kind of fixed routine, and I've got to stick to something, so I'm working with myself at the same time. (Ignác)
A substantial body of research on desistance has established the importance of not only an individual's shift in identity from criminal to non-criminal, but also the reception of positive reinforcement from significant others concerning desirable behavioural changes (McNeill, 2016a; Nugent and Schinkel, 2016). These reactions may represent one of the pivotal mechanisms in the process of ceasing criminal career, as they foster self-confidence and empowerment in prosocial roles (Maruna et al., 2004a). In this regard, our participants, encompassing both doubters and appreciators, mentioned the expressions of trust or praise they had received from relatives or employers, or were extremely delighted that somebody around them had been able to see them as decent and good human beings in spite of their bad past (Maruna, 2001). Notably, appreciators cited also probation officers within this context. They were obviously pleased that the worker perceived their strengths and future opportunities, and not just criminogenic risks or weaknesses (Digard, 2014; Maruna et al., 2004b). She said (the probation officer), we're not nice to everyone. You're doing fine, so we're nice to you. If you do stupid things, you'll see we can yell. (Heřman) She (the probation officer) reassured me a lot, in the sense of, like, you're a decent person, you've made mistakes, but if you just lead a law-abiding life, everything will be fine. (Silvestr)
Hence, undoubtedly, the probation officers, as representants of the criminal justice system, can play a crucial role in verifying the new prosocial status of the parolees, if they make it clear at the right time that they notice the progress and appropriately praise the client for it (Stone et al., 2018). As one of our participants commented, PMS and its reports to the court are one of the few, if not the only, ways for a reforming offender to convince society that he or she has really changed. I'm glad that my efforts, that activity, or that demonstration of the rehabilitation are being monitored and recorded somewhere. (Svatopluk)
The longitudinal design of the research, incorporating interviews conducted over a period of 18 months, constitutes a significant strength of the study. As anticipated, the attitudes and perspectives concerning supervision appeared to evolve over time. The categorisation of the sample into doubters and appreciators groups was determined by the prevailing spirit of their responses to our questions but it is evident that only a part of them possessed a wholly distinct and unchanging perspective. As the time since release from prison extended and the cooperation with the probation officer developed, there were substantial alterations in the manner in which the views on supervision were described. The subsequent two cases underscore that both favourable and unfavourable transformations were observed.
Changes over time
René is an example of a participant whose attitude towards supervision improved during the research. He was a forty-one-year-old male with two previous prison sentences for drug-related crimes. He admitted to many years of methamphetamine addiction. In our sample, he was one of the parolees who had committed a new crime during the probationary period, in his case, a violent offence. Nevertheless, his story offers a very compelling illustration of the fact that it is misleading to judge the success or failure of desistance solely by the measure of reoffending (McNeill, 2000; Shapland, 2022). Ceasing a criminal career is a complex process and there are numerous factors or life changes that should be considered (Phillips, 2017). René, for example, showed great determination and activity in dealing with serious problems related to finding a job or debt repayments. He also started a romantic relationship with a woman who had a child of a very young age. Both were strong reasons for him not to return to prison. Even the crime he committed was somehow related to them, because it happened after he got into a fight with a man who owed him money that were intended for running a shared household. In terms of his opinion about supervision, René initially exhibited a high degree of scepticism or even aversion. He did not believe that the PMS could assist him in any way. As the following section from the first interview illustrates, he perceived supervision to be a purely formal measure. It (the supervision) is simply an obligation that I just have to complete and that's all. What could there be any support in that the lady (the probation officer) here asks me what's new and stuff like that. Nobody has to ask me what's new. I know what's new. Just that way, yeah. Only what I am doing. I just report here how I am doing. That's all. I'm gonna have to come here for the next three years. Might be there a situation or anything she could help you with? Nothing. I can handle everything myself.
However, the offence described above had a considerable impact on René's attitude, prompting an essential shift in his opinion. Notably, the probation officer provided a compelling defence during the court proceedings, highlighting all the positive changes and achievements that had occurred in the René's life following his release from prison. Her intervention eventually led the court from revoking the probationary period, which would have resulted in the remainder of the sentence being served in prison. Instead, René had to undertake some hours of community service. It is understandable, therefore, that the relationship between René and the probation officer has improved markedly, and at the last research interview, his assessment of her was absolutely different from the one cited above. It's was really good. She really helped me, you know, especially around the trial. I just felt like I was being advocated for, which I've never expected or experienced from any officer before. So it was more of a surprise to me, like in a positive way. (René)
In contrast, Ladislav showed the opposite development, partly due to a change in his probation officer during the probationary period. Ladislav was in his late twenties with a rich history of convictions for property offences. The probation officer had been in contact with him prior to his release from prison when she was preparing a preliminary report for the court. Ladislav appreciated that she was very strict and authority at that time, checked that he was honest with her and gave truthful information. Like some other appreciators, he saw supervision imposed on him as a ‘sword of Damocles’, a valuable reminder that he had to keep trying hard not to go back to prison. What he liked about his probation officer was her gradual change of approach towards him. As soon as he gained her trust, she began to treat him in a much friendlier manner. Moreover, the praise he heard from her was welcome motivation, and he also appreciated some of the practical advice she had provided him with. I really like working with her. She is a young, pretty woman, but she is also very strict, which I like. I am glad that I can't take things for granted. We get on well, and she even told me she was pleased with the effort I was putting in, which was really nice. Has she given you any useful advice? Definitely, she has. She is very detail-oriented person. When I asked her about my financial situation, for example, she was very thorough. Also, I learn from her what I should accomplish or what she likes me to do. I tell her my version of things, and we always find a way somewhere in the middle. It isn't a bossy approach, and I am comfortable with that. I really like that she is open to discussion and that she isn't manipulating me. It is good to have such a human touch.
However, his view of supervision has changed over time. There were at least two reasons for this. One was his probation officer's maternity leave, which he regretted. In fact, it is well known from studies on supervision that change in probation officers is usually experienced by clients as unpleasant (Barry, 2013) and can even influence the effectiveness of this measure (Clark-Miller and Stevens, 2011). The new officer approached Ladislav in a way that he felt more detached. Given that Ladislav had pointed to, among other characteristics, the previous officer's beauty and attractiveness, the fact that the new worker was a man might have also contributed to some disappointment or disillusionment.
5
At the same time, Ladislav began to flourish both in his professional and social life, including a new and satisfying romantic relationship. Neither the symbolic ‘sword of Damocles’ nor the opportunity to obtain an advice or hear an encouragement had the same meaning for him as they had before. As a result, the meetings at the probation office became more formal, which Ladislav did not particularly mind after all. I don't need any help from the Probation service. He (the new probation officer) just wants to check that I live where I say I do, or that I still have the same phone number and the same e-mail address. He just runs my details through their database and then we go our separate ways. We both see it only that way, I think. (Ladislav)
It is evident from both cases that in order to comprehensively explore the client´s perceptions of supervision and its role in their life, it would be necessary to observe their experience over a more extended period of time than the present research had covered. In fact, as Farrall et al. (2014) evidenced in their longitudinal study, some clients appreciate work of their probation officers only retrospectively, even after many years. At present, they are often in a situation where they are not able to take full advantage of any advice or help, so the intervention provided by the probation service should be seen more as a kind of planting the seeds that must wait for a more opportune time to grow (Farrall, 2020). However, we still believe that a number of interesting findings have been gathered in the limited time of our research. In the next and final section of this article, we will shortly summarise and discuss them.
Conclusions
This article draws from the research carried out in the Czech Republic and focuses on the process of desistance. Its qualitative part was based on repeated semi-structured interviews with parolees with the aim to explore their life experience after conditional release from prison and to find out which factors they perceived as important in terms of termination of a criminal career, or, on the contrary, the risk of reoffending. In this paper we have specifically targeted their views or attitudes towards supervision imposed on them. We have tried to answer the question of to what extent they considered this measure as helping to reintegrate successfully back into society and to live in accordance with the law.
It is important to acknowledge the inherent limitations of our study. As stated above, although it was a prospective and longitudinal research, which is generally regarded as an appropriate methodological approach for studying the process of desistance, the period over which we followed the participants after their release from prison was only 18 months. It is reasonable to assume that an extended time might have resulted in a different assessment of supervision or cooperation with the probation officers. Moreover, though the research sample was designed to include individuals from different geographical parts of the Czech Republic, of different sex and age, and with various past offences, it cannot be claimed that they are a precise representation of the population of conditionally released prisoners with supervision in the Czech Republic. Finally, the contact person for inventing parolees into the qualitative part of the study was the probation officer, which naturally could lead to the refusal of participation by individuals with a strong negative attitude or outright opposition to the PMS. Consequently, the participantś evaluation of supervision might be more favourable than it would correspond to reality.
It should be stated that the relatively short time of the research also precludes the assessment of whether attitudes towards supervision are manifested in its outcomes, especially in relation to the rate of subsequent reoffending. At the time of our analysis, only three participants had a new criminal record (two of whom were appreciators, and one was a doubter) and the probationary period for most of the sample was still ongoing. Nevertheless, the research project is currently being followed up. Reoffending will be monitored over the extended period, and, additionally, data regarding the complying with parole conditions will be analyzed. Therefore, it will be possible to assess with greater certainty whether appreciators were doing better overall than doubters, or whether attitudes towards supervision did not play a significant role in this regard.
However, the present study is broadly consistent with the conclusions of previous research from abroad. It confirms their general validity even in a legal system with a different history and markedly shorter tradition of supervision than that of the UK, the US, or other Western European countries, where most of the existing studies come from. In this instance, too, it was revealed that only part of clients consider cooperation with probation officers as an important factor in the process of desistance (Farrall, 2002; Healy, 2010; King, 2014; Leibrich, 1994; Rex, 1999). There were 58% of participants who expressed this kind of opinion, while the remaining 42% doubted the role of supervision and found it to be a rather formal, useless, or toothless measure. The data obtained from our research interviews indicated that a prevalent rationale for such a sceptical viewpoint is the subjective perception that going straight is a process whose outcome is in everyone's hands, so he or she needs neither external control nor help. In principle, such findings could be seen as positive, since self-efficacy or the feeling that no outside forces are needed to change the lifestyle is a characteristic quite reliably distinguishing persisters from successful desisters in research on desistance (Liem and Richardson, 2014; Maruna, 2001). However, given the difficult circumstances in which many of our participants found themselves after release from prison, these attitudes are not likely to correspond to the real ability of these individuals to face all the challenges and obstacles. Data on the reoffending rate of released prisoners in the Czech Republic suggest this is often not the case.
It is, therefore, both important and encouraging to note that a slight majority of our participants perceived the probation officer as someone who was fundamentally on their side and ready not only to exert control over their behaviour but also to offer advice and practical help. Although in some cases the assistance provided may appear to be inadequate or simply to consist of a referral to another service, it could still be an indispensable support for clients who have been recently released from prison and who possess limited social skills, originate from a disadvantaged background, or lack sufficient information. At the same time, of course, it is often not possible to address all the problems and obstacles without cooperation with other organisations and institutions, both state and NGO. The complications that the parolees have to cope with, like barriers to employment, financial debts, or drug addictions, are, by their very nature, social policy rather than criminal justice issues.
It is evident that a definitive response to the question posed in the title of this article is unattainable. The perception of supervision as either beneficial or useless will always depend on the characteristics and current life circumstances of the parolees or probationers we interview. While some of them can value the opportunity to share their worries and sort out their thoughts in the presence of an attentive listener, others find the same experience as a waste of time. Similarly, meetings at the probation service can be seen as a good occasion to be reminded of the obligation of complying with the law, but they can also become a symbol of bureaucracy, paperwork or attempts to make someone's life more difficult or tricky. And, of course, there are clients who possess strong family ties and good employment opportunities, but also individuals who are grappling with profound desperation. In such cases, even the provision of basic guidance or the facilitation of access to appropriate social or health services can exert a substantial positive impact on their life. However, what is absolutely undisputed, is that the approach and demeanour of the probation officer can largely determine whether or not the client will turn to him or her in case of need. Our research has shown that life conditions can change very quickly and even individuals who were sceptical about supervision begin to perceive this measure in a very different way. Hence, we consider findings about the characteristics that our participants valued in the contact with their probation officers, whether they belonged to the doubters or the appreciators group, to be crucial. As in similar studies, these are features such as fairness, empathy, warmth, concern for the client, and the ability to establish and maintain a quality relationship. Thus, we definitely agree with the opinion, that, when it comes to the impact of certain criminal justice interventions, it is not only the type of this measure that matters, but also who provides it (McNeill, 2016b; McNeill and Schinkel, 2016).
One of the previous research conducted in the Czech Republic focused on how probation officers perceive their work in terms of its effectiveness and possibilities to support clients on their path to rehabilitation. It turned out that most of them share views that are in line with the principles promoted by the concept of desistance-based supervision (Tomášek et al., 2016). This can be seen as a consequence of the historical development of probation in the Czech Republic. This alternative measure entered the criminal justice system in the 1990s thanks to the effort of academics and students of social work at the Philosophy Faculty of Charles University in Prague, who subsequently became official and key representatives of the PMS itself (Štern et al., 2010). Hence, the philosophy or mission of this organisation, from the beginning until today, has followed the course of intensive case-oriented social work as the main way of treatment of offenders. Moreover, as in some other countries (Hofinger, 2019), the Czech Republic is practically passed over by fundamental contradictions between the advocates of different paradigms. Even risk-based approaches or standardised behavioural programmes for young and adult offenders are generally accepted here not as a competition to the traditional probation methods or procedures, but as an appropriate complement or extension of them (Rozum et al., 2011). Nevertheless, it cannot be overlooked that our research interviews pointed out the apparent variations in the experiences of parolees with different probation officers. Thus, the challenge for future Czech criminological research is to focus directly on the interactions between probation officers and their clients, and in particular on the extent to which the parole and probation practice in this country emphasises the skills of workers described in available studies on desistance as evidence-based (Trotter, 2015; Ugwudike et al., 2018). PMS should also pay more attention to this topic, especially in relation to the education and professional training of its staff. We hope that our research could help to stimulate interest in this issue.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research project was supported by the Technology Agency of the Czech Republic (the contract number TL03000019).
Data availability
The audio recordings of the interviews with probationers were deleted immediately after their verbatim transcription with regard to the Czech data protection laws and the need to remove all information that could lead to the identification of concrete persons within the subsequent research analyses. The anonymised transcripts are archived by the Institute of Criminology and Social Prevention and by the Institute of Sociology of the Czech Academy of Science. They cannot be shared publicly due to an agreement between the both aforementioned research institutes and the Prison Service of the Czech Republic and the Probation and Mediation Service. However, they can be (only in Czech language) available for research and scientific purposes upon the adequately justified request.