This article is a practitioner response to ‘Structured decisions about Dutch probation service interventions’ by Jacqueline Bosker, Cilia Witteman and Jo Hermanns published in the June 2013 edition of Probation Journal. Bosker et al.’s (2013) article suggested that the next logical step from structured risk assessment would be a more structured form of planning the decision making process for interventions based on the assessed criminogenic need. This response questions the basis of this assumption in relation to the burgeoning probationer engagement and desistance practice agenda.
BoskerJWittemanCHermannsJ (2013) Structured decisions about Dutch probation service interventions. Probation Journal60(2): 168−176.
2.
BurnettRMcNeillF (2005) The place of the officer-offender relationship in assisting offenders to desist from crime. Probation Journal52(3): 221−242.
3.
EadieTWilkinsonBCherryS (2012) ‘Stop a minute’: Making space for thinking in practice. Probation Journal60(1): 9−23.
4.
GraytonLDaveyJWilliamsALuscombeCBrookeA (2008), Swansea Community Chaplaincy Project - Evaluation of the Swansea Community Chaplaincy Project at HMP Swansea, October 2006 - March 2008. Canterbury: University of Kent.
5.
HughesW (2011) Promoting offended engagement and compliance in sentence planning: Practitioner and service user perspectives in Hertfordshire. Probation Journal59(1): 49−65.
6.
RitzerG (2008) The McDonaldization of Society. London: Pine Forge Press.
7.
WoodD (2013) Swift and sure: McJustice for a consumer society. Criminal Justice Matters91(1): 10−11.
