An increasing number of studies has studied the role of procedural justice for reducing recidivism in the probation context. The objective of this study is to contribute to existing knowledge by examining (a) whether people on probation alter their perceptions of probation officer procedural justice over time and (b) the extent to which changes in procedural justice relate to recidivism. This study utilized longitudinal data from 326 adults who were released from Dutch (pre-trial) detention centers and who had contact with the Probation Service. Using the reliable change index, our findings showed that a majority of people on probation changed their procedural justice perceptions over time, which suggested that perceptions of fairness and respect are malleable. Unchanged perceptions of probation officer procedural justice were related to self-reported recidivism, while the likelihood of recidivism did not differ between respondents with decreased and increased perceptions.
AlwardL. M. (2024). Procedural justice and probation officer legitimacy: Testing the process-based model in community supervision. Journal of Criminal Justice, 92, 102187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2024.102187
2.
AugustynM. B. (2016). Updating perceptions of (in)justice. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 53(2), 255–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427815616991
3.
BakerT.Van HallM.RayJ. V.NieuwbeertaP.DirkzwagerA. J. E. (2024). Perceptions of probation officer procedural justice, low self-control, and recidivism after release from prison. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 29(2), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12264
4.
BakerT.GauJ. M. (2018). Female offenders’ perceptions of police procedural justice and their obligation to obey the law. Crime & Delinquency, 64(6), 758–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128717719418
5.
BlaskoB. L.TaxmanF. S. (2018). Are supervision practices procedurally fair? Development and predictive utility of a procedural justice measure for use in community corrections settings. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(3), 402-420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817749255
6.
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2016). The psychology of criminal conduct. Routledge.
7.
BooneM. (2016). Community punishment in the Netherlands: A history of crises and incidents. In RobinsonG.McNeillF. (Eds.), Community punishment, European perspectives (pp. 95–113). Routledge.
8.
BourgonG.GuiterrezL. (2013). The importance of building good relationships in community corrections: Evidence, theory and practice of the therapeutic alliance. In UgwudikeP.RaynorP. (Eds), What works in offender compliance (pp. 256–275). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137019523_15
9.
BucknerZ.MartinS.NorrisK.WalkerD. (2023). Does procedural justice matter in probation? Investigating the relationship between procedural just treatment and law-abiding behavior among a sample of high-risk offenders. Crime & Delinquency. Advance onlien publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287231211265
10.
De JongsteW. M. (2022). Het Nederlandse strafrechtsysteem. In MeijerR. F.MolenaarD. E. G.ChoenniR.Van den BraakS. W. (Eds.), Criminaliteit en rechtshandhaving 2021: Ontwikkelingen en samenhangen (pp. 15–46). WODC.
11.
De KogelC. H.NagtegaalM. H. (2008). Supervision programs for offenders and forensic psychiatric patients. Effectiveness and mechanisms that are assumed to be effective. WODC.
12.
DirkzwagerA. J. E.NieuwbeertaP.BeijersbergenK. A.BosmaA. Q.de CuyperR.DoekhieJ.EichelsheimV.De GoedeS.van der LaanP. H.LametW.WerminkH. (2018). Cohort profile: The Prison Project—A study of criminal behavior and life circumstances before, during, and after imprisonment in the Netherlands. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 4(1), 120–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-017-0077-2
13.
DollarC. B.RayB.HudsonM. K.HoodB. J. (2018). Examining changes in procedural justice and their influence on problem-solving court outcomes. Behaviorial Sciences & the Law, 36(1), 32–45. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2329
14.
Duppong HurleyK.Van RyzinM. J.LambertM.StevensA. L. (2015). Examining change in therapeutic alliance to predict youth mental health outcome. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 23(2), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426614541700
15.
DuroseM. R.CooperA. D.SnyderH. N. (2014). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. Bureau of Justice Statistic of the U.S. Department of Justice.
16.
FaganJ.PiqueroA. R. (2007). Rational choice and developmental influences on recidivism among adolescent felony offenders. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(4), 715–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00105.x
17.
Fitzalan-HowardF.BoxG.WakelingH. (2023). Examining procedural justice perceptions in probation in England and Wales. HM Prison & Probation Service.
18.
Fitzalan-HowardF.WakelingH. (2020). People in Prisons’ perceptions of procedural justice in england and wales. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(12), 1654–1676. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820964501
19.
FlorsheimP.ShotorbaniS. W.Guest-WarnickG.BarratT.HwangW. C. (2000). Role of the working alliance in the treatment of delinquent boys in community-based programs. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29(1), 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15374424jccp2901_10
20.
GladfelterA. S.LantzB.RubackR. B. (2018). Beyond ability to pay: Procedural justice and offender compliance with restitution orders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(13), 4314–4331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18759195
GuhnM.ForerB.ZumboB. D. (2014). Reliable change index. In MichalosA. C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 5459–5462). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_2465
23.
JacksonJ.TylerT. R.BradfordB.TaylorD.ShinerM. (2010). Legitimacy and procedural justice in prisons. Prison Service Journal, 191, 4–10.
24.
JacobsonN. S.TruaxP. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 59(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.59.1.12
25.
KaiserK.ReisigM. D. (2019). Legal socialization and self-reported criminal offending: The role of procedural justice and legal orientations. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 35(1), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-017-9375-4
26.
LametW.DirkzwagerA. J. E.DenkersA.Van der LaanP. H. (2013). Social bonds under supervision: Associating social bonds of probationers with supervision failure. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(7), 784–801. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812471659
27.
LeventhalG. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In GergenK. J.GreenbergM. S.WillissR. H. E. (Eds.), Social exchange (pp. 27–55). Springer.
28.
LindE. A.TylerT. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. Plenum.
29.
LiuL.MillerS. L.VisherC. A. (2021). The strain of procedural injustice in parole among former prisoners: A test with a mixed-gender sample. Justice Quarterly, 38(4), 653–677. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1637011
30.
LiuL.VisherC. A.O’ConnellD. J. (2020). The strain from procedural injustice on parolees: Bridging procedural justice theory and general strain theory. Crime & Delinquency, 66(2), 250–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128719839376
OstermannM. (2013). Active supervision and its impact upon parole recidivism rates. Crime & Delinquency, 59(4), 487–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128712470680
36.
OstermannM. (2015). How do former inmates perform in the community? A survival analysis of rearrests, reconnections, and technical parole violations. Crime & Delinquency, 61(2), 163–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128710396425
37.
PennerE. K.ViljoenJ. L.DouglasK. S.RoeschR. (2014). Procedural justice versus risk factors for offending: Predicting recidivism in youth. Law and Human Behavior, 38(3), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000055
38.
PetersiliaJ. (1998). Community corrections: Probation, parole, and intermediate sanctions. Oxford University Press.
39.
PetersiliaJ.TurnerS. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. In TonryM. (Ed.), Crime and justice ( Vol.17, pp. 281–335). Chicago Press.
40.
PickettJ. T.NixJ.RocheS. P. (2018). Testing a social schematic model of police procedural justice. Social Psychology Quarterly, 81(2), 97–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272518765134
41.
PolaschekD.RossE. C. (2010). Do early therapeutic alliance, motivation, and stages of change predict therapy change for high-risk, psychopathic violent prisoners?Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 20(2), 100–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.759
42.
SkeemJ. L.EncandelaJ.LoudenJ. E. (2003). Perspectives on probation and mandated mental health treatment in specialized and traditional probation departments. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21(4), 429–458. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.547
43.
SkeemJ. L.LoudenJ. E.PolaschekD.CampJ. (2007). Assessing relationship quality in mandated community treatment: Blending care with control. Psychological Assessment, 19(4), 397–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.19.4.397
SolomonA. L.KachnowskiV.BhatiA. (2005). Does parole work? Analyzing the impact of post prison supervision on rearrest outcomes. Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.
46.
SprottJ. B.GreeneC. (2010). Trust and confidence in the courts:does the quality of treatment young offenders receive affect their views of the courts?Crime & Delinquency, 56(2), 269–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128707308176
47.
SturmA.De VogelV.MengerA.HuibersM. J. H. (2021). Changes in offender-rated working alliance in probation supervision as predictors of recidivism. Psychology, Crime and Law, 27(2), 182–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2020.1793986
48.
SturmA.MengerA.De VogelV.HuibersM. J. H. (2020). Predictors of change of working alliance over the course of probation supervision: A prospective cohort study. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 64(4), 753–773. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X19878554
49.
TangneyJ. P.BaumeisterR. F.Luzio-BooneA. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x.
50.
TaxmanF. S. (2012). Probation, intermediate sanctions, and community-based corrections. In PetersiliaJ.ReitzK. R. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of sentencing and corrections (pp. 363–386). Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199730148.013.0015
ThibautJ. W.WalkerL. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Erlbaum.
53.
ThompsonA. J.PickettJ. T. (2021). Asymmetry in process-based model relationships: A longitudinal study of adjudicated adolescents. Criminology, 59(4), 585–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12279
54.
TrotterC. (2006). Working with involuntary clients: A guide to practice. Sage.
55.
TylerT. R. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. In TonryM. (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 30, pp. 431–505). University of Chicago Press.
56.
TylerT. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press.
TylerT. R.BladerS. L. (2003). A four-component model of procedural justice: Defining the meaning of a “fair” process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), 747–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029006007
59.
TylerT. R.FaganJ.GellerA. (2014). Street stops and police legitimacy: Teachable moments in young urban men’s legal socialization. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 11(4), 751–785. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12055
60.
TylerT. R.LindE. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In ZannaM. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60283-X
61.
Van HallM.BakerT.DirkzwagerA. J. E.NieuwbeertaP. (2024a). Perceptions of probation officer procedural justice and recidivism: A longitudinal study in the Netherlands. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 51(8), 1139–1156. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241244502
62.
Van HallM.DirkzwagerA. J. E.Van der LaanP. H., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2024b). Detainees’ perceptions of procedural justice: An examination throughout the criminal justice system. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 68(13–14), 1323–1341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X221132229
63.
Van HallM.Van der LaanP. H.NieuwbeertaP.DirkzwagerA. J. E. (2024c). Procedural justice in their eyes: A qualitative interview study among detainees. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X241234857
64.
Van HallM.DirkzwagerA. J. E.Van der LaanP. H.NieuwbeertaP. (2023a). Exploring the linkage between changes in detainees’ perceptions of procedural justice and changes in misconduct. Psychology, Crime & Law, 30(10), 1467–1492. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2023.2207019
65.
Van HallM.DirkzwagerA. J. E.Van der LaanP. H.NieuwbeertaP. (2023b). Procedural justice, perceived legitimacy, and reoffending behavior: In police and court setting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 50(12), 1874–1892. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231206833
66.
Van KalmthoutA. M.TiggesL. (2008). Netherlands. In van KalmthoutA. M.DurnescuI. (Eds.), Probation in Europe (pp. 677–725). Wolf Legal Publishers.
67.
VerweijS.TollenaarN.TeerlinkM.WeijtersG. (2021). Recidivism among offenders in the Netherlands: Report on the period 2008–2020. WODC.
68.
VerweijS.WeijtersG. (2020). Recidive tijdens en na reclasseringstoezicht. WODC.
69.
VisherC.LaVigneN.TravisJ. (2004). Returning home: Understanding the challenges of prisoner reentry. Urban Institute.
70.
WeijtersG.VerweijS.TollenaarN.HillJ. (2019). Recidivism among offenders in the Netherlands: Report on the period 2006–2018. WODC.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
