This article explores how probation officers (POs) in France employ evidence-based practice in the real world. Using 78 audio tapes of 11 POs and 33 offenders in 2 probations services, we assessed PO skills with an adapted version of the Jersey Checklist. Our results suggest that French probation officers generally possess good communication skills, and use – to a certain extent – core correctional practices. They do, however, underperform with regard to cognitive behavioural techniques.
American Psychological Association (2006). Evidence-based practice in psychology. American Psychologist61(4): 271–285. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.4.271
2.
AndrewsDAKiesslingJJ (1980) Program structure and effective correctional practices: a summary of the CaVIC research. In: RossRRGendreauP (eds) Effective Correctional Treatment. London, UK: Butterworth, 441–463.
3.
AndrewsDAZingerIHogeRD, et al. (1990) Does correctional treatment work ? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology28: 369–404. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1990.tb01330.x
4.
Herzog-Evans M (2011) Desisting in France: what probation officers know and do. A first approach. European Journal of Probation3(2): 29–46. DOI: 10.1177/206622031100300203
5.
Herzog-Evans M (2014a) French Reentry Courts and Rehabilitation: Mister Jourdain of Desistance. Paris, France: L’Harmattan.
6.
Herzog-Evans M (2014b) Une checklist permettant d’évaluer les techniques d’entretien individuel dans la probation. Actualité Juridique Pénale. Mai, pp. 226–233.
7.
Herzog-Evans M (2015) France: legal architecture, political posturing, ’prisonbation’ and adieu social work. In: RobinsonGMcNeillF (eds) Community Punishment. European Perspective. London, UK: Routledge and COST UE, pp. 51–71.
8.
Herzog-Evans M (2017) La libération sous contrainte dans le Nord Est de la France. Report. Paris, France: Mission Droit et Justice.
9.
Herzog-Evans M (2018a) Developing and implementing an EBP programme in the French contest. In: BenbouricheM (ed) Evidence-Based Work With Violent Extremists: International Implications of French Terrorist Attacks and Responses. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 271–288.
10.
Herzog-Evans M (2018b) French probation and prisoner resettlement. Involuntary ‘privatisation’ and corporatism. In: DaemsTVander BekenT (eds) Privatising Punishment in Europe?New York, NY: Routledge, 104–123.
11.
Herzog-Evans M (2019) French early release: McProcedures and McReentry. European Journal of Probation11(3): 188–201. DOI: 10.1177/2066220319897238
12.
Berjot SGirault-LidvanNGilletN (2012) Appraising stigmatization and discrimination: construction and validation of a questionnaire assessing threat and challenge appraisals to personal and social identity. Identity12(3): 191–216. DOI: 10.1080/15283488.2012.691254.
13.
Keulen-de Vos MBernsteinDPVanstipelenS, et al. (2016) Schema modes in criminal and violent behaviour of forensic cluster B PD patients: a retrospective and prospective study. Legal and Criminological Psychology21: 56–76. DOI: 10.1111/lcrp.12047
14.
BeaudryGYuRPerryAE, et al. (2021) Effectiveness of psychological interventions in prison to reduce recidivism: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. The Lancet Psychiatry8: 759–773. DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00170-X
15.
BeckJ (2020) Cognitive Behavior Therapy. Basics and beyond. 3rd edition. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
16.
BenbouricheMVantéjouxALebougaultM, et al. (2012) L’évaluation du risque de récidive en France: expérience et attitudes des conseillers pénitentiaires d’insertion et de probation. Revue internationale de criminologie et de police technique et scientifique3(12): 305–318.
17.
BenbouricheMVanderstukkenOGuayJP (2015) Les principes d'une prévention de la récidive efficace: Le modèle Risque-Besoins-Réceptivité. Pratiques Psychologiques21(3): 219–234.
18.
BontaJRuggeTSedoB, et al. (2004) Case management in Manitoba Probation, User Report 2004-01. Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada.
19.
BontaJRuggeTScottT-L, et al. (2008) Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation47(3): 248–270. DOI: 10.1080/10509670802134085
20.
BontaJAndrewsDA (2017) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. 6th edition. New York, NY: Routledge.
21.
BontaJBourgonGRuggeT (2018) From evidence-informed to evidence-based: the Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision. In: UgwudikePRaynorPAnnisonJ (eds) Effective criminal justice skills: a compendium of international perspectives. Bristol, UK: Policy Press, 169–191.
22.
BontaJRuggeTBourgonG, et al. (2019) A conceptual replication of the Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision (STICS). Journal of Experimental Criminology15: 397–419. DOI: 10.1007/s11292-019-09371-4
23.
BontaJBourgonGRuggeT, et al. (2021) A system-wide implementation and evaluation of the Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision (STICS). Journal of Criminal Justice74. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2021.101816
24.
Borch-JacobsenMCottrauxJPleuxD, et al. (2010) Le livre noir de la psychanalyse. 2nd edition. Paris, France: Editions Les Arènes.
25.
BouaggaY (2014) Humaniser la peine ? Ethnographie du traitement pénal en maison d’arrêt. PhD Thesis, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales. Paris, France.
26.
BrilletE (2009) Le programme de prévention de la récidive, retour sur une innovation institutionnelle, Document DAP/PMJ5, 07/07.
27.
ChantraineG.ScheerD. (2021). Performing the enemy? No-risk logic and the assessment of prisoners in “radicalization assessment units in French prisons”. Punishment & Society, 23(2), 260–280.
28.
ChadwickNDewolfASerinR (2015) Effectively training community supervision officers: a meta-analytic review of the impact on offender outcome. Criminal Justice and Behavior42(10): 977–989. DOI: 10.1177/0093854815595661
29.
CollinG (2013) Des stratégies individuelles de pouvoir à une action collective organisée : le rôle de régulateur du DPIP. Mémoire de recherche et d’application professionnelle. DPIP, 6e promotion, 110.
30.
Commission Nationale Consultative des Droits de l’Homme (2017) Avis sur la loi relative à la sécurité publique. Journal Officiel: 1–10.
31.
MorelleAPelosseHBoudetL, et al. (2016) Mission d'évaluation des politiques interministérielles d'insertion des personnes confiées à l’administration pénitentiaire par l’autorité judiciaire. Public Report, Inspection Générale des Affaires Judiciaires, Inspection Générale des Affaires Sociales & Inspection Générale des Finances. July.
32.
DecellesKATeslukPETaxmanFS (2013) A field investigation of multilevel cynicism toward change. Organization Science24(1): 154–171. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1110.0735
33.
DeciELOlafsenAHRyanRM (2017) Self-determination theory in work organizations: the state of a science. Annual Review of Organization Psychology and Organizational Behavior4: 19–43. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108
34.
de LarminatX (2012) La probation en quête d’approbation. L’exécution des peines en milieu ouvert entre gestion des risques et gestion des flux. PhD Thesis, Cesdip-Université de Versailles, Saint Quentin.
35.
de LarminatX. (2014) En apesanteur ou entre deux feux? Les personnels d'encadrement des services de probation au prisme des recompositions pénitentiaires. Guyancourt.: CESDIP
36.
De RobertisC (2018) Méthodologie de l’intervention en travail social. Paris, France: Presses de l’EHESP.
37.
DindoS (2011) Sursis avec mise à l’épreuve : la peine méconnue. Une analyse des pratiques de probation en France, Chiang Mai, Thailand: Etude pour la Direction de l’administration pénitentiaire. Bureau PMJ1.
38.
DindoS (2020) L’implantation de pratiques probantes en France : l’incertain déploiement du RPO1. Cahiers de la Sécurité et de la Justice48–49: 139–148.
39.
Direction de l’administration pénitentiaire (2015) Manuel de mise en œuvre de la contrainte pénale, Paris, France: Ministère de la Justice.
40.
Direction de l’administration pénitentiaire (2018) Référentiel des Pratiques Opérationnelles (RPO1), Paris, France. Ministère de la Justice.
41.
Direction de l’administration pénitentiaire (2019) Guide d’accompagnement à l’évaluation, Paris, France. Bureau des pratiques professionnelles en SPIP, Ministère de la Justice.
DowdenCAndrewsDA (2000) Effective correctional treatment and violent reoffending: a meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology42(4): 449–467. DOI: 10.3138/CJCRIM.42.4.449
44.
DowdenCAndrewsDA (2004) The importance of staff practice in delivering effective correctional treatment: a meta-analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology48(2): 203–214. DOI: 10.1177/0306624X03257765
45.
DubourgE (2015) Les services pénitentiaires d’insertion et de probation. Fondements juridiques. Evolution, Nantes, France: Evaluation et avenir. Thèse droit pénal et sciences criminelles.
46.
DurnescuI (2014) Probation skills between education and professional socialization. European Journal of Criminology11(4): 429–444. DOI: 10.1177/1477370813504162
47.
FeldonDGPeughJTimmermanBE, et al. (2011) Graduate students’ teaching experience improve their methodological research skills. Science33(6045): 1037–1039. DOI: 10.1126/science.1204109
48.
FernandoR (2021) Desistance From crime and probation supervision: Comparing experiences from English and French probationers. Probation Journal. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1177/02645505211012062
49.
Frenkiel-PeletierE (2021) Histoire de la probation durant la deuxième guerre mondiale, période d’exception, et sa refondation jusqu’aux années soixante-dix, Reims, France: Thèse Université de Reims, Faculté de Droit.
50.
GannonTAOlverMEMallionJS, et al. (2019) Does specialized psychological treatment for offending reduce recidivism? A meta-analysis examining staff and program variables as predictors of treatment effectiveness?Clinical Psychology Review73: 101752. DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101752
51.
GrasLLapeyronieM (2014) Qui devient conseiller pénitentiaire d’insertion et de probation? Évolution du profil sociodémographique des CPIP à l’entrée en formation de 1995 à 2013: Observatoire de la formation ENAP - Direction de la recherche et de la documentation - Département de la recherche.
52.
GreenhalghTRobertGMacfarlaneF, et al. (2004) Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly82(4): 581–629. DOI: 10.1111/j.0887-378x.2004.00325.x
53.
HansonKRBourgonGMaaike-HelmusL, et al. (2009) A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Treatment for Sexual Offenders: Risk, Need, and Responsivity, Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada 2009-01.
54.
HepworthDHRooneyRHDewberry-RooneyG, et al. (2016) Direct Social Work Practice: Theory and Skills. 10th edition, Pacific Grove, CA: International Edition. Brooks Cole.
55.
JakobssonL (2014) Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision – STICS. Stockholm, Sweden: Paper presented at the Stockholm Criminology Symposium. June.
56.
Jury de consensus (2013) Rapport remis au Premier ministre. Conférence de consensus. Pour une nouvelle politique publique de prévention de la récidive. Paris, France: Principes d’action et méthodes.
57.
KnoxSHillCE (2003) Therapist self-disclosure: research-based suggestions for practitioners. Journal of Clinical Psychology59: 529–553. DOI: 10.1002/jclp.10157
58.
LabrecqueRMSmithPLutherJD (2015) A quasi-experimental evaluation of a model of community supervision. Federal Probation79(3): 14–19.
59.
LipseyMWChapmanGLLandenbergerNA (2001) Cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science578: 144–157. DOI: 10.1177/000271620157800109
60.
LouanE (2020) Charges de travail en probation : état des connaissances, réflexions et enjeux. Actualité Juridique Pénale11: 537–544.
61.
MarchJGOlsenJP (1976) (eds) Ambiguity and choice in organizations, Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
62.
MargaineC (2015) Etude des obligations applicables en milieu ouvert. Une analyse de la dimension coercitive de la probation: Rapport de Recherche. Ecole Nationale d’Administration Pénitentiaire: Dossiers thématiques CIRAP.
63.
MartinDJGarskeJPDavisMK (2000) relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome and other variables: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology68: 438–450. DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.68.3.438
64.
MatignonE (2015) Les outils d’évaluation et les méthodes de prise en charge des personnes placées sous main de justice. Rapport de synthèse. Dossier Thématique. Santiago, Chile: ENAP.
65.
MaurinY (2020) L’implantation des pratiques fondées sur des données probantes à l’ENAP, enjeux stratégiques et perspectives. Cahiers de la Sécurité et de la Justice48–49: 162–173.
66.
MewsADi BellaLPurverM (2017) Impact Evaluation of the Prison-Based Core Sex Offender Treatment Programme. London, UK: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series.
67.
MoulinVPalaricR (2014) Les groupes de parole de prévention de la récidive au sein des SPIP. Champ pénal/Penal field [En ligne]Vol. XI | 2014. DOI: 10.4000/champpenal.8955
ProctorEKLandsverkJAaronsG, et al. (2009) Implementation research in mental health services: an emerging science with conceptual, methodological, and training challenges. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research36(1): 24–34. DOI: 10.1007/s10488-008-0197-4
70.
ProctorESilmereHRaghavanR, et al. (2010) Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration & Policy on Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research38: 65–76. DOI: 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
71.
RaynorPUgwudikePVanstoneM (2009) The Jersey Supervision Interview Checklist, Version 7C, Jersey City, NJ: The Jersey Crime and Society Project.
72.
RaynorPUgwudikePVanstoneM (2015) The impact of skills in probation work: a reconviction study. Criminology & Criminal Justice14(2): 235–249. DOI: 10.1177/1748895813494869
73.
RobinsonCRVanBenschotenSAlexanderM, et al. (2011) A random (almost) study of Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Re-Arrest (STARR): reducing recidivism through intentional design. Federal Probation75: 57. DOI: 10.1080/0735648x.2012.674823
74.
RazacOGouriouFSalleG (2013) Les rationalités de la probation française. Agen, France: CIRAP.
75.
RitzerG (2015) The McDonaldization of Society. 8th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
76.
RobinsonCRLowenkampCTHolsingerAM, et al. (2012) A random study of Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Re-arrest (STARR): using core correctional practices in probation interactions. Journal of Crime and Justice35(2): 167–188. DOI: 10.1080/0735648x.2012.674823
77.
RobinsonG (2018) Doing McJustice? The probation factory at the magistrates’ courts. Criminology & Criminal Justice19(5): 605–621. DOI: 10.1177/1748895818786997
78.
RogersE (2003) Diffusion of Innovations. 5th edition. New York, NY: The Free Press.
79.
SabatierPMazmanianD (1979) The conditions of effective implementation: a guide to accomplishing policy objectives. Policy Analysis5(4): 481–504. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42783358
80.
SabatierPMazmanianD (1980) The implementation of public policy: a framework of analysis. Public Policies Journal8(4): 538–560. DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.1980.tb01266.x
81.
SchmuckerMLöselF (2015) The effects of sexual offender treatment on recidivism: an international meta-analysis of sound quality evaluations. Journal of Experimental Criminology11: 597–630. DOI: 10.1007/s11292-015-9241-z
82.
ShinJCArimotoACummingsWK, et al. (2014) Teaching and Research Incontemporary Higher Education, Berlin, Germany: Springer.
83.
ShortlidgeEEEddySL (2018) The trade-off between graduate student research and teaching: a myth?PLoS ONE13(6): e0199576. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199576
84.
SmedslundGDalsbøTKSteiroAK, et al. (2011) Cognitive behavioural therapy for men who physically abuse their female partner. Campbell Systematic Reviews7: 1–25.
85.
SmitYHuibersMJ.IoannidisJP, et al. (2012) The effectiveness of long-term psychoanalytic psychotherapy-a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clinical Psychology Review32(2): 81–92. DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.11.003
86.
SmithPGendreauPSwartzK (2009) Validating the principles of effective intervention: a systematic review of the contributions of meta-analysis in the field of corrections. Victims and Offenders4(2): 148–169. DOI: 10.1080/15564880802612581
87.
SmithPSchweitzerPLabrecqueRM, et al. (2012) Improving probation officers' supervision skills: an evaluation of the EPICS model. Journal of Crime and Justice35(2): 189–199. DOI: 10.1080/0735648X.2012.674826
88.
TaxmanF (2008) No illusions: offender and organisational change in Maryland’s proactive community supervision efforts. Criminology and Public Policy7(2): 275–302. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2008.00508.x
89.
TaxmanFSSachwaldJ (2010) Managing chaos: implementing evidence-based practices in correctional agencies. In: McNeillFRaynorPTrotterC (eds) Offender Supervision. New Directions in Theory, Research, and Practice, Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing, 172–192.
90.
TaxmanFSBelenkoS (2012) Implementing Evidence-Based Practices in Community Corrections and Addiction Treatment, Berlin, Germany: Springer.
91.
TrotterC (2015) Working With Involuntary Clients. A Guide to Practice. 3rd edition, London, UK: Routledge.
92.
VanderstukkenOBenbouricheM (2014) Principes de prévention de la récidive et principe de réalité en France: les programmes de prévention de la récidive à la lumière du modèle « Risque-Besoins-Réceptivité », France: Ajpénal, 522–527.
93.
VanstoneMRaynorP (2012) Observing Interview Skills: A Manual for Users of the Jersey Supervision Interview Checklist. Available at: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa29745
94.
ViglioneJ (2019) The risk-need-responsivity model: how do probation officers implement the principles of effective intervention?Criminal Justice and Behavior46(5): 655–673. DOI: 10.1177/0093854818807505
95.
ViglioneJLabrecqueRM (2021) Core correctional practices in community supervision: an evaluation of a policy mandate to increase probation officer use of skills. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology65(8): 858–881. DOI: 10.1177/0306624x20981045
